Posted on 07/22/2009 8:42:17 PM PDT by bdeaner
I have frequently thought on many issues that the Democratic Party provides the "wrong answers to the right questions." How can we provide better assistance to the poor? How can we make sure workers are treated fairly? How can we help women with unwanted pregnancies? How can we give everyone access to needed health care...
As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have told us, everyone deserves medical care, and it is a noble end goal. My own bishop, William Murphy, penned a letter to US Senate Committee on Finance on behalf of the USCCB citing:
"The moral measure of any health-care reform proposal is whether it offers affordable and accessible health care to all, beginning with those most in need..."
In noting this, it is still my opinion, and I do not speak for the Magisterium, that the Catholic position should be AGAINST the President's Health Care Initiative. There is a grave devil in the details of his plan. The devil is RATIONING.
This concern is so front-and-center, that the Fourth Estate is even shining the spotlight on it. The Wall St. Journal reported from Obama's town hall meeting this week. A concerned citizen brought up a very real-world, tangible family experience she had and asked Obama if the same respect of life would be given under his plan:
"At one point in the town hall, broadcast from the East Room by ABC news, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105-year-old mother, who, at 100, was told by an arrhythmia specialist that she was too old for a pacemaker. She ended up getting a second option, and the operation, for which Ms. Sturm credits her survival.
"Look, the first thing for all of us to understand that is we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care," Mr. Obama replied. After discussing ways "we as a culture and as a society [can start] to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves," he continued that in general "at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
What Mr. Obama is describing is his preferred health-care future. If or when the Administration's speculative cost-cutting measures under universal health care fail to produce savings, government will start explicitly limiting patient access to treatments and services regarded as too expensive. Democrats deny this eventuality, but health planners will have no choice, given that the current entitlement system is already barreling toward insolvency without adding millions of new people to the federal balance sheet."
So basically if someone is 65 years old and is diagnosed with a cancer that has a high mortality rate; here is your Advil according to our President.
With this statement, there is the 800-pound gorilla in the room that no one will mention. They will dance all around it, but not land on it. Obama's health care plan will make a clear distinction between two classes of people. Those who are worthy of health care treatment, and those who are not.
Mike Kinsley, who was the original liberal-defending host of CNN's Crossfire, also sees this reality in The Washington Post:
"But that doesn't mean rationing will be easy to avoid. Statistics on life expectancy or infant mortality are averages. The easiest way to raise your averages -- maybe even the best way, if we're being honest -- is to concentrate on the general level of care and not to squander a lot on long-odds cases. But if the long-odds case is you or a family member, you may well feel differently.
...Here is a handy-dandy way to determine whether the failure to order some exam or treatment constitutes rationing: If the patient were the president, would he get it? If he'd get it and you wouldn't, it's rationing."
Even super-liberal Mike Kinsley knows what is coming.
Now, back to my Catholic case against the President's Health Care Plan. The danger, as mentioned, is setting up two classes of people. Some of the darkest chapters of world history began with this premise and resulted in holocausts. This is not hyperbole.
If we, as a society, determine that someone who is possibly treatable does not warrant life-saving or life-extending care because of their demographics or situation- just pain medication - the next logical, expedient, cost-savings and obvious secular step is saying why should this person suffer with absolutely no hope. It's pointless. We should put them out of their misery. Euthanasia is the demonic offspring to the rationed health care that Obama speaks of. This is my grave concern and should be yours.
The immediate front lines of this second class of people, and starting point, will be the handicapped, the elderly, the infirmed and less-than-perfect newborns.
This is why His Excellency Bishop Murphy then follows the above statement in his letter to our government with:
"All people need and should have access to comprehensive, quality health care that they can afford, and this should not depend on their stage of life, where or whether they or their parents work, how much they earn, or where they live or where they come from."
Obama's Health Care Plan is in direct conflict with this second statement and therefore, in my opinion, can not be supported by Catholics. There are other, better solutions out there that do not lead to this culture-of-death end, literally.
I see no answer the question, but a gray are in which the devil can play with all the details he wants.
>>a gray areA
Good question. I haven’t looked into the ethics of euthanasia at that level of detail, but I am quite sure there is some official statements on this from top-notch Catholic ethicists. Their job is to draw these kinds of ethical lines in the sand. Perhaps someone who knows better could direct us to a good resource on the issue; I’d be curious to learn more. I’m more informed about abortion than euthanasia.
This should not have taken such an article to list it.
1. This plan covers all elective abortions. Your tax dollars will go to fund this.
2. Euthanasia via ‘counseling and rationing’. Old people will be counseled to take less costly options for the rest of us. That will mean sucking it up and dying.
There. Right to the darn point.
Thanks for the link. That would be the place to look for info, for sure!
USSB:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/index.shtml
Declaration on Euthanasia (1980), published 20 years ago by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the document of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”: Ethical Questions concerning the seriously ill and the dying (1981), the Encyclical Evangelium vitae (1995) of John Paul II (especially nn. 64-67), the Charter for Health Care Workers, published by the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers (1994).
