Catholic moral theologians debate the moral value of the organ donation because of the principle of totality and integrity, which states that the body should be kept whole unless the removal of a body part is necessary for the body’s overall health. This principle protects the dignity of the body as part of the human person. This philosophy of the human body stands at odds with other philosophies within our culture that see the body as a mere vessel for the spirit, or that see the human person as no more than a physical animal. There is also question about whether or not a human person is truly dead with the organs are harvested. Complete bodily death leads to the immediate deterioration of organs. Some organ donation advocates want to create a new category of “death” that allows for the harvesting of organs before the body is completely dead as long as it is reasonably certain that the patient will not regain consciousness and that the brain activity has fallen below a level defined as the standard for life. This places the value of the organ donor’s life below that of the organ recipient because the organ donor’s life is considered useless. The definition of brain death is debated among moral theologians.

Besides questions about the morality of organ harvesting in general, there is also the question about free will. If organ donation is deemed morally acceptable, it is because it is a free gift of one’s body for the good of another, and therefore an act of love. However, if organ donation is forced by law, this free act of love is diminished or even destroyed. Furthermore, our culture runs the risk of becoming utilitarian, judging one life against the other based on some standards of quality that are purely materialistic and that do not recognize the dignity and value of each human person.

Any way you look at it, the New York law is a problem. Yes, it could save lives by making more organs available for transplant, but only at the expense of devaluing other lives. It could put doctors in the position of making value judgments that determine that one person’s life has less value than another person’s. It could be one more step in the culture of death to devalue human personhood and to make life, our bodies, and our very lives into nothing more than a commodity for the highest bidder.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Once again, the great orator couches his decision in terms that make the opposition unreasonable and self-serving, stating that his decision ensures that no scientific data will be “distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.”

President Obama further opined:

“Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry,” Obama said. “It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

The problem with this line of thought is that the ban on federal funding did nothing to inhibit free and open inquiry. It simply said that federal money would not fund this particular area of scientific research for moral reasons. Taken to its logical conclusion, federal funding should be granted to groups that want to step over other moral lines as well. How can someone with the president’s policy pick and choose which moral lines can be crossed? Let’s experiment on Alzheimer’s patients in ways that will lead to their deaths. Let’s do lethal experimentation on the handicapped. After all, “It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

Let’s be clear here. First of all, stem cell research that does not destroy human embryos has developed an increasing numbers of successful treatments. Embryonic stem cell research, which has been prodigiously funded by private sources, treats none. The reason for the failure of embryonic stem cells is that they grow too fast and too unpredictably, resulting in tumors and other abnormal growths. So, why would be be pumping more federal money into research that has born no fruit? One word – money. The scientific or medical company that does develop a cure based on patented stem cell lines has legal custody of that cure. This is not true of adult stem cell developments, since the cure has its source in the patient’s own body.

So, who is serving a political agenda? Obama’s decision potentially benefits “big business” medical research companies much more than it will benefit patients, despite his propaganda about finding cures and advancing medical progress.

My fellow Catholics, what price will we pay for our socially liberal administration that has so far shown no signs of decreasing the body count on the war, but every sign of increasing the body count of our innocent unborn?
[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

1. Voluntary organ donation (opt-in)
2. Automatic organ donation with an opt-out option (i.e. you would have to sign a document if you did not want your organs harvested after your death)
3. Buying and selling of human organs.

“If giving is better than routinely taking organs to prolong the lives of patients needing transplants, then it must aslo be said that routinely taking them in hospital practice would be better than for us to make medical progress and extend treatment ot patients by means of buying and selling cadaver organs. That society is a better and more civilized one, I have said, in which men join together in a consensual community to effect these purposes, than a society in which lives are saved routinely without positive consent and will of all concerned to do so. It must also be said, however, that a society would be better and more civilized in which men are joined together routinely in making cadaver organs available to prolong the lives of others than one in which this is done ostensibly by consent to the ‘gift’ but actually for the monetary gain of the ‘donor.’”

