If no risk were permissible, we would not drive cars since there is always a risk of an accident. That is, however, not reasonable. We would rather say that one has to drive safely, wear seatbelts, and so on but not refuse to take the risk of driving. This has definite bearing on COVID as we cannot reduce the risk to zero without unacceptable burdens on people and society. I would urge everyone to think about these important distinctions between ordinary and extraordinary care when confronted with end of life decisions.
Some hospice care providers refuse to give assisted nutrition and hydration, and this is generally not acceptable. There could be exceptions, as noted earlier, but the Church has made it very clear that nutrition and hydration, even if medically assisted, is normally ordinary care. It can be very difficult to discern ordinary vs. We help many people determine what choices to make, particularly at the end of life.
Having advice from experts who are not emotionally involved in a very difficult situation can be very beneficial. Many people write to thank us for listening, praying for them, and giving sound ethical advice. The service is available through our website. In addition, while the bad effect is foreseen, as the doctor who withholds extraordinary care knows that the patient will die, this bad effect is not intended.
Thus, the second condition of double effect is fulfilled. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the good effect, the comfort of the patient, occurs in time before the bad effect—the quicker death of the patient. Moreover, in no way is the bad effect, the quicker death of the patient, a cause of the good effect, the comfort of the patient.
Thus, the bad effect, the death of the patient, is neither temporally nor causally prior to the good effect, the comfort of the patient. Therefore, the good effect—the comfort of the patient—is not brought about by using morally evil means. Accordingly, the third condition is fulfilled. This is particularly true when it is considered that while human life has intrinsic value, it is but a preparation for eternal life.
Furthermore, the death of the patient can only be delayed and is inevitable. Accordingly, the death that eventually does occur, albeit sooner that it would have were extraordinary care used, cannot be mitigated delayed without sacrificing the good effect, the comfort of the patient.
Consequently, since the good effect is relatively proportional to the bad effect and since the bad effect is necessary and cannot be mitigated without sacrificing the good effect, the fourth condition of double effect is also satisfied. Therefore, allowing a patient to die by withholding extraordinary care satisfies all four conditions of double effect, rendering that action morally legitimate.
Since euthanasia, including withholding ordinary care, [22] is morally unjustifiable under the principle of double effect, whereas withholding extraordinary care, i. Otherwise, such confusion can lead to the deaths of millions of our brothers and sisters by euthanasia. Therese of Lisieux. He graduated from Hillsdale College with a B. He worked for the Pontifical Council of the Family in Rome, where he advised the Church on pro-life and pro-family issues and advanced Catholic social teaching throughout the world.
Michael is the Managing Editor of the International Center on Law, Life, Faith, and Family, which produces and provides resources on these issues, www.
They wanted her to die in dignity. Their Parish Priest defended their case. The doctors however would not agree as she was not brain dead. The case went to court, which made historical ground when it was decided that the criteria of a social institution in this case the Catholic religion could over-ride scientific thought. She was subsequently removed from life support and allowed to die even though she was not brain dead. At this juncture it is important to note that the definition of the Church, subsequently put through scholarly rigour 2 takes note of two particular and important points.
First, what is to be defined as ordinary or extraordinary has nothing to do with the state-of-the-art medicine used in such cases. Blood transfusion was then considered as quite an extraordinary form of treatment. Today it is very common place. Yet we still note the controversy over Jehovah Witnesses, which to them is an extraordinary measure. What is ordinary for one person, such as having CPR, may be considered extraordinary for another.
In this regard, having an Advance Directive or living will can be very helpful. This brings up the second point — the relatives. The burden of the relatives is considered very important in determining whether treatment is ordinary or extraordinary.
Therefore if the relatives have to go through extraordinary measures, such as selling a house, or extreme psychological distress, as in the Quinlan Case, then the treatment is considered extraordinary.
It is here that cases become controversial, although in reality they should remain confidential. Extraordinary means of preserving life are all medicine, treatments, and operations, which cannot be obtained or used without excessive expense, pain or other inconvenience for the patient or for others, or which, if used, would not offer a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient.
The Quinlan case showed how true to the word this is. Introduction and basic conceptual distinctions II. Central discussion topics III. Legal regulations IV. Modules Authors.
0コメント