Monday, May 27, 2019

The Morality Of Modern Medicine


 It seems like an eternity ago, yet I remember it like it was yesterday. My mother had been diagnosed with stage four cancer and was given about three months to live. My father had died from cancer nearly fifteen years earlier, and all those horrible memories came back vividly. I knew this would be rough because my mother had been sickly most of her life. Those illnesses, compounded by her advanced age, didn't leave her much strength to fight that most evil and dreadful cancer. She began declining rapidly. Soon, she was in the hospital unable to eat by mouth, and needed a peg placed in her stomach, and an IV in her arm so that nutrition and hydration could continue. The end couldn't be that far off, and I made sure before she lost her mental faculties, a Traditionalist priest gave her the Last Rites of Holy Mother Church.

 I had just come from seeing my mom, when her attending physician (whom I'll call "Dr. B"), saw me in the hallway of the hospital and asked if he could have a word with me in his office. "Your mother will not live much longer," he said. "I can see that, " I replied. "Many things she needs are not covered by Medicare. It's costing you lots of cash." "So what? She's my mother," was my firm response. He looked at me, quite matter-of-fact, and said, "Her quality of life is non-existent. Why don't you just sign a release as her Health Care Proxy, allowing us to remove her feeding and hydration tubes." I couldn't believe what I had just heard. I could feel the rage building inside me. "I wouldn't starve a dog or a cat, and you're asking me to starve and dehydrate my mother?" "Don't be upset," he continued. "It will only take a few days, and it doesn't cause any pain. It's less expensive than hospice." My blood pressure must have been so high at that point, it would be off the scale. I had to suppress the urge to reach across the desk, grab him by the lapels, drag him across the room, and send him head first out the window.

"Human beings are made in the image of God. You don't simply discard them, and you certainly don't starve them to death," I said with my voice trembling in anger. Dr. B didn't know when to stop. "Look, it doesn't hurt. I don't know how they know this, but the medical researchers know this to be true." I had enough. "You don't know how they know. Yeah, that makes sense. I'll make a deal with you. Since you claim it doesn't hurt, I'll lock you up in a room with nothing to eat or drink for a week. If you come out and tell me it didn't hurt, I'll let you do the same to my mother." "You don't understand," protested Dr. B. "No, you don't understand, " my raised voice cutting him off. "As far as I'm concerned, the only place you're qualified to practice medicine is Nazi Germany. You are no longer my mother's doctor. You are not allowed to see her or attend to her in any way, effective immediately. If you even think of going near her, I'm going to sue both the hospital and you. I'll make it my life's work to see to it that you never practice medicine again. Am I clear?" I was now shouting. He shook his head "yes" and I abruptly left.

I immediately went to hospital administration, to let my decisions be known. On the way there, I saw a doctor I had helped with a legal issue a couple of years back. He recognized me, and saw how upset I looked. "Tell them to put your mother under my care," he said. "I promise to treat her as my own mother." I knew "Mike" (not his real name) to be an ethical and kind physician, so I immediately felt better. I also decided to get my mother out of the hospital as soon as possible. Even with Mike taking care of her, just the thought of Dr. B being in the same building made me uneasy. I was going to ask for about a month off work to let my mother die at my home where I could personally care for her. With all the paperwork signed the following Friday, I was all set to have her transported to my house on Monday. I would request the time off Saturday morning. When I awoke, I received a phone call making it all moot. My mom had just passed away from a massive coronary.

All of us will (unfortunately) have to deal--to one degree or another-- with such life and death issues involving medical care for both the people we love, as well as ourselves. What's scary is not having a pope to decide certain issues. While Catholic principles don't change, the circumstances surrounding them do. Without someone to make authoritatively binding decisions, how can we be sure those principles were correctly applied? In 2005 we had the unfortunate situation of having some Traditionalist clergy defend the murder of Terri Schiavo by her adulterous husband. The Schiavo case demonstrates the need to examine the issue of modern medicine in the light of timelessly true principles of the Faith, so that we are prepared to make well-formed moral choices when needed. This post will examine the general principles and guidelines of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians, and some practical guidelines to which I adhere. I'm not a theologian or a canonist, and I have no Magisterial authority. It is not my intent to "bind" anyone (I can't), but at least you can be better informed and seek the counsel of a Traditionalist clergyman you trust.


