MELBOURNE, Australia, October 5, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Patients designated as in a “persistent vegetative state (PVS)” should be used for medical experiments, according to several top bioethicists, regardless of whether or not prior consent was obtained.
Several articles published in the recent issue of the Journal of Medical debated the potential use of patients with non-responsive brain function for such medical experiments as animal organ transplants—to bypass ethic prohibitions against using a living human being for medical experimentation, some even suggested designating such patients as “dead,” saying their cognitive impairments justified treating them as cadavers.
Dr. John Shea, medical advisor to Campaign Life Coalition, told LifeSiteNews.com it would never be ethically or morally acceptable to use a living human being for medical research without their permission, regardless of their level of cognitive function.
“A person who has PVS is not dead! If you claim to respect the sacredness of human life, you can’t use a human person for medical experimentation—that would be grossly immoral.”
In fact, little is understood about the capacity for awareness and understanding of people suffering from severe cognitive impairment, Dr. Shea said. Documented cases of patients who have unexpectedly “woken up” from a supposedly permanent PVS state have refuted the argument that their condition is irreversible. (See: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06070409.html)
Dr. Steven Curry of the University of Melbourne, who supports experiments using PVS patients, said it would be too difficult to convince the public that PVS patients were “dead”, according to commentary by the bioethics news watch BioEdge on Oct. 3.
Regardless, he said, their bodies should be used for medical research. Repeating a common fallacy of the bioethics debate on PVS, Curry stated that such patients will not recover. “Those who are in a PVS will not ever wake up, they feel no pain or discomfort and have no continuing interest in their own survival…”
While making the argument that PVS patients have no right to mental autonomy since they have no apparent functioning mental capacity, Dr. Curry excused the medical “use” of their bodies by suggesting such patients should be allowed to choose to donate their bodies for the good of science, saying, “…these patients must also have a right to risk that life for the common good.”
As a further basis for his argument, Dr. Curry stated that PVS patients’ inability to bear children and their lack of any capacity for movement justified the “possible confinement” caused by experimentation.
“Also,” he said, “no risk of withdrawal of consent exists.” While stating that obtaining prior agreement to experimentation would be preferable, he pointed out that such agreements would be unlikely, since few people would anticipate living in a “comatose” state for several years.
Dr. Curry would support permitting family members to give permission for a comatose relative to be used for medical experimentation, “with reference to the person’s values and stated preferences.”
Read commentary from the Australasian bioethics newsletter:
http://www.australasianbioethics.org/Newsletters/currentbioe...
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Man Wakes from Two-Year Coma – was Aware and Remembers Everything
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100604.html
New study questions “brain-death” criterion for organ donation
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091502.html
Doubt I can read that. Read Father Elijah and have read to much on WWII to try to read that. Besides, truth is now more nightmarish than fiction.
Terri Schiavo and the growing tolerance of euthanasia
Living the Gospel of Life (n. 23) "Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others. They are committed against those who are weakest and most defenseless, those who are genuinely 'the poorest of the poor'" (n. 5). … All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right -- the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights"
http://www.priestsforlife.org/euthanasia/euthanasiaqanda.htm
Terri Schiavo and the Echoes of Abortion
by Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq.
March 31, 2005 Terri Schiavo died the morning of this writing, after having been refused food and water for two weeks. In the horrific treatment of her -- which Nat Hentoff calls the longest public execution in American history -- we can hear the echoes of the abortion mentality.
First, the question asked repeatedly in press reports is, "What would Terri have wanted?" With no more evidence than the word of her disaffected husband, a Florida judge agreed with his conclusion that she would not want to live this way. The appeals court agreed, saying the question was whether Terri "would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes" or would "wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives."
This type of calculation happens every day when prenatal tests show a possible disability in an unborn child. Our culture has taught women to ask, "would the child want to live this way?" -- and to decide that the compassionate answer is, "no."
A recent "no regrets" article on abortion in Salon.com showed one woman's thinking: "I did not want to raise a genetically compromised child," she wrote. "I did not want my children … compelled to care for their brother after I died. I wanted a genetically perfect baby, and because that was something I could control, I chose to end his life."
This is why disability rights groups have spoken out against selective abortion, and have come out in force in favor of saving Terri Schiavo. They are challenging the notion that a life such as Terri's is meaningless -- or worse, robs others of their freedom. They are fighting the culture-of-death perception that death is better than living with a disability. And they should know.
