Friday, March 25, 2005
(10:20 AM) | Adam Kotsko:
Terry Schiavo
Brey has requested that I "post on the Schiavo case from the perspective of a Catholic, scholar, and theo-philosopher." I have resisted posting on this topic for a variety of reasons, but -- ask, seek, knock. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on this topic: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.The numbers correspond to the paragraph numbers in the Catechism; the small type indicates "explanatory" text, the equivalent of a footnote. This section on euthanasia falls under the discussion of the fifth commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Other issues addressed under this heading include abortion and suicide.
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.
The position of the Catholic Church on this matter seems to me to be in line with the mainstream. I personally would judge that, under the terms of this rubric, the death by starvation of Terry Schiavo would be considered immoral. The fact that it will take several days for her to die by this method seems to me to indicate that death is the directly desired outcome, rather than an inevitability that is being squarely faced; if she would die in a matter of hours (as, for instance, she would if she were being kept alive by a respirator), then things would be more clear-cut and discontinuing life support would be an unambiguously acceptable decision under the terms of the Church's teaching.
However, the Church's position does not leave that decision to me, but instead to the parties involved. The idea of extraordinary treatment is not defined in detail, and Ms. Schiavo's husband seems to believe that she would have regarded such treatment as extraordinary or overzealous. As legal guardian, he is "legally entitled to act for the patient." Her parents, who are here pictured in the company of a religious brother, seem to believe that Mr. Schiavo's action essentially amounts to euthanasia, separated from the genuine issue only by the technicality of letting her starve rather than killing her directly. In the Church's teaching, acts of omission are just as culpable as acts of comission, and so they believe that Mr. Schiavo is not within his rights as the legal guardian of his wife. It would seem that these types of situations call for vague language -- that is, it would be perverse to lay out some predetermined set of rules that supposedly take every possible situation into account. This is a situation-by-situation thing, and once the legal representative has been appointed, we have to assume his good faith in executing the expressed will of his wife unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.
Now obviously I am not in agreement with every official position of the Catholic Church, but this seems to me to be a convincing and sufficiently flexible position. I agree with the church that the ending of suffering should not be the determining consideration. While the Church does say, and most people would agree, that "Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible," it at no point makes "normality" the standard by which the value or livability of a life should be determined. In the case of legal, direct euthanasia, the temptation to rid oneself of the burden of caring for persons one finds burdensome or disturbing in some way is simply too great, along with the possibilities for rationalizing such decisions. While I am a sworn enemy of spurious Nazi comparisons, the fact that euthanasia laws were among the first declared by the National Socialist party should give us pause.
Attempts by private individuals or especially by the state to exercise control over the brute givenness of the human body are hugely problematic. I do not embrace the position of the Catholic Church or of any other church body that ascribe to the human person a "sacred worth" that must be "respected," nor do I find it convincing when people argue that we should never "play God." Rather, I take the position that we have the unconditional responsibility to care for everyone who enters into our lives. If one of them happens to be mentally or physically disabled, then they quite simply require more care than others who are not disabled, and we are to give them that care.
The issue is not one of respecting the sacred and unquestionable "dignity of the human person" -- no such dignity exists. I will go so far as to say that we really are nothing but very clever and very fucked-up animals. The issue is one of fulfilling the human vocation of living together with others in a community of mutual care. It is my position that we don't need to be told that that is our vocation and that violations of that vocation -- and only violations of that vocation -- are morally culpable. Insofar as I believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are compatible with living out this vocation (for which I find strong evidence throughout Scripture and Tradition), I accept them. I believe that the teaching on euthanasia is compatible with that vocation, whereas other teachings such as that on homosexuality or birth control do not seem conducive to carrying out that vocation. If that makes me a "cafeteria Catholic" or something other than a faithful Christian, then I accept that.
