Catholic teachings on artificial life support

Pope John Paul II's recent declarations about the moral necessity of feedings tubes for people in a condition such as Terri Schiavo conflicted with everything I had learned about directives concerning artificial life support in the Catholic faith.

I produce below an excerpt from the 2001 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services." My understanding is that the Pope's recent declarations on this subject are not binding for practicing Catholics. Clearly his words conflict with the Council of Bishops and Catholic Hospital Associations views about what can be the burdensome nature of life sustaining technology. How are Catholics reconciling these competing statements? Have you priests addressed these issues in Church?


"Christ's redemption and saving grace embrace the whole person, especially in his or her illness, suffering, and death.35 The Catholic health care ministry faces the reality of death with the confidence of faith. In the face of death—for many, a time when hope seems lost—the Church witnesses to her belief that God has created each person for eternal life.36 . . .

The truth that life is a precious gift from God has profound implications for the question of stewardship over human life. We are not the owners of our lives and, hence, do not have absolute power over life. We have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the glory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome. Suicide and euthanasia are never morally acceptable options.

The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure. Physicians and their patients must evaluate the use of the technology at their disposal. Reflection on the innate dignity of human life in all its dimensions and on the purpose of medical care is indispensable for formulating a true moral judgment about the use of technology to maintain life. The use of life-sustaining technology is judged in light of the Christian meaning of life, suffering, and death. Only in this way are two extremes avoided: on the one hand, an insistence on useless or burdensome technology even when a patient may legitimately wish to forgo it and, on the other hand, the withdrawal of technology with the intention of causing death.37

Some state Catholic conferences, individual bishops, and the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities (formerly an NCCB committee) have addressed the moral issues concerning medically assisted hydration and nutrition. The bishops are guided by the Church's teaching forbidding euthanasia, which is "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated."38 These statements agree that hydration and nutrition are not morally obligatory either when they bring no comfort to a person who is imminently dying or when they cannot be assimilated by a person's body. The USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities' report, in addition, points out the necessary distinctions between questions already resolved by the magisterium and those requiring further reflection, as, for example, the morality of withdrawing medically assisted hydration and nutrition from a person who is in the condition that is recognized by physicians as the "persistent vegetative state" (PVS).39"

http://www.nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.htm#partfive

hospitals and field hospitals. For whom is the Catholic Church speaking?

It's a pronouncement by the Association of American Bishops and of American Catholic Hospitals. You'll need to look into Muslim hospital associations to see what their own directives are. Unless of course you'd prefer the Roman Catholic Church direct all hospitals on the planet. Maybe the Pope should do something about birkas as well.

those affected by our war.

But another question results...are U.S. Catholic Church policies inferior to the world are the independent of the world?

I would have never uttered a word of complaint about the Catholic Church if they had remained independent from politics = if they had stuck to the separation of the church and state that I was raised with.

"U.S. Catholic Church policies inferior to the world are the independent of the world?"

Not quite sure what you mean by inferior, but the short answer is they don't govern the world. The link I provided was only a set of guidelines for Catholic run hospitals in the US. US military hospitals are secular and have policies of their own. Any religious influence in ethics matters likely derives from some denomination of protestantism rather than Catholicism. Protestants far outnumber Catholics in the US, though recent increases in Hispanic immigration are starting to change that. The Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over any aspect of the US military or US government, or any hospital other than those they run themselves.

The Catholic Church has only in recent years entered the political arena through some of it's elements' allegiance with the Christian Right. This is an entirely new phenomenon. Moreover, Catholics have traditionally been Democrats (think of the Irish and Italians). 2004 was the first election in US history in which a majority of Catholics voted Republican. As you might imagine, I was not one of them.
Catholic clergy are prohibited from seeking elected office or holding political positions of any kind, except by special dispensation from Pope John Paul II himself, which evidently has not been given. The Catholic priest on Meet the Press discusses this. The show rebroadcasts on CNBC or MSNBC and even NBC, but in the middle of the night. If you have a VCR, you might want to set it.