Meilaender makes many of the same points I made in my previous post on this topic, though he follows Ramsey in showing that the problems inherent in selling body parts are also inherent in the very act of transplanting body parts. These acts put our culture on the path of seeing the human body as a resource, a commodity, and a collection of parts rather than as an embodied human person.

However, he also does a great job explaining why voluntarily donating organs is less of a problem than an involuntary (opt-out) system or a commodity system. When someone gives a gift, he or she cannot so easily be severed from that gift. The act of giving a gift (of a body organ, for example) is an inherently personal act. Taking organs involuntarily or buying and selling them separates the organs and the persons from which they came. The person becomes a collection of parts, a resource, a commodity.

The main point made by Ramsey and Meilaender is that how we go about saving lives is of even greater importance than the ability to save lives. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, argued for an involuntary (opt-out) organ collection system, stating that such an act would be necessary to avert “an avoidable human tragedy.” This was much the same comment elicited by my previous post on this subject. I like Meilaender’s response:

It is the sort of language that can be used to justify almost anything that promises to help avoid the tragedy of death. And this is exactly the sort of language that, we have come to see, has often distorted the practice of medicine, teaching us to suppose that anything that can be done to ward off death must be done. But the deeper moral truth is that how we live, not how long, is what matters most. And among the possible “tragedies” with which we must recond would be to live longer by means that debase or undermine our humanity.

Critics call appeals to human dignity “ivory tower proselytizing.” As our culture makes the shift from a concern with human dignity to the utilitarian, materialistic concerns of the here-and-now, I think we will find ourselves realizing that the view from the ivory tower was better than the view of those who cannot see the forest for the trees. We have already sacrificed human dignity in the areas of preborn life, sexuality and fertility. We are beginning to downplay the dignity of the dying. In the end, what will we find we sacrificed for the sake of the quick fix?
[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Utilitarianism shows itself again in an editorial that appeared in our local newspaper. The syndicated editorial can also be read here: Bring on the Organ Market, Mr. Obama. Bill Steigerwald argues that the legalization of the human organ market would save lives, and all other considerations pale in comparison to the importance of saving lives.

With just the power of his oratory and his yet-untarnished moral authority, our new changer-in-chief could save 7,000 American lives a year, put an end to the physical and mental suffering of another 100,000 men, women and children and save billions of dollars in unnecessary medical costs.

All he has to do on Jan. 20 is call for the repeal of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. That’s the terrible federal law that criminalizes the buying and selling of human organs for transplant operations — and therefore makes it a virtual certainty that the supply of kidneys, livers and hearts will never meet our demand for them.

Citing an article in The Economist, Steigerwald dismisses concerns forwarded by opponents of human organ sales by calling them “irrational, exaggerated or bogus.”

Outlawing organs does what outlawing drugs, booze or any other highly demanded product does: it creates a dangerous black market with no regulatory or judicial oversight.

The line that caught my attention was:

Meanwhile, the “moral” arguments of the ivory-towered medical ethicists, who think treating human body parts like a commercial commodity is an indignity that trumps saving lives, are indefensible.

Here is the quintessential utilitarian argument. Saving lives is a tangible and obvious benefit. Protecting human dignity is an ambiguous, unobservable value. Therefore saving lives trumps human dignity.

There is no doubt that saving lives is a good thing to do. Pope John Paul II has called human organ donation a morally heroic act of service. However, buying and selling human organs presents a number of evils

• First and foremost, buying and selling human organs treats the human body as a commodity. The human body is part of the human person, and human persons should never be bought and sold.
• Buying and selling human organs turns an act of heroic love into an act of self-interest, destroying the virtuous value of the act of self-donation
• Buying and selling human organs strengthens the utilitarian philosophy in the medical community, which already sees itself in the business of providing products and services in exchange for money rather than serving the needs of the sick and vulnerable.
• To call the concerns that the rich would benefit at the expense of the poor is naive, considering human history. Questions need to be answered — who would profit from the sale of human organs, who would pay for these organs and how?, etc.