Where The Problem Lies

 There are two fundamental principles upon which we have the unanimous consent of the theologians: (1) The refusal of everyday means of sustaining life, such as nutrition, hydration, and rest may never be denied to a sick or terminally ill person because it is a self-destruction which clearly violates the Divine dominion over human life; (2) Humans are not expected to sustain life at all costs, which would be extraordinary. The fate of death since the Fall is also part of nature. These two points are clear. Their application is much less so. The "ordinary vs. extraordinary" dichotomy (or "natural vs. unnatural") will yield different results with  the chronological development of medicine. What was considered "ordinary means" in 1600 AD will be much different from 1955 AD, and 1955 will differ significantly from 2019. 

Having several blood transfusions was impossible in 1600, extraordinary in 1955, but looked upon by physicians in 2019 as not being "extraordinary" any longer. Much of what the great theologians wrote before the Great Apostasy never envisioned the world in which we live, both in terms of not having a pope for an extended period of time to settle specific questions, and the enormity of medical advancement in a relatively short span of time. Medical practice has advanced more in the last 70 years (1949-2019) than in the prior 700 years (literally).

Certain terms have become abused because they are understood less on an intellectual level than on an emotional level. This is in no small measure because of the Modernist heresy that the world has been infected with for over fifty years now. The term "extraordinary means" is subject to no small amount of abuse. Keeping my mother alive with food and water was considered by her (immoral, unethical) doctor to be "extraordinary" because of her age, her other medical conditions, the expense of her treatments, and "quality of life." The crux of the argument seems to be that the surrounding circumstances can justify starvation and dehydration. Imagine if a State were to propose starving and dehydrating a convicted first-degree murderer as a means of execution. The ACLU and every left-wing organization would file a lawsuit claiming that it contravenes the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Yet these same godless humanists see nothing wrong doing it as "an act of mercy" on an innocent elderly woman like my mother.

There are some acts that are always wrong no matter what the surrounding circumstances. In the aftermath of Vatican II, there was a movement by apostate theologians which attempted to discredit any idea of an intrinsically evil moral object and sought to determine the morality of an action only by a simultaneous consideration of the motive of the act and the other circumstances. The Jesuit theologian Fr. Joseph Fuchs was one of the leaders of this movement. Once an approved theologian, he became a raging Modernist, especially after the publication of Montini's Humanae Vitae in 1968. Fuchs erroneously taught that no act could be considered intrinsically evil (malum per se---"evil in itself"). As a result of this teaching, all moral actions that are branded evil, such as theft, adultery, and even murder, may admit of exceptions, given some special set of circumstance and intention.

In 1977, a group of Modernist theologians put out a book published by Paulist Press called Human Sexuality. In the pages of this tome you will find a defense of fornication, adultery, contraception, and homosexuality as morally acceptable if done for the "proper" motives and under "sufficiently fulfilling" circumstances. The Episcopalian "priest" and philosopher, Joseph Fletcher, became the "Father of Situation Ethics" around the same time. Fletcher would allow the direct killing (i.e., murder) of a terminal patient for such reasons as saving money, alleviating family anxiety, and to "put [the patient] out of his misery." Fletcher and the Modernists make murder, one of the Four Sins that Scream to Heaven for Vengeance, a pretty excusable act.

As a result of such a Modernist onslaught, it is now commonplace to hear such emotional appeals for killing someone in the form of such statements as, "How would you feel if you had tubes hooked up to you and couldn't move?" Such statements carry with them two poisonous presuppositions: (1) life, as such, has no intrinsic value, and (2) there is no good purpose in suffering. If you don't think the second presupposition is purely pagan, repeat it while looking at the Crucifix.

