|
Culture of Love and Life- Euthanasia |
References and resources in support of Catholic teaching on:
Value of
Life
Quality
of Life
What is
Burdensome?
Intention of Act
Cognitive Function
Artificial Nutrition and
Hydration
Living
Wills
Suffering
Awakening Centers
Challenges to the Magisterial
Teaching
Death
of Terri Schiavo
Netherlands Euthanasia Program
(Compiled June 2005)
by: Joan Crown
Respect Life Office, Archdiocese of Miami
Regarding “value of life” and the urgency to
fight euthanasia:
Gospel of Life #64
When the prevailing tendency is to value life only to the extent
that it brings pleasure and well-being, suffering seems like an
unbearable setback, something from which one must be freed at all
costs. Death is considered “senseless” if it suddenly interrupts a
life still open to a future of new and interesting experiences. But
it becomes a “rightful liberation” once life is held to be no longer
meaningful because it is filled with pain and inexorably doomed to
even greater suffering.
Furthermore, when he denies or neglects his fundamental relationship
to God, man thinks he is his own rule and measure, with the right to
demand that society should guarantee him the ways and means of
deciding what to do with his life in full and complete autonomy. It
is especially people in the developed countries who act in this
way...
...In this context the temptation grows to have recourse to
euthanasia, that is , to take control of death and bring it about
before its time, “gently” ending one’s own life or the life of
others. In reality what might seem logical and humane, when looked
at more closely is seen to be senseless and inhumane. Here we are
faced with one of the more alarming symptoms of the “culture of
death”, which is advancing above all in prosperous societies, marked
by an attitude of excessive preoccupation with efficiency and which
sees the growing number of elderly and disabled people as
intolerable and too burdensome. These people are very often isolated
by their families and by society, which are organized almost
exclusively on the basis of criteria of productive efficiency,
according to which a hopelessly impaired life no longer has any
value.
Gospel of Life #66
The height of arbitrariness and injustice is reached when certain
people, such as physicians or legislators, arrogate to themselves
the power to decide who ought to live and who ought to die. Once
again we find ourselves before the temptation of Eden: to become
like God who “knows good and evil”. God alone has the power over
life and death: “It is I who bring both death and life.” But he only
exercises this power in accordance with a plan of wisdom and love.
When man usurps this power, being enslaved by a foolish and selfish
way of thinking, he inevitably uses it for injustice and death. Thus
the life of the person who is weak is put into the hands of the one
who is strong; in society the sense of justice is lost, and mutual
trust, the basis of every authentic interpersonal relationship, is
undermined at its root.
Gospel of Life #89
In today’s cultural and social context, in which science and the
practice of medicine risk losing sight of their inherent ethical
dimension, health-care professionals can be strongly tempted at
times to become manipulators of life, or even agents of death. In
the face of this temptation their responsibility today is greatly
increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the
intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care
profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still
relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit
himself to absolute respect for human life and its
sacredness.....Causing death can never be considered a form of
medical treatment, even when the intention is solely to comply with
the patient’s request.
Regarding “quality of life”:
John Paul II - 2-19-05
“In our time the meaning which the expression “quality of life”
is gradually acquiring is often far from this basic interpretation,
founded on a correct philosophical and theological anthropology.
Indeed, under the impetus of the society of well-being, preference
is being given to a notion of quality of life that is both reductive
and selective: it would consist in the ability to enjoy and
experience pleasure or even in the capacity for self-awareness and
participation in social life. As a result, human beings who are not
yet or are no longer able to understand and desire or those who can
no longer enjoy life as sensations and relations are denied every
form of quality of life.”
CCC #2276
Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special
respect.
Florida Bishops, 1989
“We can never justify the withdrawal of sustenance on the basis
of the quality of life of the patient.”
Mark Latkovic, S.T.D., Professor of Moral & Systemic Theology,
Sacred Heart Seminary, Michigan
“....quality of life judgments are those which bear on the
usefulness or burdensomeness of specific kinds of treatments for
persons in specific kinds of conditions. These are not the same as
quality of life judgments asserting that those persons’ lives are no
longer of any value.”
