Posted on 08/16/2009 10:40:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) supports the proposed current health care reform provided it includes conscience protection clauses and specifically prohibits abortion funding. But although the USCCB has made statements about "respecting life from conception until natural death," the Conference fails to mention any specific concerns about health care rationing.
The Catholic Church's opposition to euthanasia (an act just as evil as abortion) is clearly stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2277:
Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.
Rationing health care could result in the death of a patient. It would clearly be an example of an omission that may cause death. Although it may not be direct euthanasia, it is definitely passive euthanasia.
A letter by Bishop William F. Murphy, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development sent to every member of the Congress, includes this statement in its first paragraph:
The USCCB looks forward to working with you to reform health care successfully in a manner that offers accessible, affordable and quality health care that protects and respects the life and dignity of all people from conception until natural death.
This is similar to a letter from Cardinal Rigali, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities to the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Both Bishop Murphy and Cardinal Rigali address abortion without mentioning anything specific about rationing which could result in passive euthanasia.
In the House version of the health care bill, page 58 includes the following language on lines 7 - 11:
... to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility,
The letter from Bishop Murphy speaks of "universal health care." If eligibility for a "specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility" is going to be determined, then this is clearly not "universal health care." However, it is rationing.
When examining pages 425 - 430 of the House bill, it is noted that end of life orders (a living will, for example) must be signed by a physician or other medical personnel as defined by the government (page 429, lines 17-22). Page 430, lines 23-24 state that the advanced planning document can determine the amount of artificial nutrition and hydration to be given to an individual.
In an address to the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas," the late Pope John Paul II states:
I should like particularly to underline how the administration 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...
That nutrition and hydration are morally obligatory is further acknowledged by this statement on the USCCB's Pro-Life Activities section of its web site from Rev. J. Daniel Mindling, OFM, Cap.
Living wills should not include a statement that refuses nutrition and hydration in the event that one is diagnosed in a persistent vegetative state. It is, in principle, ordinary and proportionate care which is morally obligatory.
Why are Bishop Murphy's and Cardinal Rigali's letters to Congress omitting discussion about rationing care for those who have been born? Why is the USCCB not specifically requesting that Congress remove any language similar to the provisions on page 430, lines 23-24 from all versions of the health care legislation?
There are many other portions of the House bill which are not in line with the USCCB's desire for truly "universal health care." Examples include:
* Page 253: The government regulates the doctor's medical effort, stress, time, professional judgment, etc. This will put unnecessary pressure on a doctor and may result in poor treatment as a result.
* Page 280: Hospitals are penalized for what the government decides is a preventable readmission. As human beings are unique, an individual may need to be readmitted through no fault of the hospital.
* Page 298 (lines 9-11): The doctor is penalized for a readmission. See comments regarding page 280.
* Pages 317 - 318: Rural facilities may not expand. This could literally mean the difference between life and death. If a closer facility does not have the ability to care for a patient, the patient may need to be transported to another facility hours away.
To be fair to Bishop Murphy, his letter was dated July 17, 2009, three days after the release of the House bill, dated July 14, 2009. A thorough analysis of this bill could not have been done this quickly. However, since that time there has been much coverage about rationing and other concerns related to the House bill. At this point, the silence from the USCCB about portions of this bill which violate (or result in situations that would violate) the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is quite mystifying.
Unfortunately, there is evidence of a naïve and unjustifiable trust of Congress in Bishop Murphy's letter. On page 2, the bishop writes:
No health care legislation that compels Americans to pay for or participate in abortion will find sufficient votes to pass.
Currently, the majority of members of the House of Representatives support abortion. For evidence of this, one needs only note that the Pence Amendment to H.R. 3293, which would have stripped Planned Parenthood of taxpayer funding, failed by a vote of 247-183.
Switching to the Senate, a majority of members of the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to permanently eliminate the Mexico City Policy. (This policy prevented taxpayer funding of foreign abortion promoting organizations.) With these examples from both houses of Congress, it is fairly obvious that they will not heed a bishop's statement on "respect for life from conception until natural death."
In the letters to Congress, the USCCB presents a "wish list" about what they would like in the bill. However, they do not seem to understand the reality that true "universal health care" is impossible in a world of finite resources. Common sense would indicate that unless the number of doctors, nurses, and facilities are dramatically increased, rationing will be an inevitable consequence. Add to this problem the fact that increased regulation of doctors will likely result in a number of physicians retiring or otherwise leaving the field. With a government whose leaders are so antagonistic towards respect for human life, combined with fewer doctors and a need to reduce costs, it is patently clear that medical care will be rationed. Without direct opposition to the numerous pitfalls in this bill, these problems will reappear in the final legislation. Merely prohibiting abortion funding and including conscience protection clauses is not enough.
Finally, the USCCB neglects to discuss the root causes which make health care so expensive in the U.S: taxes on insurance, lack of portability, government mandates, lack of tort reform, and the high cost of education for physicians. A "quick fix" is absolutely not the answer. This bill should be rejected and the root causes addressed first.
In the opinion of this writer, the USCCB seems to simply be on the "health insurance reform" bandwagon. The Conference does not offer any kind of serious critique of the details. These are the shepherds to whom U.S. Catholics such as myself are supposed to look. Personally, I am deeply disappointed.
