Case
1:
It’s the story of a priest, who was teaching in a school and helping out in the
pastoral activities of the parish. He was neither very popular nor an
extraordinarily dynamic in his ministry. All the same, he touched the lives of
people in his own small little ways. He was in his early 50’s when he
unexpectedly met with an accident. Being severely injured he went into coma and the doctors had almost
given up hopes. Financial conditions of the congregation he belonged, wasn’t
too good.
Doctors said, given to the serious
injuries, even if he survives, his condition will be worst or he may even
remain in a vegetable state lifelong. He will no more be able to do the works
he used to do earlier. The question raised here is, can we go ahead with
euthanasia, where he too is released from this pain or should we continue him
in the life supporting systems as long as he lives?
Church Teachings:
1. Catechism of the Catholic Church on Assisted-Suicide
#2277
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.
#2278
Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary,
or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate
#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.
2. CONGREGATION FOR THE
DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH(Benedict XVI ;August 1, 2007)
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?
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.
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?
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.
The Value of Human Life
Human life is the basis of all goods, and
is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all
society. No one can make an attempt on
the life of an innocent person without opposing God's love for that person,
without violating a fundamental right and therefore without committing a crime
of the utmost gravity. Euthanasia is a question of the violation of the divine
law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life,
and an attack on humanity
Due
Proposition in the Use of Remedies:
Everyone has the duty to care for his or he
own health or to seek such care from others. When inevitable death is imminent
in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision
to 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.
John
Paul II confirms saying, “I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the
law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a
human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written
word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the
ordinary and universal magisterium.”
The
choice of euthanasia becomes more serious when it takes the form of a murder
committed by others on a person who has in no way requested it and who has
never consented to it.
4. ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL
II
To the participants in the 19th International Conference of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care.
To the participants in the 19th International Conference of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care.
Euthanasia is one of those
tragedies caused by an ethic that claims to dictate who should live and who
should die. Even if it is motivated by sentiments of a misconstrued compassion
or of a misunderstood preservation of dignity, euthanasia actually eliminates
the person instead of relieving the individual of suffering.
5.
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
on Life Sustaining treatments and Vegetative State
on Life Sustaining treatments and Vegetative State
Pope brings to notice that there are enough
cases, where people have come back from the Permanent Vegetative state. Thus he
says, “I reaffirm strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of
every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of
his or her life. A Human will never
become a "vegetable" or an "animal". Even our brothers and
sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a "vegetative
state" retain their human dignity in all its fullness. The sick person in
a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to
basic health care and to the prevention of complications related to his
confinement to bed.
Interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration
leads to death by starvation or dehydration. It is necessary, above all, to support those families who have had
one of their loved ones struck down by this terrible clinical condition.
6.
PVS
Meaning
of "Persistent Vegetative State
Persons diagnosed as
being in the "persisent
vegetative state" don’t mean
that imminently in danger of death and since their lives can be prolonged,
perhaps for many years, if they are fed and nourished. The principal moral
question raised in caring for them is whether or not it is morally obligatory
to provide them with "food" by the artificial means.
Important address of
Pope Pius XII in 1957:
Normally one is held
to use only ordinary means according to the circumstances of persons, places,
times, and culture--that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burdens
for oneself or another.
Erroneous criteria for
judging means "extraordinary" or "disproportionate"
"Ordinary" means to prolong life would be those
means which are obligatory because they enable a person to strive for the
spiritual purpose of life. "Extraordinary" means would seem to be those
means which are optional because they are ineffective or a grave burden in
helping a person strive for the spiritual purpose of life.
Arguments’
in Favour of Euthanasia:
·
A
separate right to die is not necessary, because our other human rights imply
the right to die.
·
Death
is the opposite of life, but the process of dying is part of life
·
Rights
to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right to decide how and when
to die.
·
If
an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no
one's rights then that action is morally acceptable.
· Euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources. Why not use the nation’s health resources on people, who will be more beneficial and deserve?
· A utilitarian argument for Euthanasia: The person in the vegetative state will be of no use for the society. It’s a mere passive existence. There is no use of such existence to anybody. Why not then end such life?
·
It
is also argued that death is not a bad thing and there is life after. Thus
euthanasia is not bad in itself.
·
Euthanasia
can quickly and humanely end a patient’s suffering, allowing them to die with
dignity.
·
Death
is a private matter, and if you are not hurting anyone else, the state should
not interfere.
·
Illness
can take away autonomy and dignity, leaving us with no quality of life; Euthanasia
allows you to take back control in deciding to die.
·
God
is love. Christianity is love and compassion. Keeping someone in pain and
suffering is against love; it is evil. Euthanasia can be the most loving
action, and the best way of putting agape love into practice.
My
Personal Opinion:
Life is a gift given
and no one has the right to take it. The person in the above case is a priest
and by being priest, he has served and inspired people. Now, at this stage of
crisis, he might still serve as an inspiration to many. He may not be able to work
and influence people actively, but his passive influence can’t be denied.
Moreover there are
enough cases, where people have bounced back from the vegetative state. Thus an
improved state of life to this person is still not out of question.
Since the financial
condition of the congregation he belongs to is not too good, extraordinary treatments
do not look proportionate and could be avoided. All the same food and water
should be continued through ordinary means. He, even on the death bed, still
deserves these basic needs.
He deserves to live
and going in for Euthanasia is morally wrong.