These concerns are less important than saving human life only if you believe that this life is all there is. If the end of earthly life is the end of our existence, then it makes sense that the extension of earthly life should be our primary priority. Or does it?

It is a great irony that the same utilitarian philosophy that embraces the sale of human organs for the sake of saving lives also embraces abortion and euthanasia. While life is an observable good, valuing life only really makes sense if the human person has dignity, and if human life has meaning beyond earthly existence. If these elements of human life are missing, then what’s the point of preserving human life that has no value?

On the other hand, if our human life has dignity, then saving human life makes even more sense. We are called to see our lives as a gift exactly because human persons have dignity. To sacrifice human dignity for the sake of saving life makes no sense. If life continues beyond this earthly existence (and contrary to popular “intellectual” diatribe, it is reasonable to believe that it does), how we face our inevitable death is also very important. Equally important is the attitude that human beings take toward each other. In the face of life in heaven, there is a point when we say that preserving human dignity is more important than saving our life.

Finally, Steigerwald’s claim that medical ethicists sit in ivory towers, detached from the real suffering of real people, is just plain ignorant. Medical ethicists are in the trenches every day, working with real people who are experiencing real suffering and real moral dilemmas. Their task is to help people embrace the greatest possible good within their specific difficult circumstances so that patients and families can live or die with true human dignity and in the peace that they have embraced goodness to the best of their ability. Modernists, utilitarians, and materialists who ignore the devastation their derision of transcendent goods such as human dignity rains on our culture live in a fantasy world that will in the end bring us doom in the name of healing.

Steigerwald’s own fantasy world is exposed when he claims that Barak Obama would not alienate anyone by legalizing international organ sale. He has obviously not been listening to the voices debating the value of human dignity vs. human autonomy. By abolishing the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, Obama would open up a can of worms that would take his administration by surprise. America does not need yet one more way to treat the human person as a commodity to be bought and sold.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

On the personal level, a woman undergoing in vitro fertilization allows her body to be manipulated like a machine. Reproduction, which is supposed to be a beautiful act of love, becomes a mechanical act of fertilization.

On the social level, reproduction and its “product” (children) become a commodity to be bought and sold. We start to see family as a material right (like our i-phones, ipods, laptops, etc) rather than as a calling to love.

Are you scoffing? Perhaps an insider’s look into the professional medical community would help. A professional Ob-Gyn journal ran the following two ads:

Embryos piling up? Let us take care of your embryo storage needs.

These fertilized ovum are tiny human beings. Are they being loved? No – they have become a storage problem. How about this one?

Who’s watching the kids? Cryolert tank alarms offer true peace of mind, safeguarding your priceless biologicals.”

Now these children are “priceless biologicals.”

Dr. Hilgers briefly discussed these ads at the NaPro TECHNOLOGY conference I attended last Saturday. His comment was that doctors can now look at these ads without batting an eye. “Our profession has become awfully cold-hearted.”

It is no secret that most medical professionals and many people in the culture at large do not see fertilized ovum as human beings. What is less known is that abortion is not the only cause of this callous redefinition of human personhood. In vitro fertilization has done a lot of damage to our capacity to keep love and life united.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

While many medical care professionals are caring, compassionate individuals who diligently care for all patients no matter what their state, utilitarian attitudes continue to creep into the medical culture. Evidence can be found in articles such as, “The undead” from the December 9, 2007 issue of The Sunday Times.

The overarching attitude is that to live in a state of unresponsiveness is a terrible cause of suffering. The author of this article borders on adopting this attitude,

More certain is the grim reality of hospital wards and long-term care homes where the persistently vegetative and the minimally conscious languish, sometimes for decades.

To write this article I have had the sobering experience of witnessing the plight of patients with severely impaired consciousness – the intubations, the double incontinence, the stricken semicircle of wheelchairs parked before the unwatched day-room TV. And I have met the anguished families of those who are denied final grieving and closure for a loved one condemned to what appears a living death. All too often I have spoken to a wife or husband, or mother or father, who will travel anything up to two hours each way by taxi, every day, to spend time with an unresponsive child or spouse.