This is not about a frivolous question of which provisions are acceptable and which are unacceptable. This is about a power struggle between the principles the founding generation were willing to stake their "lives, property, and sacred honor" for, and those who, throughout the history of civilization have arrogated unto themselves power over other people's lives.
The current "issue" called "health care reform," or its equally obnoxious semantic twin "health insurance reform," is just the invasion of liberty by arrogant elected officials which has finally aroused citizens who, heretofore, ignored the decades-long power grab by those who were supposed to protect "We, the People's" constitutional principles.
Now, citizens are seeing that it is a matter of "principle," not an issue of semantics over wording.
They should not allow their elected representatives to be coopted by "blue dogs" or any other "wolf in sheep's clothing" that would allow what may turn out to be the most important watershed moment in the history of American liberty to be further threatened. Now, Conrad and Sebelius, and others, sensing the voter mood are throwing out "compromise" talk this weekend, all to punt for better position down the road. Seize the moment for the sake of posterity and just say, "no"!
A word from the author of our Declaration of Independence regarding citizens and oppressive government might give some backbone to today's citizens:
"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate . . . the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that they may. . . know ambition under all its shapes, and . . . exert their natural power to defeat its purposes." - Thomas Jefferson
And, for more wisdom from the same source:
" . . . this is a tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers. . . have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follws that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."- Thomas Jefferson
I wonder if they’ll support abortions being forced to occur in Catholic hospitals.
If the Catholic Church thinks universal heath is the thing, the Catholic Church should provide it rather than having it foisted onto the taxpayers.
The USCCB are a pack of idiots. They always have been. They have ignored the genuine problems of the Church, which are their responsibility, and instead have addressed themselves to the leftwing cause of the moment, which is not their responsibility. Remember their stupid statements on “nuclear disarmament” of decades ago?
Sure seems like it. The fact that they could claim that a proposal which indeed includes taxpayer funding of abortions as well as forced killing of people who are simply too sick shows that they are incapable of even reading the proposal which they just endorsed!
Does this group support shamnesty for illegals as well?
Only when the very last penny of the almost unimaginable mountain of wealth owned by the Catholic Church is spent does that organization have any right to try force anybody to spend their own money for anything.
Bishop Murphy should be reminded that there is no healthcare in Hell.
Dear Bishop Murphy:
TORT REFORM FIRST!
Chill out a year and see what that begins to accomplish in lowering costs.
IF the Congress wishes to create a pilot HealthCare program that MANDATES that Congress and ALL Federal employees be enrolled in, that would be fine with me, too. Let’s see how well they can design something that they and their union and non-union buddies are required to purchase. Of course, ANYONE else would be allowed to VOLUNTARILY enroll in that program at any time with the same premium schedule, including you, Bishop Murphy, and the rest of the USCCB.
Let’s see how what type of “money saving”, “excellent”, “desirable”, “keep doctor”, “public” health care program that they design for themselves and their minions first.
PROVE IT FIRST, Dear Leader and CONGRESS
The Bishops have found that the CHurch needs the public monies—and as everyone knows, when one accepts the public funds,you take the strings attached, too. The fact is their hospitals are schools are now feeding out of the public trough.
I say to the bishops what I say to the congress.......enroll in the same stinking plan you plan on thrusting on us....
The American Catholic Church has made an unmistakeable shift toward socialism. On issue after issue, the trend is clear. Mexican invaders are supported to the point of breaking the law by hiding and giving sanctuary. Flagrant and notorious abortion promoters like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are allowed to receive communion. Environmental hoaxes are endorsed. Is it a bid to forestall dwindling membership, accommodate an aggressively anti-Catholic socialist government, or is it simply misguided beneficence?
“this is why I can’t attend Church anymore.....”
May I respectfully, but bluntly, say that is no reason not to attend church. You should attend church because of your FAITH, not because of mistakes SOME clerics make.
Read what Father Pavone of Priests for Life wrote me in an automated email:
“In case you don’t know, under the guise of “health care reform” Congress is about to pass a stealth version of the Freedom of Choice Act! And to make matters worse, they will force YOU to pay for the killings that will follow!
Make no mistake. The “health care reform” bills being finalized in Congress will set off a chain reaction that will result in a massive expansion of abortion!
That’s because unless Congress explicitly states that abortion is excluded, it will be regarded as “an essential benefit” for Americans. Once that’s done, insurance companies would be forced to cover elective abortions which would in turn force local health networks to recruit and hire abortionists.
And to make matters even worse, because these would be federal mandates …
… state laws that now restrict abortion will probably be overturned!
As I said, this is FOCA in disguise!
Which is why it is so critically important that you:
Contact your lawmakers in Washington … RIGHT NOW!”
NOW you can go to Church. There is no excuse.
USCCB is an arm of the leftwing of the Dem National Party. They have offered no balanced perspective on theology and catechesis on this matter (which is what their real role is), just a rubber stamp on Universal Health Care ala socialism.
I repeat what I’ve stated before on this forum, that the US would be far better of if the Pope dismantled the USCCB.
Why would you say they do not understand? IF we commoners get it what is so difficult to understand?
And the same ridiculous problem with the schools — the “blue ribbon” and “green ribbon” programs. It’s frightening to see the Church get so entangled with the feds that the organizations become indistinguishable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.