The Teaching of the Church
According to theologian Jone, "For the preservation of life and health, one must employ at least ordinary means. Ordinary means are: proper food, clothing, housing, and physical recreation; likewise medicinal remedies which are not beyond the means of the sick person...Employing extraordinary means of preserving one's life is generally not obligatory." (See Moral Theology, The Newman Press, [1962], pgs. 135-136). 

According to theologian Connell, "A person is obliged to to use ordinary means to preserve his life, but not extraordinary means, such as a very expensive operation, the procuring of an 'iron lung' for permanent need, or the continued and frequent use of blood transfusions." (See Outlines of Moral Theology, [1958], pg. 124; Emphasis mine)

Notice that the terms are not very concrete. What, exactly, constitutes "very expensive"? Is it an absolute dollar amount, or relative to the person's wealth? If the latter, what percentage of money is considered "very expensive"--15% of their money, etc.? What does "continued and frequent" mean? Once a year for life? Four times a year for the foreseeable future? When Jone and Connell wrote (1962 and 1958, respectively), blood transfusions were much more risky and the need for them has abated in many cases due to developments in medicine.

The theologians had developed their principles as time progressed. For example, compare these passages from theologian Noldin in 1922, and then his work as revised by theologian Schmitt nineteen years later in 1941:

Noldin, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 14th Ed. 1922, vol. 2, no. 326: "There is no obligation to undergo a serious surgical operation, or a notable amputation: even though today the pains of many operations are not acute, due to anesthetics, nevertheless, the obligation is not to be imposed, both because many have a great horror of it, and because the success, especially the lasting success, ordinarily is uncertain, and finally, because it is a grave inconvenience to live with a mutilated body."

Noldin-Schmitt, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 27th Ed. 1941, vol. II, no. 328: "Today the suffering is vastly decreased through narcotics, the danger of infection is very remote, and moreover success is more frequent and assured, and even for amputated members, there are artificial limbs--and therefore, at least where certain danger of death would very probably be avoided through an operation, it does not seem that it can be called an extraordinary means, unless there is a great horror of it."

There was a major re-evaluation due to the progress of medicine. The 1941 edition still had its problems: what constitutes a "great horror"? Also, I think had the Great Apostasy not happened, even that would have changed as we now understand that mental imbalance can frequently accompany serious illness, therefore "great horror" (in my opinion) would have been dropped from the text. 

What are the certain principles? 
1. Ordinary means to preserve life must always be used. It seems best defined as those things associated with the basics of life (food, water, rest, clothing, etc.) and what modern medicine can provide. There is never a good reason to starve someone to death. Even in "brain death" or a PVS ("persistent vegetative state"), we cannot know if the person is capable of suffering--suffering we wouldn't want an animal to endure, let alone a human being. 

2. Most of the now commonly available techniques of modern surgery, medicines, and other medicinal practices/devices should be classified as ordinary means of preserving life. 

3. Extraordinary means of preserving life need not be used. Those would seem to include experimental surgery, untested or unproven medicines and the like which cannot be used without prolonged suffering, devastating financial consequences, and offer no substantial chance of recovery.

We must be very careful in what we consider "extraordinary means" of preserving life. In the medical profession, there is the ideal which demands fighting off pain and death until the last possible moment. There is much to be said for that attitude. Many of the great advances in modern medicine, as well as perfection in surgical skill and technique, have been due to what might have frequently been called a "useless prolongation of life/suffering." Modern surgery is only considered an ordinary means of preserving life because of its extensive use in those stages of its development when it was considered an extraordinary means. We must not be too ready to lower that medical ideal, and slow medical progress in the immediate interest of a present case. The future betterment of humanity is also served by attempting "extraordinary means."

Conclusion
I submit all I write to the decisions of Holy Mother Church if and when the papacy is restored. Until such time, I believe that what I've written is a good guideline for end of life decisions. Please make sure you have a Health Care Proxy. This post is not meant to be morbid. It's just a realistic look at the bridge we must someday cross--be it for ourselves, or someone else. Most importantly, keep yourself spiritually healthy.

 "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." (Sirach 7:40). 