There is no doubt that an unresponsive state causes suffering for the patient and for the family. However, as I explored most recently in “The Language of the Culture of Death,”, suffering can have great value. The quote above shows how much a patient’s suffering can draw her family toward love.

The article offers anecdotal evidence that unresponsive patients are often neglected. They are given poor care and no therapy. It is almost as if the medical establishment says, “Oh well – he’s not really alive anyway. Let’s not waste our time.”

Up to 12,000 people under 40 in this country suffer traumatic brain injury every year, and there are serious deficiencies in their rehabilitation, according to Professor John Pickard, head of neurosurgery at Addenbrooke’s hospital, Cambridge: “The tendency for patients to be left to languish on general medical, surgical and orthopaedic wards continues to their detriment.” The shocking term being used by campaigning neurologists and neurosurgeons is that unknown numbers of patients are being just “warehoused”.

The depersonalization of these patients is much to their detriment, especially since mounting evidence shows that the assumption that a patient is in a “persistent vegetative state” is often wrong.

The biggest, most tragic clinical myth about brain injury today is that PVS can be reliably diagnosed by bedside observation alone. It has in fact been known for at least a decade, ever since a key survey of brain-injured patients, that misdiagnosis of the condition runs at more than 40%, a statistic originally calculated by Professor Keith Andrews, former head of the Putney hospital, and confirmed by recent surveys in Europe and North America. This means that valuable rehabilitation strategies are routinely neglected, and misdiagnosed patients end up on unsuitable wards or in care homes where their needs are neither understood nor met.

One rehabilitation psychologist pointed out that consciousness needs to be exercised just like a muscle. If a patient is neglected and denied treatment (as was Terri Schiavo, for example), there will be no progress toward awareness. If consciousness is exercised (balanced with periods of rest), consciousness can strengthen. Patients who are neglected due the assumption that their lives are useless are denied this chance.

However, even patients who have no chance for recovery deserve better than they often get. Loss of awareness does not mean loss of human dignity or personhood. Once again we see the weakness of the naturalistic “personal autonomy” ethic that is trying to replace the ethic of human dignity. As the article points out (after a quick anecdote),

Even minimally aware patients can retain emotions, personality, a capacity to suffer – and, as the young biker showed, attitude.

While the main point of this article was to point out that patients are often misdiagnosed with PVS, and that doctors are devising scans that can offer a more accurate diagnosis of the extent of brain damage, the article also brings up the question of the treatment of any unresponsive patient.

The Cambridge project is not, however, without potential ethical and social problems. Scanning for minimal consciousness in those who appear vegetative can in some cases yield ambiguous results. Evident brain reactions can sometimes be fickle: now here, now gone. Some experts worry the technology could have drastic consequences for relatives where there is scant prospect of a patient’s return to interaction. At the Putney hospital, which houses more than 220 brain-injured and neurological patients, I was told by a research psychologist about a patient in a PVS of about three years’ duration, known as Mrs K, whose family might well be devastated if a scan were to reveal indications of awareness.

The main reason for removing nutrition and hydration from unresponsive patients is to release the family from the obligations of love – to “allow them to get on with the grieving process.” However, these people are not in “the dying process.” Their bodies are not shutting down. They are not brain dead (which leads to the failure of bodily functions). They are simply unresponsive. When nutrition and hydration are removed, these patients die of thirst just like any fully responsive person denied of food and water would.

More heinously, the article points out that there is increasing pressure to declare PVS patients dead so that their organs can be harvested. The attitude that feeds this pressure is that their lives are useless, so their death may as well benefit someone who has a chance to live a “real” (productive) life. This is the same attitude that attempts to justify cannibalizing unborn babies to benefit the health of “really living” human beings.