Case
2:
In the 6th month of the
pregnancy, the scanning’s show that the child that is going to be born will physically
challenged. Hearing this, the parents
seem to think of aborting the child. He
is quite reasonable in his argument: even it is born, it will be neglected. It
will have a life long struggle with the societal behavior. The serious issue
will be after their death, who will care for it? Life will be a living hell for
the child. Moreover, being the girl child this agony may be all the more, in
terms of her security. Thus keeping the good of the child in mind, can they go
ahead with aborting the child?
Church
Teachings
1. Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2270 : Human life must be respected and protected
absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his
existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -
among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271:
Direct abortion, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely
contrary to the moral law
2272: The Church
attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human
life.
2273: Speaks of
abortion as going against the human rights.
2274 Since child must be treated from
conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared
for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
|
The Second Vatican Council
defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable
crime". Criticizing the pro abortion movement the document says, the
fundamental right to life is at stake. It clearly opposes when it says,
procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it
is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her
existence, extending from conception to birth. The one eliminated is a human
being at the very beginning of life. Sometimes it is feared that the child to
be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth
did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however
serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent
human being. Pope sees abortion as a threat to civilization. He coins it
"structure of sin" which opposes human life not yet born. The
document clearly says, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a
life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is
rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It also stresses
that human individual is a human person right from the conception. The Church
has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human
procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that
unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her
totality and unity as body and spirit. Every human is the personal object of
God's loving and fatherly providence.
3. Holy Fathers on Abortion: The more recent
Papal magisterium has vigorously reaffirmed this common doctrine. Pius XI in
particular, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, rejected the specious
justifications of abortion. Pius XII excluded all direct abortion, i.e.,
every act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb "whether
such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end. John
XXIII reaffirmed that human life is sacred because "from its very
beginning it directly involves God's creative activity”. The Second Vatican
Council, as mentioned earlier, sternly condemned abortion: "From the
moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while
abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes".
No circumstance, no purpose, no
law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit,
since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart,
knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.
4. Standing for the Unborn:
Jesuits
renew their opposition to abortion and renews the support for the unborn. It
quotes, GC, 34, decree on “Our Mission and Justice,” saying, “Human life, a
gift of God, has to be respected from its beginning to its natural end”. The
most fundamental building block of a just social order is respect for human
life. The document calls abortion as a key social evil. It sees abortion is a
human rights issue. It is also a social issue and not a decision in
isolation. Gives a universal call to protect unborn life. Every human being,
no matter how small or young or dependent on others, possesses infinite
value. Being in the image and likeness of God, every child has innate
dignity. Quotes Gaudium et spess “life must be safeguarded with extreme care
from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes”
5. Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith
It says, "Death was not God's doing,
he takes no pleasure in the extinction of the living" (Wis. 1:13). God, willed life and not
death. The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be
protected. Tertullian clearly affirmed the essential principle: "To
prevent birth is anticipated murder;
Respect for human life is not just a
Christian obligation. Constituted by a rational nature, man is a personal
subject capable of reflecting on himself and of determining his acts and
hence his own destiny. Man can never be treated simply as a means to be
disposed of in order to obtain a higher end.
The first right of the human person is his
life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is
fundamental - the condition of all the others. Hence it must be
protected above all others. Divine law
and natural reason, therefore, exclude all right to the direct killing of an
innocent man. However, if the reasons given to justify an abortion were
always manifestly evil and valueless the problem would not be so dramatic.
With regard to the future unhappiness of
the child, no one, not even the father or mother, can act as its substitute-
even if it is still in the embryonic stage- to choose in the child's name,
life or death. As Christians we not only believe in the worldly life, but
also in the life eternal. From this viewpoint there is no absolute misfortune
here below, not even the terrible sorrow of bringing up a handicapped child.
|
Arguments in favour of abortion
·
Every
human being has the right to own their own body. This implies woman has the
right to decide what she can and can't do with her body. Thus whether to give
birth to the child or to abort is left to the free will of the woman.
·
The
women's liberation movement sees abortion rights as vital for gender equality.
Women need free access to abortion in order to achieve full political, social,
and economic equality with men.
·
A pluralistic society should not prevent
individuals from doing what their religious principles allow.
·
Our society is pluralistic. So, in the name of
pluralism, people who believe abortion is wrong should not force their beliefs
on others.
·
A merciful society should not make laws that
force terrible handicaps on children. For the betterment of the child, to avoid
the long suffering, lesser evil could be intended. Thus it is the question of
the quality of life to the child in the future.
- It is also argued, until certain period, the fetus in the womb, is not human and it doesn’t have the soul. Thus one can get rid of it.
- The other claim is that, whether it is made licit or not, abortions continue to take place. In that case, why not declare it licit and avoid collecting guilt?
My Personal Opinion:
The
church makes it very clear that, it stands for the child, unborn. And I hold
the same opinion in the above case, that the child, in the womb has all the
right to live. Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God
and no one has the right to destroy it.
In the
above case, child is already in the 6th month. The reason, for the abortion,
is that the child that is going to be born will be handicapped. Thus abortion
in this case, like in other cases, will be a direct case of murder.
I
believe that life is a precious gift. This needs to be protected and cared for.
There are thousands of handicapped people in the world, who lead a happy and a
meaningful life and have become inspiration to many others.
Thus,
it is the primary responsibility of the parents to protect the life of the
child and grow it with positive frame of mind. It is also the responsibility of
the society around to care and nurture the child, as human being is an integral
part of the society. In the above case, being handicapped is the givenness- to
the child. But life holds far greater value than this draw back. Child can
still lead a dignified and a meaningful life.
Thus I
believe abortion is not an answer to this situation. Parents need to stand by
their unborn child.
Abortion,
in the above case is morally wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment