tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4512901970142754617.post2418475312641726971..comments2023-10-28T07:08:29.965-07:00Comments on Right Fans: Sci Fi from the Other Side: Pardon the Interruption: House 6.6 - Known UnknownsSABR Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00879056167130238382noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4512901970142754617.post-18403622697222755622009-11-11T09:26:42.922-08:002009-11-11T09:26:42.922-08:00Well, remember that when the Catholic Church says ...Well, remember that when the Catholic Church says "sin," that is not a <b>final</b> judgment, nor is it meant to cast aspersions on people like Wilson who are driven by their emotion and basic kindness to make the choices that they do. A lot of people hear "you're a sinner" and think we mean to say "you're a bad person, and you're going to hell," but that is certainly not the case. <br /><br />Consider, for example, how many centers for "healing after abortion" the Church has founded - two of those centers are advertised at my parish, as a matter of fact. Abortion, as you know, is also considered a grave sin - on a level with Euthanasia - but the Church understands the desperate circumstances - and the lies of the culture - that drive women (and men) to it and has responded with <b>compassion</b>, not judgment or punishment.<br /><br />In short: our rules may be strict - and yes, we recognize that they are sometimes difficult for non-Christians to understand - but our response to their violation is one of forgiveness. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that if a doctor responsible for end-of-life care came to the Church and confessed that he has assisted in a patient's suicide, the Church would probably respond - if it hasn't already - by creating something similar to the physician support groups you're looking for. Granted, a Church-run group would not condone euthanasia, but it would certainly offer the psychological and prayer support that we absolutely realize is necessary to understand the mystery of suffering.<br /><br />I respect your position on Wilson. I imagine anyone who does not have an explicitly Christian worldview is going to have a lot of trouble comprehending why people should not be permitted to privately terminate their lives if they are terminally and painfully ill. After all, if you are not Christian, you do not believe in a God who came down to Earth in a physical Incarnation to suffer great torment in His Passion - or that our suffering is a way by which we can share in that Passion.The Right Geekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09649094767960738820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4512901970142754617.post-73554281582494244342009-11-10T20:16:35.134-08:002009-11-10T20:16:35.134-08:00I guess the point where i disagree with the Cathol...I guess the point where i disagree with the Catholic position is on Wilson's act being a grave sin. I can't conceive of what he did as anything but a blessing. He gave the man a choice...live with the pain if he wanted to do so...or take enough drugs to stop the pain, consequences be damned (including death). I think that's the best any doctor can do in that situation. It's not in the hands of the state...it's not in the hands of anyone but a trained professional and his dying patient.SABR Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00879056167130238382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4512901970142754617.post-24517351930830665152009-11-10T08:57:32.251-08:002009-11-10T08:57:32.251-08:00If I understand you correctly, you don't suppo...If I understand you correctly, you don't support large-scale legalization of euthanasia, but do support a kind of amnesty for physicians who <b>sometimes</b> practice it with their clearly suffering terminally ill patients. Assuming I've read your comments accurately, I believe your view and mine have more common ground than you think.<br /><br />The Catholic view, according to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (I looked it up just be certain I fairly present the Church's view), is this: <br /><br />1) <b>Deliberate</b> euthanasia is an intrinsically grave sin. Deliberate euthanasia is when the doctor administers a lethal dose of medication or omits an ordinary treatment <b>with the clear intent of terminating a patient's life.</b> This includes assisted suicide, though patients are considered to have less subjective moral culpability because the Church recognizes that pain can lead to desperation.<br /><br />2) Patients are, however, allowed to request that all <b>extraordinary</b> measures to extend their lives be terminated. Extraordinary measures are those measures - such as experimental medications, dangerous surgeries, or repeated resuscitations - that are not a part of the ordinary maintenance of a patient. It is okay for a terminal cancer patient to stop chemotherapy and go into hospice to die; it is <b>not</b> okay to, say, remove a patient's feeding tube, as food and water are <b>ordinary</b> measures.<br /><br />3) And here, I think, it the most important statement: Doctors are permitted to use any and all measures short of deliberate killing to relieve a patient's pain. If a patient requires levels of narcotic medication so high that administering such a dose has the <b>potential</b> to shorten his life, the Catholic Church says it is still permissible to give him that medication. This is because the Church recognizes the principle of <b>double effect</b>. According to this ethical principle, if an act has the <b>unintended</b> side effect of bringing about a normally impermissible result, it may still be permissible depending on the circumstance. If a woman has uterine or ovarian cancer, it is permissible to perform a hysterectomy, even if this results in the woman's artificial sterilization, because the woman's life takes precedence. Similarly, if sincerely treating a patient's pain causes that patient to die a little sooner, the doctor is not considered to be at fault. Let me repeat: <b>As long as the intent is to relieve pain and not to euthanize, high doses of pain meds are permitted.</b><br /><br />Wilson gave his patient the code to his morphine drip with intent to euthanize, so the Catholic Church would consider his act a morally grave sin. If, however, he had instructed the nurses to give the patient whatever he needed to stay reasonably comfortable, and the patient died as an <b>unintended</b> result, the Catholic Church would have accepted his approach. I think this is a reasonable position that avoids the inherent dangers of legalized euthanasia that you acknowledge in your own statements.<br /><br />By the way, the dangers of widespread legalized euthanasia are not simply theoretical - they're <b>real</b>. In Oregon, where assisted suicide has been legalized, the state health plan (upon which Obamacare is somewhat based) has already denied terminal cancer patients coverage for chemotherapy that they've requested to minimally extend their lives. In the Netherlands, where certain forms of euthanasia have been legalized for years, hundreds of patients have been euthanized <b>without their consent</b>. Such a reality <b>should</b> give us pause.The Right Geekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09649094767960738820noreply@blogger.com