35 comments:

  1. THank you Introibo. My parents are in their mid 70s, and I am nervous about this whole thing. Actually, I'm much more concerned that they persist to go to the NO, and a very liberal NO parish. Thinking back, I wonder what happened to my Gramma, who I think was in "Hospice". Does hospice starve people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Unknown,
      As a general rule they don’t. However, there are some unscrupulous people who may work in one. You must make certain that your wishes are known, and you expect them to be carried out to the letter of the law. Then visit often (yourself and other relatives/friends) to check up on them.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Thank you Introibo,

    I'm sorry to hear about your experience with that doctor who wanted you to just say the heck with your mother towards her end. Totally cold hearted of him. I find it ironic that you just happen to write about this when I've been going through a marathon with keeping my kids healthy due to a virus they all recently received at the same time. One of them was getting so dehydrated that we had to take her to ER. Thankfully, in 2019 it is relatively easy and quick to get somebody hydrated with the use of IV fluids (something they couldn't do 100 years ago). So good timing for writing this article. It was like what the doctor ordered in a sense (no pun intended) for me to read. On a spiritual level I hope more and more people in the Novus Ordo take a serious look at the salvation of their soul by withdrawing the feeding tube (their membership with the Novus ordo) and peacefully die to themselves by entering the state of Catholicism. That really won't hurt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you my friend for the kind words. Life is cheap with abortion and euthanasia running rampant. Compound that with the secular humanist view that we are nothing special and it’s no wonder people are seen as disposable.

      I’m glad your child was hydrated and is better. Another testimony to the improvement in medical care and treatments.

      As to the Vatican II sect, I couldn’t agree more! “Pull the plug” on the entire organization!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. God bless you, you are a good Catholic son. May both of your parents Rest In Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Such a good article! And I am so sorry to hear of what you went through during your mother's ordeal.

    Some years ago when my otherwise very healthy Father-in-law was admitted to hospice due to dementia, a provision was already in place in his living will to refuse any feeding tubes or hydration if he could not self feed or be spoonfed by another person. The place was, in just about all respects, a fine facility, and though I wont belabor the details about the short time he spent there, watching him die over the course of 2 days of food and water removal while he was given morphine was agony for me, but everyone's hands seemed to be tied; I couldnt imagine there was enough morphine in the world to ease his pain at the end.
    At one point I asked the nurse if he couldn't have some ice dabbed on his his cracked lips.
    She said no, the reason given was he could choke!
    The absurdity of that statement I will never get over.
    Because of that experience, I think you were very wise and gutsy in taking your stand.
    Personally, I would caution anyone going into a health care facility for anything at all, about signing "polst" (or "most" or "molst") forms, too.

    Thank you, Introibo for this article. This topic absolutely needs wider discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      I’m so sorry for what your poor father went through—and you as well. He is at peace now. Let your experience serve as another reason never to allow feeding and nutrition removed. I have it specifically written in my Health Care Proxy. I advise all to do the same.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Introibo, Thankfully you escaped evil "Dr. Death". Also, I am astounded by the number of people, especially in the V2 Sect, that are having cremations. There is nothing of the sacred left anymore thanks to the Vatican II Sect and their fake "Popes". I don't understand why the majority of people go along with all these desecrations of the human body? Even before I found Tradition, I didn't agree with any of them.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      With the sense of the sacred gone, what’s special about the human body? Society is a victim of Vatican II.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,

      I don't know if I agree that "society is a victim". So far, people have a choice to make regarding these desecrations of the human body. They don't have to go along or agree with them. A victim is one who is powerless and doesn't have a choice.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      True. I use the phrase “Victim of Vatican II” as meaning that with sound doctrine, true morals, and the means Of sacramental grace removed, people will tend to move away from God.