There is another parallel to abortion. The judge in Florida ordered not only that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be removed, but that no attempts be made to provide her with food or water, even by mouth. Guards standing watch at her hospice room door make sure her parents did not wet her parched lips. In other words, it was not a right to remove medical treatment that was granted, but an order that Terri Schiavo be made to die.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court said the Constitution gives a woman the right "to terminate her pregnancy." But thirty years of court rulings reveal an even more terrible truth about Roe.
In striking down New Jersey's partial-birth abortion ban, for example, federal judge Maryanne Barry said a fetus is not "in the process of being 'born' at the time of its demise" because "[a] woman seeking an abortion is plainly not seeking to give birth." In other words, a child marked for death is something wholly different from a "wanted" child in the same physical location. It's not the end of a pregnancy that is sought or protected by legal abortion, but the right to a dead baby.
Every human life has incalculable worth and meaning, no matter its age or condition. No judge should have the power to order the death of a weak and helpless human being -- in or out of the womb.
May the soul of Terri Schiavo rest in peace.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/lifeissues/033105.htm
Reflections on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (excerpted)
-- Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life
1. Do we have a "right to die?"
When people ask me about the "right to die," I respond, "Don't worry -- you won't miss out on it!"
A right is a moral claim. We do not have a claim on death; rather, death has a claim on us! Some see the "right to die" as parallel to the "right to life." In fact, however, they are opposite. The "right to life" is based on the fact that life is a gift that we do not possess as a piece of property (which we can purchase or sell or give away or destroy at will), but rather is an inviolable right. It cannot be taken away by another or by the person him/herself. The "right to die" is based, rather, on the idea of life as a "thing we possess" and may discard when it no longer meets our satisfaction. The "Right to die" philosophy says there is such a thing as a "life not worth living." For a Christian, however, life is worthy in and of itself, and not because it meets certain criteria that others or we might set.
2. What is "euthanasia?"
"Euthanasia," from the Greek words meaning "good death," is something we do or fail to do which causes, or is intended to cause, death, in order to remove a person from suffering. This is sometimes called "mercy killing."
3. What is "assisted suicide?"
This refers to an act by which one assists another in taking his or her own life. A physician, for example, who engages in "assisted suicide" would, upon the patient's request, provide the deadly drugs for the person to use.
4. What is the difference between "active" and "passive" euthanasia?
"Active" euthanasia refers to an action one takes to end a life, for example, a lethal injection. "Passive" euthanasia refers to an omission -- such as failing to intervene at a life-threatening crisis, or failing to provide nourishment.
It is important not to confuse "passive euthanasia" with the morally legitimate decision to withhold medical treatment that is not morally necessary. (The question of what is or is not morally necessary is handled below.) When we forego a treatment that we are not required to use, then even if death comes faster as a result, that withholding is not euthanasia in any form and should not be called by the name.
5. What kind of treatments and interventions, then, are morally obligatory, and which are not?
No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put that person to death. Rather, we have a duty to care for and preserve life. But to what length are we required to go to preserve life? No religion or state holds that we are obliged to use every possible means to prolong life. The means we use have traditionally been classified as either "ordinary" or "extraordinary."
"Ordinary" means must always be used. This is any treatment or procedure which provides some benefit to the patient without excessive burden or hardship.
"Extraordinary" means are optional. These are measures which do present an excessive burden.
The distinction here is not between "artificial" and "natural." Many artificial treatments will be "ordinary" means in the moral sense, as long as they provide some benefit without excessive burden. It depends, of course, on the specific case in point, with all its medical details. We cannot figure out ahead of time, in other words, whether or not we ourselves or a relative want some specific treatment to be used on us "when the time comes," because we do not know in advance what our medical situation will be at that time or what treatments will be available. When the time does come, however, we must consult on the medical and moral aspects of the situation. Remember, procedures providing benefit without unreasonable hardship are obligatory; others are not. You should consult your clergyman when the situations arise.
6. Shouldn't a person be able to say that his or her pain and suffering is too much to bear, and have the right to be free of that suffering?
Our duties toward others and ourselves certainly require reasonable efforts to alleviate suffering. At the same time, it is impossible to live without suffering, and therefore it makes no sense to talk about a "right" to be completely free of it. The pro-euthanasia movement maintains that our rights include determining the time and manner of our own death. First of all, given the fact that people die unexpectedly every day of both natural and accidental causes, this philosophy is patently absurd. If, however, one simply considers the so-called right to choose death when suffering is too great, then we have to ask the question of what kind of suffering qualifies.
7. What about people who are unable to communicate?
What about them? That, indeed, is the question for the pro-euthanasia forces. People who cannot communicate are people, nevertheless. This gets to the heart of the problem. A person's inability to function does not make their lives less valuable. People do not become "vegetables." Children of God never lose the Divine image in which they were made.
A key distinction that needs to be made here is between a patient who is dying and one who is not.
When one is dying, we try with all reasonable means to sustain life, and as we have noted already, some interventions are necessary and some are not. But when one is not dying, then there isn't even a question of what "treatments" to provide. There is such a thing as a useless treatment, but there is no such thing as a useless life. This is where the confusion arises. A person who cannot walk, or cannot communicate, or is not conscious (as far as we can tell), still has a right to life and to reasonable measures to sustain life.
8. Must we always provide food and fluids to a patient?
When we come back from lunch, we do not say that we just had "our latest medical treatment." Food and drink are a normal aspect of taking care of life and health, not an extraordinary intervention. As aspects of normal care, therefore, they are morally obligatory.
In the case of a person who is not dying but whose physical or mental functioning is impaired, the question often arises as to whether we should "keep them alive" by feeding them. But there is no more of a doubt about keeping that person alive than about keeping alive anyone else who is not impaired! There is no underlying cause of death in this case. To fail to feed such a person is to introduce a new cause of death, namely, starvation. This is what the current case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo in Florida is about.
In the case of somebody who is dying, food and fluids are to be provided as well. There may come a point when death is imminent and when the body no longer assimilates what it is given, despite various efforts to feed the person by alternate means. At that stage, of course, it is normal to accept the inevitability of the person's death.
9. What are some of the common myths supporting euthanasia and assisted suicide?
a. It is a myth that most terminally ill people seek suicide. "According to available data, only a small percentage of terminally ill or severely ill patients attempt or commit suicide." (p.9)
b. It is a myth that single events cause people to end their lives. "Contrary to popular opinion, suicide is not usually a reaction to an acute problem or crisis in one’s life or even to a terminal illness… Instead, certain personal characteristics are associated with a higher risk of…suicide." (p.11)
c. It is a myth that requests for suicide represent a person’s true desires. "Like other suicidal individuals, patients who desire suicide or an early death during a terminal illness are usually suffering from a treatable mental illness, most commonly depression." (p.13)
d. It is a myth that terminal illness has to involve unmanageable pain. "Taken together, modern pain relief techniques can alleviate pain in all but extremely rare cases." (p.40)
(Quotes are from a May 1994 study by the New York State Task Force on Life and Law entitled,
When Death is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context.)
10. How does "voluntary" euthanasia lead to non-voluntary" euthanasia?
"Right to die" proponents couch their arguments in terms of personal freedom and voluntary choice. But in fact, as soon as you say that people have a "right" to end their lives (voluntary euthanasia), you have automatically and immediately introduced non-voluntary euthanasia, that is, killing people without their having asked for it. The reason is simple: A person should not be deprived of a "right" simply because they are not able to ask for it. This is especially easy to understand when the "right" is freedom from suffering. Why should someone suffer just because he cannot vocalize his desire to die?
This also leads to involuntary euthanasia, the killing of people although they want to live. The reasoning that leads to this conclusion is that the patient is not in a position to properly evaluate what is best for him/her in the circumstances -- so we will step in and do what is best.
17. What are some questions I should ask candidates regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide?
This issue, first of all, should be raised with candidates at all levels of government. Many of these battles are taking place at the state level.
Candidates should be asked questions like the following:
Do you believe that government should protect the lives of the sick, the dying, or the physically or mentally impaired, without judging the worth of those lives?
Do you believe that the state has the right to allow suicide, or the administration of lethal drugs?
Do you think that federally controlled drugs should be allowed for use in assisting a suicide?
Do you think that health care needs to be "rationed," or do you acknowledge that we have both the means and the duty to give all reasonable health care to citizens, without judging the merit of their lives based on their ability to function?
http://www.priestsforlife.org/euthanasia/euthanasiaqanda.htm
Internet Resources:
http://www.terrisfight.org/http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/http://www.ncbcenter.org/http://www.priestsforlife.org
Catechism of the Catholic Church on euthanasia
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.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#2277
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.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#2278