Brain damage that leaves a patient unresponsive causes great suffering from everyone touched by it. We need to decide if that suffering will draw us to love or if we will give in to the philosophy that would devalue our loved ones in their time of greatest need.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A woman close to my wife’s family is dying of cancer. She is incoherent and has stopped eating or drinking. One of her sons wants to keep her alive for another month. He wants to reduce her pain medication so she is more coherent and have her go through another round of chemotherapy. The question of whether or not to give such treatment is very valid. At this point, the burden of such treatment and the suffering caused by reducing her pain medication would probably outweigh any benefit. It would be morally acceptable in this case to cease all treatment and to allow her to die. Unfortunately, the arguments in favor of doing so have all been couched in the Culture of Death. While the conclusions may be valid, the language used to argue for those conclusions are horribly wrong.

• “That’s no way to live” – the assumption with this argument is that the present value of a person’s life is measured by the person’s ability to do the things the person used to love doing. An ethics worksheet promoted by our Catholic hospital system even goes so far as to ask what things you enjoy doing and to decide if you’d want to go on living being unable to do those things. Life has value no matter what we are able or unable to do. In fact, in our success-obsessed world, life may finally take on its true meaning when we are unable to do anything.
• “Just put her out of her misery” – the assumption in this statement is that suffering is always bad. This assumption is found everywhere in the medical community. Compassionate people do not wish to see others suffer. Suffering is not something that Christians seek out (mortification and self-denial are not quite the same thing as the kind of suffering we are talking about here). However, we must also realize that suffering can have great value. Suffering can make us more compassionate, can atone for our sins and the sins of others, can draw us closer to God, and can teach us how to receive the love and care of others. Loved ones who watch a family member or a friend suffer learn what it means to truly love through the most difficult times. It is OK to feel relief when someone dies – gladness that they are no longer suffering. However, it is not OK to hasten their death so that they will not have to suffer.
• “Let her die with some dignity” – this statement misunderstands what dignity is. Dignity does not come from our abilities or from our self-determination. Dignity comes from the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and especially that we are created with the ability to give and to receive love. Someone who is suffering, who is incoherent, and who is at death’s door dies with dignity when she is surrounded by people she loves and who has loved her. Whether she is aware of their presence or not, the love that she has built in her lifetime comes to bear on her moment of death. This is what it means to die with dignity.

It is difficult to watch someone we love deteriorate and suffer before they die. Moral discernment during these difficult times is complicated by our compassion, concern and personal suffering. That is why the Church gives us moral guidance through the principle of ordinary and extraordinary means of treatment.

The problem with the statements above is that they are often made by faithful Catholics. We have adopted the language of the Culture of Death. The teachings of Christ’s Church help us to take solace not only in a life well lived, but in a death suffered in integrity, hope and love. The Culture of Death treats human life in a utilitarian way, giving it value only as much as it is productive. It adds burden to death by making us guilty for any suffering experienced by the dying and by making us think that we have an obligation to control a person’s death. Catholics need to frame arguments about end-of-life issues in the Culture of Life and the hope given to us by Jesus Christ.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

While it is true that the term “in principle” does connote possible exceptions, such a phrase does not give moral theologians and ethicists freedom to allow for any exceptions they see fit. There is a hierarchy of moral truth:

• Moral laws: these are inviolable – derived from the way God made us as human beings (natural law) and by His Divine Revelation that instructs in our relationship with Him.
• Moral principles: these are derived from moral law in order to give us direction for following it. Since they are human formulations, they may be revised. However, because they are derived from the inviolable moral law, they are very solid and are changed carefully and rarely. They must remain true to the moral law.
• Moral formulations (theories & models): these are attempts to apply general moral principles to very specific circumstances. They may be argued and changed, but always with the goal of staying as true to moral principles as possible. The Ethical and Religious Norms – ERDs – fall here.
• Prudential decisions: these are individual choices in an attempt to attain the greatest good to which the moral law guides us. Here is where we as individual get it right or get it wrong. Prudential decisions should be oriented toward fulfilling the moral law, using the principles and theories/models/formulations to get there. These choices are choices of conscience, which should be formed by the moral law, principles and formulations.

