Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Catholic Moral Tradition & Health Care Principles In a
Presented by
Rev. James T. Bretzke, S.J., S.T.D.
http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/bretzkesj/USFWebIndex.htm
Catholic Teaching: True or False?
#1: Medical treatment must always be continued, as long as it provides some medical benefit to the patient.
#2: Some medical procedures or drugs are always morally required (such as feeding tubes).
#3: Pain medication which would hasten death is not permitted.
#4: Living wills in which one elects not to pursue aggressive treatment are not permitted.
#5: The Church is opposed to the notion of “death with dignity.”
#6: In cases of terminal illness the Church opposes hastening or ending a life to end that pain
4 Health Care Principles Autonomy (respecting the individual’s
decision-making capabilities, other things being equal)
Beneficence (care which weighs risks in light of benefits to the patient)
Non-Maleficence (and which does not cause undue harm: Primum non nocere)
Justice (fairness in distribution of risks, benefits and limited health-care resources)
None of these principles is “stand-alone”; they must be considered in relation to the others, and the common good is crucial in weighing these
End of Life Ethical Issues
Death with DignityLiving willsPalliative CareEuthanasia
Active Passive
What does “dignity” mean?
AHCDs are morally acceptable
Pain management is morally acceptable, EVEN if death is hastened
Euthanasia is not morally acceptable
Extraordinary Means
All medicines, treatments, and operations, etc. that (1) do not offer a reasonable hope of
success or reasonable benefit to the patient; and/or
(2) which cannot be obtained or used without excessive hardship—
i.e., excessive pain, cost, or other inconvenience
Either directly to the patient, or the the patient’s network of close relationships (e.g., the family)
Discerning “Extraordinary” Means
Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] #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.
Using Extraordinary Means
To label a medical therapy, etc., “extraordinary” does not mean that it is morally suspect or prohibited
Rather it simply means that such a procedure, etc. is not “morally obligated”
“Extraordinary” does (usually) NOT mean “extreme” or “heroic”
And therefore its use or non-use would have to be determined according to different criteria of discernment
Some examples….
Ordinary Means Are the “opposite” of extraordinary
means, and which are seen as necessary to preserve life and/or health,
And which are not excessively burdensome
And have a good chance of success (e.g., not considered to be “experimental”)
And which are well-established in the medical “culture” of the given situation
“Ordinary” does not (necessarily) mean “routine”
All “ordinary means” are considered to be morally obligatory, and therefore required
Comparison of “Ordinary” & “Extraordinary” Means
“Ordinary” Does NOT mean “usual, routine, or unexceptional”
Instead it means “full, complete, required” In medicine “food and water” would normally (but NOT
always) be considered “ordinary” means of health care
“Extraordinary” does NOT mean “extreme, heroic, exceptional, or rare”
Rather it means “supplementary, additional, above and beyond what is required”
In medicine, an experimental drug would be “extraordinary” health care
Or In Other Words… “Ordinary” means are morally
obligatory “Extraordinary” means are not morally
obligatory Use/Non-use of extraordinary means
depends on a weighing of values, disvalues, benefits, and consequences
Both ordinary and extraordinary means are “decided” in reference to the concrete individual, and never just in the abstract
The Vatican prefers the term “proportionate” & “disproportionate” CDF Jura et bona (Declaration on Euthanasia), 1980
Subjective Relationship to a Particular Patient Is
the Key! The discernment over what constitutes
ordinary and extraordinary means can not be given in the abstract like answers in the back of a textbook
What is “ordinary” in one instance would be “extraordinary” in another
What is “ordinary” for one patient would be “extraordinary” for another, including psychological burden
Vehemens horror principle in the moral tradition
“Subjective Relationship does NOT equal “relativism”
Subjectivism Has Limits Though
Euthanasia Morally Unacceptable
CCC #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
Distinction: Euthanasia vs. O/E Means
Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called "aggressive medical treatment", in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience "refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted". Certainly there is a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, #65.
Nor Is Vitalism Acceptable
“Vitalism” means maintaining biological life at all costs
This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church
Nor does it reconcile with belief in the Resurrection
“After all, life on earth is not an "ultimate" but a "penultimate" reality” Evangelium vitae, #2
Killing or Letting Die?
Locating the PVS/ANH Debate in the Catholic Moral
Tradition Context
When are the medical means “proportionate” or “disproportionate”?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7268803/
Description of the PVS State
NOT brain death; nor a “coma” Sleep/wake cycles Some reaction to physical stimuli But no inter-personal interaction Ir-reversible (Note this point!) Need for artificial hydration &
nutrition
Parameters Before a PVS Diagnosis Can Be Made:
NONTRAUMATIC – VERY RARE AFTER 3 MOS.
TRAUMATIC – VERY RARE AFTER 1 YEAR
N. B. Sometimes theologians and others confusedly group a PVS case with coma cases. PVS is distinct from a coma diagnosis because in a coma case “recovery” is possible, whereas in PVS “recovery” is not a medical possibility.
Subjective Relation to the Patient is Key!
• Heart Attack Victim• Severe Brain Damage• 15 years in PVS• No Advance Health Care Directive• Struggle over removing feeding tube
Terri Schiavo before her heart attack Terri with her mother in the nursing home
Terri Schiavo’s Medical Diagnosis
(Later confirmed by her autopsy)“Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.”
