Ha ha. Archbishop Sheen said he was also the patron saint of social justice, a reference to the woman who poured the expensive ointment on Christ's feet.
One of the problems surrounding the assisted suicide debate is that it is a complicated issue and what is licit and what is not is not straightforward. If you read the interview with Bishop Tutu he seems to be concerned with futile and burdensome prolongation of life by artificial means. To refuse or withhold medical treatment where it is unduly burdensome and gives no prospect for a reasonable recovery is perfectly legitimate. The jump to assisted suicide, where there is deliberate intervention with the intention of causing death, that the Bishop then makes is quite unwarranted.
There is no moral relationship between the Catholic, natural law teaching and these intrinsically evil policies/laws. None. To confuse these different things is evil, and a tactic to get evil laws supported and passed.
Interesting, Nicholas. As a nurse and a Catholic, I have no problem withholding extraordinary treatment when the prognosis is bleak. Making the decision to not allow the doctors to perform a tracheostomy on my father who was suffering from dementia was the right one. He slipped into a coma and died wearing a scapular surrounded by family 3 days later. The trach. would have bought him a year at best---but a year of suffering in a nursing home.
I'm now reading that Tutu is endorsing Falconer 's stance. At first some thought his words were a response to over the top medical treatment of Mandela in his last days. But Tutu seems to now be in line with Falconer's approach to assisted suicide.
'Anonymous' comments will not be displayed. Please use your name or a pseudonym. If you wish to comment then I ask that you maintain a measure of good will. If you are unable to do so, then please go elsewhere.
Ha ha. Archbishop Sheen said he was also the patron saint of social justice, a reference to the woman who poured the expensive ointment on Christ's feet.
ReplyDeleteSeattle K
One of the problems surrounding the assisted suicide debate is that it is a complicated issue and what is licit and what is not is not straightforward. If you read the interview with Bishop Tutu he seems to be concerned with futile and burdensome prolongation of life by artificial means. To refuse or withhold medical treatment where it is unduly burdensome and gives no prospect for a reasonable recovery is perfectly legitimate. The jump to assisted suicide, where there is deliberate intervention with the intention of causing death, that the Bishop then makes is quite unwarranted.
ReplyDeleteThere is no moral relationship between the Catholic, natural law teaching and these intrinsically evil policies/laws. None. To confuse these different things is evil, and a tactic to get evil laws supported and passed.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, Nicholas. As a nurse and a Catholic, I have no problem withholding extraordinary treatment when the prognosis is bleak. Making the decision to not allow the doctors to perform a tracheostomy on my father who was suffering from dementia was the right one. He slipped into a coma and died wearing a scapular surrounded by family 3 days later. The trach. would have bought him a year at best---but a year of suffering in a nursing home.
ReplyDeleteSeattle K
But just to clarify the above situation, I did make sure my father was receiving food and hydration through a feeding tube.
ReplyDeleteSeattle K
I'm now reading that Tutu is endorsing Falconer 's stance. At first some thought his words were a response to over the top medical treatment of Mandela in his last days. But Tutu seems to now be in line with Falconer's approach to assisted suicide.
ReplyDelete