In their documents, the Magisterium did not just define euthanasia as morally unacceptable, “as the deliberate killing of an [innocent] human person” (cf. Evangelium vitae, n. 65. The Encyclical’s reasoning is explained in n. 57, thus enabling a correct interpretation of the passage of n. 65 cited above), or as a “criminal” offense (cf. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, n. 27). The Magisterium also called for a programme of assistance that would be inspired by the dignity of the person, respect for life and the values of brotherhood and solidarity. It should involve the medical-ethical, spiritual and pastoral areas. It would call people to respond with a concrete witness to the current challenges of a widespread culture of death.
3] One thinks especially of Recommendation 779 (1976) on the rights of the sick and dying, of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at its XXVIIth Ordinary Session; cf. Sipeca, no. 1, March 1977, pp. 14-15.
[4] We leave aside completely the problems of the death penalty and of war, which involve specific considerations that do not concern the present subject.
[5] Pius XII, ADDRESS of February 24, 1957: AAS 49 (1957), p. 147.
[6] Pius XII, Ibid., p. 145; cf. ADDRESS of September 9, 1958: AAS 50 (1958), p. 694.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001209_eutanasia_en.html
Euthanasia Activists Attack the Catholic Church in German Newspaper Ad
“Greatest Unifying Factor of Right to Die Movement is Disdain for Catholic Church”:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07021203.html
Euthanasia in Holland - they encourage assisted suicide over euthanasia:
http://www.euthanasia.cc/dutch.html
They called themselves the Hemlock Society here but changed their name recently. I don’t know their new name. Probably something with ‘humanism’ in it.
I know more about Europe than here but I have a feeling it’s been going on here more than we actually realize. It’s only a matter of pro-death Obama making it legal.
The question could be answered in this manner: if a person refuse a pacemaker if one was offered, would it be considered suicide? (If the person himself would be considered suicidal for refusing it, then the government withholding it by policy would be considered murder)
The Catechism says:
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
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. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
If we look at the Terri Schiavo case, had she been on a ventilator, that could have been withdrawn with no scandal, as that would have been considered extraordinary care. However, she was simply receiving nutrition and hydration, which was was considered ordinary care, thus, the withdrawal of that care was considered scandalous.
A pacemaker, while it improves a person's life, can also cause some limitations. It requires, from my understanding, an invasive procedure to insert, which can have some risk. So I believe that a person can licitly make a decision that the risk of the insertion process and the risk inherent to having the pacemaker outweigh the risk of not having the pacemaker inserted. I might not agree with that decision, but that's not to say that the decision is illicit.
Likewise, the government (or a private insurer) could licitly decide that pacemakers are not effective enough to outweigh the risks and outlaw the procedure / device (or not cover it for insurance purposes). I might not agree with the decision; the medical community might not agree either. However, it wouldn't be mandating euthanasia under the above circumstances.
Likewise, I think it would be licit to have some criteria to say that they shouldn't bother with a pacemaker if there are other overriding medical conditions, where the pacemaker wouldn't extend a person's life or improve the quality of that person's life. For example, let us assume that we're dealing with a person who has metastasized cancer, is utterly bedridden, has been judged to have three to six months to live, and on a huge amount of powerful painkillers. Would a pacemaker extend that person's life? Probably not. Would a pacemaker help the quality of that person's life? Probably not. In those circumstances, I think that it would be licit for an insurer or the government to assert that it wouldn't be an appropriate treatment and refuse to pay for it (on the other hand, if the patient wanted to pay for it out of pocket, I don't think they should have any right to REFUSE to provide it).
On the other hand, I don't think refusing treatment (such as a pacemaker) based upon age as the sole criterion is licit in any case, with the exception of a procedure / medicine / therapy that won't work because of age. Because, based solely upon age, who knows how long an individual will live?
Just like I don't think it would be licit to refuse a treatment to somebody solely because of a behavior. For example,
As to a definition of "natural death," if a person dies because something ceases to function and not as the result of an intervention, then that is a "natural death." That, in of itself, is not really an ethical question.
I guess, too, since you brought up Terri Schiavo, that a momentous precedent has already been established.
Sorry, but I find this more alarming even than Obamacare. All people should have access to health care "they can afford", but this should not depend on "how much they earn"?
So if they earn nothing, and so can afford nothing, their health care should be free??
So tell me, which doctors will be enslaved to provide this free health care - because that's what this position implies, forced labor without compensation, ie slavery. Or if the doctor is to be paid, which third party will be enslaved or robbed to fund the indigent's health care?
Health care is not a natural right. It has a cost, which means it must, somehow, be paid for. And the default moral position is that the consumer of a good should be the one who pays for it. If you propose a change from that default position, it is up to you to justify it.
What! I should get better health care because I can pay for it? Yes - just as I can wear better clothes, eat better food, live in a better house, ... And I can pay for these things because I work, because I give a dollar's value for every dollar I'm paid, and expect in return to be able to purchase a dollar value of goods for each dollar I've earned.
Sorry to sound like John Galt, but I'm getting very sick of the entitlement mentality, and of the flabby Christian who seems to think the omnipotent nanny State can abolish the Curse of Adam.
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.