Regarding “what is burdensome”:
Rev. Edward Richard, Moral Theology and Medica Ethics - Glennon
Seminary, St. Louis
“Judgments about the quality of a person’s life are outside the
scope of the concept of burden for the purposes of the moral
evaluation of a treatment. The burden involved refers to the burden
the treatment itself directly imposes upon the patient.....the
burden and futility have to be interpreted in reference to the
comfort and life-sustaining effects they afford to the patient and
not to the cure, remedy or reversal of the disease or condition
affecting the patient.”
“Life itself, even for the dying, is not to be considered a burden.
In determining whether or not such a burden exists as to merit
withholding or withdrawing food and water, one is
to look at the immediate burdens imposed by the treatment, not the
“quality of life” of the patient.”
Reasonable hope of benefit: “Care of the person includes all those
procedures, treatments, and medications which have benefits for the
person’s comfort and sustenance. It is immoral to terminate such
care simply because the person will have no hope of recovery.”
Msgr. William B. Smith, Archdiocese of New York
“The provision of nutrition and hydration can be burdensome when
the provision by tube causes severe discomfort to the patient or
when the patient’s body is not assimilating what is being provided.
Such occurrences usually indicate that death is very near.”
Regarding intention of act:
Catholic Catechism #1755 - 1756
A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the
end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the
action, even if the object is good in itself.
It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by
considering only the intention that inspires them or the
circumstances which supply their context.
Rev. Edward Richard, Moral Theology & Medical Ethics, Glennon
Seminary, St. Louis
“One need not have the intention of killing, if the action or
omission of itself can and will cause death, death being the means
through which suffering is eliminated.”
Regarding “cognitive function”:
In contradiction of theologian Kevin O’Rourke’s teaching that lack
of cognitive function indicates the end of spiritual purpose – also
those who want to separate body /soul/ spirit before death
(dualism):
Catholic Catechism #363 - 367
...it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a
spiritual soul...
For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is
obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God
has created it and will raise it up on the last day.
The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider
the soul to be the “form” of the body.
Dr. Gian Luigi Gigli, Pres. Of the Int’l. Federation of Catholic
Medical Assoc.
“The vegetative state is a “pejorative term” which implies lack of
humanity....for the Church, the patient in a vegetative state is a
human person, in need of affectionate care.
Regarding the question
of artificial “nutrition and hydration”:
Pope John Paul II - 3-20-04 allocution
...of water and food, even when provided by artificial means,
always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical
act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle,
ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory...
(USA Today reports): 565 hospitals in the Catholic Health
Assoc. consider feeding tubes for people in PVS ‘medical treatment’
which could be provided or discontinued based on evaluating the
benefits and burden on patient and family.
Bishop Elio Sgreccia, Vice President of the Pontifical Council
for Life
Director of the Bioethics Center of Rome’s University of the Sacred
Heart
refuting the position:
“that when a person loses the use of reason, he or she ceases to
be a person and then there is the possibility of interrupting
feeding and hydration in order to facilitate his or her death”
He said: “As long as there is life in the person, that person
continues to exist in all of his or her dignity, with all of his or
her soul.” He also said that, “a person cannot deny himself
food and water through a will, should he fall into a vegetative
state, as it would be suicide.”
National Catholic Bioethics Center:
In general, the provision of nutrition and hydration to the
patient in PVS is proportionate and morally obligatory.
If the nutrition and hydration does not have a reasonable hope of
benefit for what it is designed to do (nourish the body) or poses
some excessive burden (such as serious medical complications) then
it might be considered ethically extraordinary.
Florida Bishops:
Simply put, we are called to provide basic means of sustenance
such as food and water unless they are doing more harm than good to
the patient, or are useless because the patients’ death is imminent.
U.S. Bishops of California, Nevada and Hawaii
...a great teaching effort is needed to clarify the substantive
moral difference between discontinuing medical procedures that may
be burdensome, dangerous or disproportionate to the expected outcome
and taking away the ordinary means of preserving life, such as
feeding, hydration and normal medical care....to blur this
distinction is to introduce a source of countless injustices and
much additional anguish.
Dr. Steve White, Florida Catholic Medical Assoc.