Dispute over Moral Meaning of the Potential Feeding Tube Removal
Removal of the Feeding Tube: Removing an Artificial Block to the Dying Process (i.e. extraordinary means which are stopping the normal dying process)?
OR Removal of the Feeding Tube:
Starving a Person to Death (i.e., Passive Euthanasia)?
How to Decide?
Enter the Magisterium:Whose and What
Authority ?
Magisterial Teachings on Health Care
Allocutions of Pius XII (1939-1958) 1995 John Paul II Encyclical Evangelium
Vitae 1992/97 Catechism of the Catholic Church US Bishops Ethical & Health Care
Directives (various editions) March 2004 John Paul II Allocution November 2004 John Paul II Allocution CDF 2007 Responsum on ANH How to weigh & interpret these??
Common Misperceptions No text is self-interpreting or self-
applying All texts are not created equal The “latest” text is not necessarily the
most authoritative There is no “The Vatican” which exists
as a monolithic entity (which office issued it?)
The language used does not necessarily mean the same as in general idiomatic usage (e.g. “intrinsically disordered”)
Each & every pronouncement of the Pope (or lower authorities) is not necessarily infallible.
The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery. …
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE CONGRESSON "LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENTS AND VEGETATIVE STATE:SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS" 20 March 2004
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, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.
So Didn’t’ The Pope Say That We ALWAYS Have to
Use a Feeding Tube?“The plants in Terri Schiavo’s room are getting better care than she is.”Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests For Life
Is this case really so black and white??
Some Key Terminology Medical Act:
What constitutes a medical or non-medical act? Possible confusion over labeling a “medical” act as
“extraordinary means” In Principle
Levels of moral norms and principles “In principle students should attend every class” Recognizes that legitimate exceptions might arise (e.g.,
illness, emergency, death of a relative, etc.) Proportionate
For a “proportion” one needs at least 2 terms Thus, for any medical means to be called
“proportionate” or “disproportionate” means there must be a relation to a concrete, individual subject
And therefore it is impossible to say that always this or that “medical means” could be considered “ordinary and proportionate”
The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery. …
Taking Another Look at ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE CONGRESSON "LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENTS AND VEGETATIVE STATE:SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS" 20 March 2004
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, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.
The Last Papal Address “True compassion, on the contrary, encourages
every reasonable effort for the patient's recovery. At the same time, it helps draw the line when it is clear that no further treatment will serve this purpose.
The refusal of aggressive treatment is neither a rejection of the patient nor of his or her life. Indeed, the object of the decision on whether to begin or to continue a treatment has nothing to do with the value of the patient's life, but rather with whether such medical intervention is beneficial for the patient.
The possible decision either not to start or to halt a treatment will be deemed ethically correct if the treatment is ineffective or obviously disproportionate to the aims of sustaining life or recovering health. Consequently, the decision to forego aggressive treatment is an expression of the respect that is due to the patient at every moment.”
Address of John Paul II to the participants in the 19th international conference of the pontifical council for health pastoral care 11 November 2004
Change or Continuity?CDF Responsum on ANH
Responses To Certain QuestionsOf The United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops Concerning Artificial Nutrition &Hydration
First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a “vegetative state” morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?
The Responsum to the 1st Dubium [“Question”]
Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented
The Second Dubium
Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a “permanent vegetative state”, may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?
& The Second Responsum
Response: No. A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.
Level of Magisterial Authority?
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these Responses, adopted in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication. Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 1, 2007. William Cardinal Levada Prefect
In Forma Communi: A Dicasterial Document
And NOT a Papal Act And certainly not “irreformable in
se”
And the Attached Commentary??
Different level of extrinsic authority from the Responsum
A perplexing footnote: “Terminology concerning the different phases and forms of the ‘vegetative state’ continues to be discussed, but this is not important for the moral judgment involved.”
“Discussed” but “not important”?? What might the Catholic moral
tradition say?
Continuing Discussion in the Catholic Tradition:
Probabilism Position of St. Alphonsus Liguori In case of practical doubt When credible, prudent arguments
exist And/or trusted authorities hold a
position One may in good conscience choose
the option which has greater “freedom”
Even if “safer” counter-arguments and/or authorities hold the opposite, and it is more probable (I.e. probabiliorism)
But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
Death, Where Is YourVictory?Death, Where Is YourSting?1 Corinthians 15:54-55
Catholic Teaching: True or False?
#1: Medical treatment must always be continued, as long as it provides some medical benefit to the patient. FALSE
#2: Some medical procedures or drugs are always morally required (such as feeding tubes). FALSE
#3: Pain medication which would hasten death is not permitted. FALSE
#4: Living wills in which one elects not to pursue aggressive treatment are not permitted. FALSE
#5: The Church is opposed to the notion of “death with dignity.” FALSE
#6: In cases of terminal illness the Church opposes hastening or ending a life to end that pain TRUE
A Helpful Tradition…
In fide, unitas: in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas "In faith, unity; in doubt, liberty; in all
things, charity." Attributed to St. Augustine, this is an
important principle of Christian discernment: unity in faith is important, but in cases of doubt a plurality of opinions and practices should be allowed, and the over-riding principle must always be charity towards each other.