      Pope St Pius X said, “The shortest and surest way to Heaven is Holy Communion.” This is because of the graces imparted. With the Mass replaced by a Novus Bogus bread and wine service, the Eucharist is a rare Treasure. Does that mean we can’t get to Heaven without the Eucharist? No, but it sure makes it harder, especially those without access to a Traditionalist Church or Chapel.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. The Novus Ordo has a completely different view of death as opposed to traditional Catholicism.
    Hence
    "The Mass of Christian Burial" where the body is no longer blessed
    and completely different from a
    Requiem Mass plus
    "Anointing of the sick" where the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost are no longer mentioned.
    Sorry for your loss Introibo.
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Andrew. Your assessment of the V2 sect is right on.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I don't want to be redundant, however, what I am trying to understand is why people in the NO, particularly those that lived through the Vatican II changes, are in agreement with assisted suicide, cremation, etc?

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      There are many factors. Some, not knowing the Faith, simply went along with the changes (if the pope says so...). Others were Modernists themselves. They hated the Church and were “cultural Catholics.” They liked what was done. Still others were just plain evil. I certainly don’t claim to have the answer on this one! It happened; but the causes are manifold.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. And some Trad parishes re cremation. See Sacred Heart in Orlando.

      Delete
  7. Introibo, thank you for this info.
    A related matter is that of one's funeral and burial wishes. If a traditionalist puts these in writing and gives them to a family member or a member of his or her parish, is this legally binding? Sometimes the deceased is the only traditionalist in the family, and his wishes may not be respected.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Barbara,
    In NYS there is a special legal instrument that gives burial and funeral instructions that must be followed as written. In NY call any lawyer who deals in Wills, Trusts and Estates. It should not cost more than $500, and well worth it. NY Public Health Law 4201 allows you to appoint an agent to oversee your final wishes, regardless of other family relationships. This agent will have first priority over next-of-kin and should be someone you trust to follow your wishes. Being an agent does not, however, obligate the agent to pay for the funeral services.

    If you live outside New York, please consult an attorney in your state for guidance.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you very much. This is something I wish more traditionalists and their priests knew, and I will spread the word when appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. An extended relative of mine recently passed away. She had multiple organs failing, so they decided that keeping them all working with machinery was extraordinary means. I think I agree in that case. In any event, the poor lady's body was cremated. If it's not one thing, it's the other, I guess...

    Thanks for fighting the good fight of spreading this information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In your relative’s case, it does seem extraordinary. It’s sad about the cremation.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. The Hippocratic Oath was written in 5th century B.C. The Oath stated "Neither will I administer a posion to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. I will not give a woman a pessary to cause abortion".

    The Oath has been modified and modernized throughout the centuries. As of 1993, only 14 percent of Oaths prohibit euthanasia and only 8 percent prohibit abortion.

    The Oath has been so changed and watered down as to be almost unrecognizable. Some physicians aren't even taking the Oath anymore and some are devising their own Oaths. There is hardly any ethics left in the medical professional, and it is very scary!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Yes. While there are still many moral physicians, the ethics being taught now are pagan—actually worse than pagan because the pagan Greeks were more moral. In the next twenty years the majority of doctors will only care about money and will see life as disposable. Scary indeed!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I have maintained for years that one of the reasons for the decline of professionalism and ethics in the medical professional was due to advertising which began in the 1970's. Medicine became a commodity. Also, professionalism dwindled among the lawyers who began advertising in the 1970's as well. Advertising has become so prevalent among doctors and lawyers that it is a rarity not to turn on the TV or radio and not be accosted by such ads. Also, since advertising is so expensive, it must be a driving force to increase health care costs, as well as driving down professionalism and ethical standards. Just my 2 cents.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
      pmc/articles/PMC2563279/

      Delete
    3. @Joann,
      Great observation! I agree.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. So tomorrow is going to be another article in the SFS series. I'm hate to guess the same band over and over again, but I'm gonna say LED Zeplin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon8:17
      So close! The series is ending in August, and Led Zeppelin will be one of the last posts—but not tomorrow!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Ok. Bon Jovi?

      Delete
  13. Awesome article.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You may quote my posts as long as proper attribution to my blog is given with a link.

    God Bless,

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
  15. Can you illustrate the Catholic teaching on universal health care?

    ReplyDelete