Dr. Hardt seems to lose sight of this hierarchy when he states:

When interpreting and applying the documents of the Holy See, there are a number of traditional norms, some dating back to the early days of church legislation. Most of these norms were collected in the Rules of Law (Regulae Iuris) in the Libro Sexto of Pope Boniface VIII in 1300. Many of the rules are repeated in one way or another in the present Code of Canon Law. Two canons of the present code are relevant for our study:

• Canon 18: “Laws which establish a penalty or restrict free exercise of rights . . . are subject to strict interpretation.”
• Canon 52: “A singular decree has force only in respect to the matters which it decides and for the persons for whom it was given.”

Hence, the application of the CDF response, because it limits the free exercise of rights, will only apply to a restricted number of cases, specifically to patients with a firm diagnosis of PVS. Some commentators have sought to extend the statement to people with other pathologies, such as advanced Alzheimer’s disease or acute dementia. But the response concerns only patients who are diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, not to all patients who are unable to assimilate food and water without artificial assistance. If the CDF wanted to extend this teaching, it could use another form of communication, for example, an Apostolic Instruction. Moreover, because the questions were presented by the U.S. bishops, the response applies only to them and the ecclesiastical communion for which they are responsible, not, for example, to the church in Canada or Australia.

The laws and decrees to which these canons refer are laws and decrees of canon law, or of specific legislation. They do not refer to statements that reiterate or clarify moral law or moral principles. Moral decisions often “limit freedom” when freedom is incorrectly defined as the ability to choose whatever you want to choose. However, when you define freedom truly, as the power to choose what is good, such statements actually lead us to true freedom. Statements such as the one to the American bishops from the CDF are part of the ongoing teaching of the Church about the universal moral law.

Dr. Hardt talks about certain presuppositions made by the CDF that would lead to certain exceptions to the general principle:

Presuppositions of the CDF Response
When applying the CDF response, some of its presuppositions can be called into question, potentially disposing of more exceptions on the part of care givers than are indicated in the CDF response. Following is a consideration of some of these presuppositions as they relate to the tradition of the church on this matter.

The CDF proposes that ANH “does not involve excessive expense.”

The majority of the authors of the CDF response come from countries in which universal health coverage is a given. The situation here in the U.S. is obviously different and often poses significant financial hardships for the caregivers of patients in PVS, third-party payers or the civic community. The possibility that the immediate caregivers may not be financially burdened does not mean that the cost of caring for patients in PVS is negligible. The vast majority of patients who receive ANH in the U.S. receive their care in hospitals or long-term care facilities, both of which may very well impose “excessive expense” on one or all of the entities mentioned above.

It is certainly true that financial burden on the relatives of a comatose or incapacitated patient is one consideration when determining whether a treatment is ordinary or extraordinary. However, such financial burden needs to be severe to qualify the treatment as an extraordinary means. Furthermore, such families should not face the burden of medical care alone. They should have the help of the community. Finally, the great expense in America is not really associated with feeding and hydration. It is rather due to the exorbitant way in which patients are charged – including full doctor charges for brief visits. The added expenses for sustaining treatment are truly a social justice issue. The changes need to be made in the medical establishment, not in the decision whether or not to offer sustaining treatment.

The CDF proposes that the purpose of ANH “is not, nor is it meant to be, a treatment that cures the patient, but is rather ordinary care aimed at the preservation of life.”

The CDF’s suggestion that ANH is not meant to be a treatment that cures a patient is not congruent with human experience in the hospital and long-term care setting. When families, in consultation with a clinical care team, initiate ANH for a loved one, it is usually done so with the intent and hope for substantive recovery. Moreover, persons are increasingly designating in advanced directives or by oral communication their clear desire to not receive ANH if there is no hope of cognitive recovery. These wishes reflect an attitude recognized in moral theology as psychic aversion (horror mentis). This attitude arises because people feel that such care does not truly benefit a patient in a permanently comatose condition and that it will often place a burden upon the loved ones giving care. As mentioned above, it is not unreasonable to interpret the CDF response as recognizing the possibility of this attitude.

