The summer issue of The New Atlantis is online. As always, very good stuff.
The summer issue of The New Atlantis is online. As always, very good stuff.
The CDF weighs in, confirming - as common sense also tells us - that starving even the very sick and dying is immoral.
It is made clear, secondly, that this ordinary means of sustaining life is to be provided also to those in a "permanent vegetative state," since these are persons with their fundamental human dignity.
When stating that the administration of food and water is morally obligatory in principle, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not exclude the possibility that, in very remote places or in situations of extreme poverty, the artificial provision of food and water may be physically impossible, and then "ad impossibilia nemo tenetur."
However, the obligation to offer the minimal treatments that are available remains in place, as well as that of obtaining, if possible, the means necessary for an adequate support of life. Nor is the possibility excluded that, due to emerging complications, a patient may be unable to assimilate food and liquids, so that their provision becomes altogether useless. Finally, the possibility is not absolutely excluded that, in some rare cases, artificial nourishment and hydration may be excessively burdensome for the patient or may cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.
These exceptional cases, however, take nothing away from the general ethical criterion, according to which the provision of water and food, even by artificial means, always represents a natural means for preserving life, and is not a therapeutic treatment. Its use should therefore be considered ordinary and proportionate, even when the "vegetative state" is prolonged.
As of this posting, Bishop Lynch's apology has not yet been posted on the diocesan website.
P.S. Anybody else creeped out by the faceless people in the banner image on that St. Petersburg diocese webpage?
Hat-tip for both links to Wesley Smith.
Logos, a journal I'm not familiar with, came under my radar recently with two articles on modern day eugeics.
The second book reviewed gives us the perspective of those whom the eugenicists would eliminate - a lawyer severely disabled since birth reflects on the joys she's experienced because she was allowed to live.
Last month, the Pontifical Academy for Life issued a document summarizing the proceedings of the international congress on "The Human Embryo in the Pre-Implantation Phase." For those of you interested on just what the Church teaches about the human embryo, personhood and implantation, the document can be found here, courtesy of Zenit. It is a brief, by no means comprehensive summary of the first stages of the embryo after fertilization and of the ethical consequences.
Zenit has the official Vatican translation of the Holy Father's Address to Pontifical Academy of Life. The Academy's meeting topic was "The Human Embryo in the Preimplantation Phase."
Talk of the Nation hosted a discussion yesterday on the problem of healthcare workers refusing to provide procedures or drugs that violate on moral grounds.
The good guy in the debate, Dr. David Stevens, generally holds his position well against a double-team opposition. His arguments are worth listening to.
One point on which I disagree with him, however, is that I think hospitals and pharmacies have the right to hire people who will carry out the full range of services they wish to provide, just like a Catholic hospital has the right to hire only those who would follow Catholic moral guidelines in delivering health care. When this question came up, he got defensive and took and tried to make it an issue of "choice." Aside from that point, he did a fine job.
Things will only get worse. From Mark Steyn:
That would seem to be in defiance of what we used quaintly to call "the facts of life." But who cares about biology? As Hester Lessard, the eminently eminent law professor at the University of Victoria, has argued, "biological" concepts of parenthood are "an increasingly fictional creation narrative" that "legitimates a heterosexual view of the family." And we wouldn't want that, would we? Which is why earlier this year the Province of Ontario passed Bill 171 abolishing the words "husband," "wife," "widow," "widower," "man" and "woman" from its laws--and not just the words but the very concept of gender.
More:
Think I'm kidding? Compare the suspicion and denigration of genetically modified foods to what's mostly either enthusiasm for or indifference to genetically modified people. Mess with our vegetables, we'll burn down your factory. Mess with us, and we pass you our credit card. And by the time we wonder whether it was all such a smart idea it'll be the clones who have the Platinum Visa cards.
Listen to a "bioethics" debate where the morality of genetic engineering is not questioned until 30 minutes into a 35 minute segment.
This reminds me of a story about two priests I know who went to a "bioethics" lecture. The speaker went on and on about how great genetic engineering would be; "Who wouldn't want a 'designer baby?" she asked the audience.
Well, priest #1 (who for anonymity's sake I will call Father Angel Force) half-spoke/half-shouted out loud to his priest-friend seated three seats away, "Why doesn't anybody want to just do it anymore? I'd think that would be fun!"