Many Catholics are unhappy with some of the Bishops' clear move to the Right. There are also a good number of leftist radicals among Catholic clergy and nuns: Liberation theologians, Oscar Romero, the nuns killed in Central America during the 1980s, my eighth grade teacher. The relationship between Catholics and political activism is far more diverse and complex than that of the Christian Right.
Nobody was more furious than I at the ridiculous statement by the Archbishop of Denver that John Kerry should not receive communion. I'd never heard of such a thing before. Then of course there is the pedophilia matter. That he dared to deny Democratic politicians the Eucharist when the Church covered up years of widespread sexual abuse of children? Don't get me started. :mad:

By the way, I don't think the US military has any hospitals in the Sudan. We're not very popular there. Did you mean Afghanistan?

why there hasn't been more discussion about the Catholic teaching on morally extraordinary medical care. I have taught health care ethics at a Catholic college and used a book by some conservative Catholics. According to this book, there was no problem with removing hydration and nutrition. My understanding about this is that the patient decides what medical treatment is considered morally extraordinary, i.e., excessively burdensome. It has certainly been my understanding as well that the Catholic CHurch doesn't believe that anyone should be forced to undergo medical treatment againt their will, and didn't Terri Schiavo say that she didn't want this kind of extraordinary care? The statements posted about the Schiavo case on the U.S. Bishop's website are pretty disturbing, and poorly thought out, with no mention of the right of Catholics to forego treatment that they deem to be morally extraordinary. One of the statements on the bishop's site said that Schiavo was in a similar condition as Chris Reeves?!?! The Catholic Church is a real disappointment in this spectacle!

and it comes from the US Council of Catholic Bishops. It says that life-sustaining technology can be burdensome and inappropriate. I happened to look this up because I saw a former Congressman and Catholic Priest (I'm sorry I don't recall his name) on Meet the Press today. His statements were in keeping with many of those I've read on DU. He said the Catholic Hospital Association website had statements on the matter, because they had been grappling with the issue for 28 years. The statement above, I believe, is from a different website. I couldn't find one by the Catholic Hospital Association.

My grandmother, a devout Catholic, always told me that artificial life support was not consistent with Catholic teachings, that a Catholic was not required to be hooked up to machines that prolonged life after the soul had already moved on. She believed it was not life at all, that such technologies violated God's will. Since I have only attended Church irregularly, she was always my source for learning about Catholicism--she and the Catholic brothers who were my teachers in high school.

I think there must be a great deal of discussion on these issues that the media does not cover. Your experience teaching medical ethics at a Catholic college must be very interesting. Have you heard the Schiavo matter discussed there?

Office of Media Relations has several current press releases related to the Schiavo case:

"Bishops' Official Thanks Congress And The President For Giving Terri Schiavo A Chance To Live"

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2005/05-067.shtml

and

"In Newsday Op-Ed, Bishops' Official Says Terri Schiavo Deserves Nourishment and Care"

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2005/05-073.shtml

I used the Schiavo story as a case study about a year ago -- this has been going on quite a while, but apparently it is only recently that mass hysteria has become a way of life in America. I can't believe what a spectacle this has become.

This is a larger problem beyond this issue. It is only in recent years that Catholics have become part of the Christian Right (Opus Dei aside).

Do you know the differences between the kind of statements the Pope makes? One is supposed to be a divinely inspired as a result of his communion with God, another is not binding but rather his own views on issues. There are names for these two kinds of rulings, and I forget what they are called. I would guess the Schiavo statement falls into the latter category.

I'm guessing you may not be Catholic yourself. I interviewed for a job at a Catholic college and when I admitted to being a lapsed Catholic, I'm sure that blew my chances. I think they would have preferred Muslims, Jews, or Protestant Evangelicals to fallen Catholics. I suppose I could be wrong on that.