Dr. Hardt splits hairs here to point out a difference that doesn’t really exist. The CDF’s statement that food and water are not given as a treatment indicates that the food and water themselves have no medicinal value. Dr. Hardt is referring to the desire to extend someone’s life in hope that time will heal the person. This does not put food and water into the realm of curative treatment. Why does this difference matter? A patient is able to deny any curative treatment that does not hold much hope of being effective. However, food and water may not be denied because they are basic to human life. Even if there is not much hope of recovery, food and water must be administered. If an extraordinary form of curative treatment is denied, the result may be death due to the illness. However, if food and water are denied the death is due to starvation or dehydration. There is a big difference here.

Hundt’s claim that moral tradition has held that patients may deny life support in order to avoid the form of suffering called “psychic aversion” on behalf of loved ones is also questionable. Life support that replaces or aids a failing bodily function may be considered extraordinary care, since the organ has failed anyway. However, giving someone food and water that the body is able to use and that the body needs for survival is not extraordinary and may not be refused by the patient. It is exactly the attitude that a person’s suffering poses and undue burden on loved ones that the Church’s moral tradition has sought to avoid. It is not permissible for me to kill off my grandmother because I’m sick of waiting around for her to die. It is equally not permissible for my grandmother to refuse ordinary means of sustaining her life so that she does not burden me. A person’s suffering and life have value – they are not burdens.

The CDF proposes that if ANH is removed, the cause of death “will be neither an illness nor the ‘vegetative state’ itself, but solely starvation and dehydration.”

Here, the CDF offers an interpretation of what kind of act constitutes euthanasia. This interpretation is at odds with the traditional teaching of moral theology. When life support is removed because it does not offer hope of benefit or imposes an excessive burden, the cause of death is the pathology which is no longer abated or circumvented. This is at the heart of the distinction between the licit removal of life support and passive euthanasia. This distinction has been explained by several Catholic moral theologians of the past, and its misconception, as expressed in this document, would call into question the removal of any form of life support under any conditions.

Here again Hundt fails to differentiate between “life support” that takes over for a failing (or failed) bodily system and a mechanized method of ordinary sustenance. If a disease or bodily trauma has caused my heart to stop, I may be on life support that keeps my heart beating in hope that my body may heal in time. Taking me off such life support because that hope is too small to balance the burden on me and my loved ones would be morally licit because the disease or trauma has stopped my heart and turning off life support would do nothing more than allow death to take its course. Taking away food and water is not the same. The absence of food and water would kill me whether or not I had the disease or trauma.

While this is an important distinction, I’m not sure Hundt is correct in claiming that it is at the heart of the differentiation between licit and illicit (he is oversimplifying). If there is hope of recovery or if the burden of a heart machine is not excessive, it would not be illicit to remove it either.

The CDF proposes that if care is “prolonged over time,” it may constitute an excessive burden.

The CDF response does admit that caring for a PVS patient over time may be a notable burden. This is similar to the recognition of family burden offered by Pope John Paul II in his original allocution on care of PVS patients. The bishops of the United States issued some “talking points”—in the form of a Q&A—when they released the response they had received from the CDF, and they suggest that the main burden for the care givers will be financial. They also suggest that Catholic health care facilities and the Catholic community should offer assistance and provide “concrete examples of the Church’s commitment to human life.”6 Once again, given the psychic aversion to continuing care for comatose people who will never recover consciousness, it is questionable whether the Catholic community will respond to this challenge.

Once again Hundt brings up psychic aversion. There is no doubt that the emotional and moral suffering of a family with a seriously ill loved one is very real and intense. However, this is not the kind of suffering that may be considered as part of the burden of treatment. This is suffering caused by the illness, not suffering caused by the treatment. What people suffering from psychic aversion need is support and counseling, not the death of their suffering loved one. Only when they see the beauty of the person’s life and the value of their suffering will psychic aversion be properly dealt with. To allow ordinary means of sustenance and treatment to be denied due to the burden of psychic aversion would lead only to guilt that they wanted their loved one to die.