“There are two circumstances in which you could withhold or
withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition:
1) the person is terminally ill and death is imminent (within days)
2) the person has an irreversible condition that prevents the
assimilation of food and water”
Professor Janet Smith, Chair of Life Ehtics, Sacred Heart Major
Seminary, Michigan
“The reasoning of John Paul II was that artificial nutrition and
hydration is rarely if ever so costly for a PVS patient that it
would be moral to remove it. He understands artificial nutrition and
hydration to be basically on that same level as providing nutrition
and hydration in any fashion at all. If death is imminent and the
artificial nutrition and hydration system is painful and annoying
and if withdrawing it would not hasten death but only make the
patient more comfortable, then withdrawing it would be fine.”
Mark Latkovic, S.T.D., Professor of Moral & Systemic Theology,
Sacred Heart Seminary, Michigan (refuting the comparison of a
respirator to nutrition and hydration)
“Ventilation replaces the patients capacity to breathe whereas a
tube does not replace the capacity to digest and merely delivers
food to the stomach...A feeding-tube by which liquid is delivered to
the patient’s stomach is no more medical treatment than a catheter
by which it is drained from the patient’s bladder.”
Regarding “living wills”:
Bishop Elio Sgreccia, vice president of the Pontifical Council
for Life
“A person cannot deny himself food and water through a will,
should he fall into a vegetative state, as it would be suicide.” He
added, “A doctor is not obliged to violate the deontological code
itself, nor can he consider himself a simple executor of such a
will.” (Vatican City, March 2004)
Declaration on Euthanasia -
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - May 1980
“...some people speak of a “right to die” which is an expression
that does not mean the right to procure death either by one’s own
hand or by means of someone else, as one pleases, but rather the
right to die peacefully with human and Christian dignity.”
Florida Bishops, 1989
“First, the document should clearly distinguish between a
terminal condition in which death is imminent, and other conditions
in which one could live a long time with easily provided medical
care. Second, one should never ask for or demand euthanasia, mercy
killing or the withholding of “ordinary means” of sustaining life.
This is not only wrong for the signer of the document, but it also
does a serious injustice to physicians, family and medical personnel
to whom such immoral demands are made.”
Regarding “suffering”:
Pontifical Academy for Life, Dec. 2000
A request for death on the part of those in grave suffering is
almost always the last expression of the patient’s heartfelt request
for greater attention and human closeness as well as suitable
treatment....One wonders whether the justification of the
intolerability of the patient’s pain conceals instead the incapacity
of the “healthy” to accompany the dying person through his difficult
travail of suffering, to give meaning to human suffering... Human
pain demands love and supportive sharing, and not the hasty violence
of premature death.
Regarding “awakening centers” as
proposed by John Paul II, 3-20-05:
Nancy Valko, spokesperson for the Nat’l. Assoc. of Pro-Life
Nurses
“In America, it’s basically two months in a hospital and you’re
out. They give you a choice between warehousing your loved one in a
nursing home, taking them home, or pulling the plug. People need
another choice.”
“Traumatic brain injuries are a significant health problem in the
U.S., but the study and treatment of them are clouded with a sense
of hopelessness.....I think what’s really motivating people is this
tremendous fear of disability and dependency. Attitudes have
consequences. People used to ask me how I can take care of someone
who doesn’t recognize me. This is the problem in our society. It’s
not whether they recognize me, it’s whether I recognize them. And I
do.”
(Nancy greeted John Paul II’s statement about the ethical care of
persons in a PVS state with tears of joy. In 2001, she was able to
help a St. Louis man awaken from a coma. His doctors saw little hope
that he would recover and recommended that the family withdraw
treatment and let him die. Nancy used a few simple sensory
stimulation techniques and gradually the man made a full recovery.)
Ethicists and Catholic
theologians / institutions who challenge
John Paul II’s magisterial teaching:
Dominican Father Kevin O’Rourke, St. Louis
“...there is no benefit possible in maintaining the mere
physical existence of PVS patients.” He also says that, “when a
person is no longer able to exercise higher functioning he ceases to
be a person.” (This is in direct contradiction to John Paul II’s
allocution)
Ethicists Arthur Caplan and Dominic Sisti
describe the Pope’s statement as “flawed”, and “at odds with the
way medicine has been practiced in the U.S. for well over a decade”
and “fundamentally at odds with the American values of
self-determination, freedom and autonomy”.