Medical ethics in our area are often carried on by people like Dr. Hundt. These “ethicists” fail to understand the proper role of the magisterium. They also often take very myopic views of moral tradition and fail to apply principles such as “growth through suffering.” The fact that Catholic hospitals are rationalizing their way to the Culture of Death should scare us all.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Take this article, for example: Donor Registry Allows IVF Conceived Children to Unite with Biological “Donor” Parents and Siblings.

I think I have mentioned before that my wife and I look with apprehension toward the day when we have to explain to our two adopted children the complexities of their birth. At least in our case we can tell them how much their birth family loved them – enough to give them a better life through adoption than their volatile circumstances allowed. However, nothing can remove the fact that their right to be conceived in an act of love was stripped away from them.

Now think about these poor children conceived by artificial insemination seeking out their biological fathers. Do they expect these men – who were paid to ejaculate into a cup – to embrace them with open arms, or even to have the pride of fatherhood? Truthfully, these men probably don’t even want to be bothered with the children conceived through their business transaction. Artificial insemination has made human reproduction into a cold business, leaving children with less connection to their biological heritage than our own adopted children.

This is not to comment on the value of these children. All human life is precious, no matter how it was conceived. However, these children will face great alienation because our culture has chosen to separate reproduction from the act of love and to make children into a commodity.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Italian man wins the right to end the life of his daughter after 16 years in coma – Telegraph

Eluana’s father Beppino based his appeal on the fact that she had been in good health and of sound mind before the accident and would not have wanted to be kept alive in a vegetative state.

Here is the line we can expect to hear a lot of: “she wouldn’t have wanted to live this way.” Her life has no meaning, no value because she is no longer healthy, active and productive.

Last night Mr Englaro said: “I still can’t believe it. I don’t feel any pain as, for me, my daughter died 16 years ago.

“I feel that I can now free the most splendid creature I have ever known. She was in an irreversible coma, now we can free her, it’s not euthanasia its freedom.

Mr. Englaro’s appeal is poetic and emotional, but it is sadly mistaken. His daughter’s beautiful life was still being lived. Her beauty is not dependent on her state of consciousness. A person’s ability to express herself does not change her dignity or the value of her life. The truth is that Mr. Englaro did not set his daughter free. He who was able to see her beauty while she was conscious and vivacious failed to see her beauty when she was vulnerable and in the most need of love. By fighting for her death, he judged that her life was no longer worth living.

This same judgment was passed down from the judge’s bench:

In the ruling from Judge Filippo Lamanna yesterday, he cited “the extraordinary duration of Eluana’s persistent vegetative state, as well as her sense of freedom and vision of life” as reasons behind his decision.

He added: “Her conception of life was incompatible with her total loss of physical capacity, she was biological only in body.”

The Catholic Church holds firmly that all human life is sacred, no matter how much “physical capacity” one has. My brother, who has cerebral palsy and very little “physical capacity,” is living a beautiful life because of the love of his family, especially of my mother and father who care for him every day. There was a time when doctors would counsel families to talk to comatose patients because there was a chance that the patients could hear their loved ones. This practice is beautiful because it is a practice of love. This kind of love expresses belief in the inherent dignity of the person that is not dependent on what the person does, but on whom she is.

The Church does not teach that life must be preserved at all costs. It is precisely the cases of comatose patients that make it seem so. The Church’s teaching is that all ordinary means of treatment must be given to a patient – no matter what their “quality of life” seems to be by cultural or personal standards, but that extraordinary or emergency measures may be refused. For a comatose patient, feeding tubes would constitute ordinary means of treatment as long as the person is able to receive and process nutrients.

I am planning a full explanation of the Church’s teaching on end-of-life treatment in “Living the Divine Life” in the Library soon. Keep a lookout for it! This is a teaching that preserves the dignity of every human person, and that finds the balance between the inestimable value of human life and the temporariness of our life on earth.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

Related posts:

1. Is this blog dead? No! While I know many people (including Catholic apostolates) begin...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.