Sister Jean deBlois, C.S.J., Aquinas Institute, St. Louis
the Pope’s statement places “an unnecessary and unfounded burden
on family members faced with treatment decisions on behalf of their
loves ones” and that “artificial nutrition and hydration holds no
comparison to a meal.”
Father John Tuohey, St. Vincent Medical Center, Portland, Oregon
treated the Pope’s statement as a “poorly argued thesis proposal
by a misinformed student.”
Peggy Wilkers, president Fitzgerald Mercy Hospital Nurses Assoc.,
Pa.
She and other nurses would base their patient care “not on what
the Pope says but on what the family wants.”
Catholic Health Association, Father Michael Place, president
“Until such time as we have a greater understanding of the
meaning and intent of the pope’s allocution, Catholic hospitals and
long term care facilities should continue to follow the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives for
Catholic Health Care Services as interpreted by the diocesan
bishop.”
(The secular reporter was perplexed regarding this answer - even
this reporter said that he found the Pope’s statement very clear and
explicit and he could not understand the apparent evasiveness of
these Catholic experts.)
In contrast - those who respect the
Holy Father’s words:
World Federation of Catholic Medical Assoc. and The Pontifical
Academy for Life
called the Pope’s words “deeply inspiring.”
National Catholic Bioethics Center
“A welcome clarification of Catholic thinking on one of the most
vexing and controversial issues in health care.”
Richard Doerflinger, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, Conf.
Of Catholic Bishop
“An affirmation of human dignity”
Dr. Eugene Diamond - a participant at the international meeting
in Rome devoted to Life Sustaining Treatments and the Vegetative
State - March 2004
“The long standing debate concerning the definition of assisted
nutrition as a medical treatment not required for those suffering
from “the fatal disease of the inability” and lacking in a
meaningful life since incapable of cognitive and affective function
received scant support from the participants at the meeting and the
Holy Father’s allocution. That position has been espoused
principally by theologians such as Fr. Kevin O’Rourke, the late Fr.
Richard McCormick and bioethical consultants to the Catholic Health
Association.”
Mark Latkovic, S.T.D., Professor of Moral & Systemic Theology,
Sacred Heart Seiminary, Michigan
“John Paul II has now spoken authoritatively on an issue that
had been vigorously debated for over twenty years in the Catholic
Church, and in doing so has given Catholic invaluable moral guidance
for properly forming their consciences on such a difficult but vital
end-of-life matter....the Pope has given the faithful a magisterial
document that is not only consistent with the tradition, but one
that is both fully informed by the current medical facts and sure to
be pastorally helpful in real life health care situations.”
On the death of Terri Schiavo (3-29-05):
Cardinal Lozano Barragan, President of the Pontifical Council for
Health Care:
described Schiavo’s death as “ a terrible murder, comparable to
torture.”
Bishop Elia Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for
Life:
“The removal of the gastric feeding tube from (Schiavo), in
these conditions, may be considered direct euthanasia.”
Why then did Fr. Kevin O’Rourke, O.P., Professor of Ethics at Loyola
University, Chicago argue that preserving Schiavo’s life would have
been “blasphemy”?
Cardinal Keeler:
We are all diminished by this woman’s death, a death that speaks
to the moral confusion we face today. Ours is a culture in which
human life is increasingly devalued and violated, especially where
that life is most weak and fragile.
Archbishop John Clement Favalora:
May God have mercy on those responsible for her death by
starvation and may God reinvigorate all who respect life to continue
to stand courageously for this justice issue.
4-19-05
Resource for Netherlands euthanasia
information:
“Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia - Past and Present” by Dr. J.C.
Willke
Mrs.
Joan Crown is the Associate Director, Archdiocese of Miami Respect Life
Office -Directs the operation of 6 crisis pregnancy centers; Coordinates the
“Project Rachel” post-abortion healing program; Coordinator of annual lobby trip
to Tallahassee “Catholic Days at the Capito; Supervises the pro-life educational
efforts in 14 Catholic high schools and 118 parishes in the Archdiocese and is
Editor of the pro-life educational newsletter “The Beginning”.
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary
