Vatican City, Nov 16, 2017 / 03:05 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In a message to medical professionals Thursday, Pope Francis said that when it comes to end-of-life care, treatments should always be based on human dignity and with the patient’s best interests in mind.
He also stressed that the various medical options provided must avoid the temptation either to euthanize a patient or to pursue disproportionate treatments which do not serve the integral good of the person.
When it comes to caring for those at the end of their earthly life, “it could be said that the categorical imperative is to never abandon the sick,” the Pope said Nov. 16.
The anguish of being faced with our human mortality and the difficult decisions we have to make “may tempt us to step back from the patient,” he said, but cautioned that is the stage when we are most called to show love, closeness, and solidarity.
Each person – whether they are a parent, child, sibling, doctor or nurse – must give in their own way, he said, and even though there is not always a guarantee of healing or a cure, “we can and must always care for the living, without ourselves shortening their life, but also without futilely resisting their death.”
In this sense, he pointed to the importance of palliative care, “which is proving most important in our culture, as it opposes what makes death most terrifying and unwelcome – pain and loneliness.”
Pope Francis offered his words in a message sent to participants in the World Medical Association’s Nov. 16-17 European Meeting on End-of-Life Questions, organized in collaboration with the Pontifical Academy for Life.
The Pope said “greater wisdom” is needed today when it comes to end-of-life care, “because of the temptation to insist on treatments that have powerful effects on the body, yet at times do not serve the integral good of the person.”
The increase in the “therapeutic capabilities of medical science” have made it possible to eliminate various diseases, improve health and prolong a person’s life, he said, noting that while these are certainly positive developments, there is now also the danger “to extend life by means that were inconceivable in the past.”
“Surgery and other medical interventions have become ever more effective, but they are not always beneficial: they can sustain, or even replace, failing vital functions, but that is not the same as promoting health.”
Referencing a speech given by Venerable Pius XII to anaesthesiologists and intensive care specialists in 1957, Francis said that “there is no obligation to have recourse in all circumstances to every possible remedy” for an illness, and that in specific cases, “it is permissible to refrain from their use.”
“Consequently, it is morally licit to decide not to adopt therapeutic measures, or to discontinue them, when their use does not meet that ethical and humanistic standard that would later be called ‘due proportion in the use of remedies,’” referencing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia.
The key element of this criterion, according to the CDF, is that it considers “the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources.”
This “makes possible a decision that is morally qualified as withdrawal of ‘overzealous treatment’,” the Pope said.
“Such a decision responsibly acknowledges the limitations of our mortality, once it becomes clear that opposition to it is futile.” He quoted the Catechism in saying that “here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted.”
“This difference of perspective restores humanity to the accompaniment of the dying, while not attempting to justify the suppression of the living,” he said.
“It is clear that not adopting, or else suspending, disproportionate measures, means avoiding overzealous treatment; from an ethical standpoint, it is completely different from euthanasia, which is always wrong, in that the intent of euthanasia is to end life and cause death.”
When it comes to concrete clinical situations, Pope Francis noted that various factors come into play that are not always easy to evaluate, and to determine whether a medical intervention is proportionate or not, “the mechanical application of a general rule is not sufficient.”
“There needs to be a careful discernment of the moral object, the attending circumstances, and the intentions of those involved.”
Francis emphasized that when caring for any given patient, decisions must be made in light of human dignity. “In this process, the patient has the primary role,” he added.
“The patient, first and foremost, has the right, obviously in dialogue with medical professionals, to evaluate a proposed treatment and to judge its actual proportionality in his or her concrete case, and necessarily refusing it if such proportionality is judged lacking. That evaluation is not easy to make in today’s medical context, where the doctor-patient relationship has become increasingly fragmented and medical care involves any number of technological and organizational aspects.
Compounding this difficulty, the Pope said, is the “growing gap” in healthcare opportunities, which he said is due to “the combination of technical and scientific capability and economic interests.”
What this means, then, is that sophisticated and costly treatments are increasingly available to “ever more limited and privileged segments” of the population. This then raises questions regarding sustainable healthcare delivery and “a systemic tendency toward growing inequality in health care.”
This tendency, Francis said, “is clearly visible” on a global level, especially when comparing different continents. However, he noted this is also seen within wealthier countries, where access to healthcare “risks being more dependent on individuals’ economic resources than on their actual need for treatment.”
In this context, as it relates to both clinical practice and medical culture in general, “the supreme commandment of responsible closeness must be kept uppermost in mind,” he said.
Given the complexity of issues surrounding end-of-life care and the moral and ethical questions they raise, the Pope said democratic societies must address them “calmly, seriously and thoughtfully,” in a way open to finding agreeable solutions whenever possible, including on the legal level.
“On the one hand, there is a need to take into account differing world views, ethical convictions and religious affiliations, in a climate of openness and dialogue. On the other hand, the state cannot renounce its duty to protect all those involved, defending the fundamental equality whereby everyone is recognized under law as a human being living with others in society.”
Special attention must be paid to the vulnerable, who need help when it comes to defending their own interests, he said, noting that if this “core of values essential to coexistence” is weakened, then “the possibility of agreeing on that recognition of the other which is the condition for all dialogue and the very life of society will also be lost.”
Healthcare legislation must adopt this “broad vision and a comprehensive view” of what will most effectively promote the common good in each concrete case, he said, and closed by offering his prayer for the discussion.
“I also trust that you will find the most appropriate ways of addressing these delicate issues with a view to the good of all those whom you meet and those with whom you work in your demanding profession.”
[…]
Like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix [inspiration by Francis X Maier article] Card Arborelius has taken the red pill rather than remain in the anesthetized state of his down South compatriots.
Nordic bishops are outspoken in criticizing the trend toward heterodoxy within our Church. Perhaps it’s similar to a newer Church similar to Nigeria’s heroic witness amid murderous Islamists. Although the Lutherans aren’t murderous, at least not in comparison. Liberally aggressive perhaps. Intellectually adrift. Ingmar Bergman’s films reflect the search for meaning. At any rate it’s complex. At least their bishops have something to offer. Would that their spirit enlivens
their compatriots.
The Nordic bishops…sort of peripheral?
Might we hope that all of the new bishops and cardinals of the “periphery” in Africa and Asia will see with non-secularist eyes, unlike much of the West, and exert their evangelical and institutional influence at the Synods and at the next conclave?
As if, rather than “primarily as [yes] facilitators,” they are “sent” (apostello), firstly and truly primarily as successors of the apostles. Sent by the historical and incarnate Jesus Christ–the incongruous, “concrete,” and leavening fact (!) at the center of all ambulatory human history, and more than one pluralist idea among many.
Nordic bishops are reactive to a Lutheran culture, whereas bishops in the West, specifically Europe are products of a dying religious culture influenced by secularist intellectual trends. Our US bishops are in a gradual trend toward the European model nevertheless more reactionary to secularism. Bishops Strickland, Cordileone examples of that reaction.
All bishops are first of all defenders of the faith as successors of the Apostles. This is the battle line perpetrated by this pontificate and challenged by a very few Strickland the standout. Fr Gerald Murray articulated this dynamic on World Over and the apparent rationale for which he’s being prosecuted if not persecuted. This is spiritual life and death matter to be taken with due appreciation. Analogously, we’re, that is, those of us prepared to defend the faith at whatever cost are the thin black line of clergy who stand to fight in the shadow of the Cross [wording inspired by Therese of Lisieux]. Strickland deserves our full support. In terms of honor he requires our support.
You’re correct, there is no periphery at play here, there are men prepared to give the glory of their loyalty to Christ.
As a woman myself, I have no interest in attending a “Mass” conducted by a woman. I have seen such conducted at protestant churches and I find them lacking. Nor could I envision going to confession to one. Why don’t these women stick to the many ministries already open to women? I am tired of hearing about this topic, as are many Catholics. Its also a certainty I would not support it financially.
Well, I left the Catholic Church for many years when I felt a call as a woman toward becoming a deacon, and realized I was denied this on the basis of my genetics. Somehow I missed that entire part of my upbringing as a Catholic, and even into my adulthood when I was struck by, basically, a “born again” episode at age 27 and plunged into study and prayer. Well, my journey from there took me to 2 other female-led churches within the Episcopal Church, in the pain of rejection by my own Church. At first, it was balm, but after 10 years, I realized that the Episcopal Church in general, and our Churches in particular, had been led astray by the emotion of our society instead of sticking with the reality of our Christian faith. I returned to Catholic with much unresolved feelings of betrayal still, but the Body of Christ is what keeps my in the Church and keeps me going. I believe that women have a place as Deacons, and would deeply like to see that emerge for all the roles Deacons can play, but also, because of the way that the other women-led churches have been led astray by emotion and strayed so far as to actively support even abortion, I have to agree, women as priests, therefore with growing power to change our Church, should not happen.
Pauline, for you, the sex of a person seems to figure most prominently in how you practice your religion. So I have a few questions for you.
#1. Does it matter to you at all that the Savior – God incarnate – came among us as a man and not as a woman?
#2. Does it matter to you at all that Jesus Christ did not have a human Father, but a Divine Father and was born of a human mother?
#3. Does it matter to you that the only human person graced by God to be born free of original sin was a woman?
How do these three sexual anomalies/disparities/distinctions figure into your faith as a Catholic? I’d be curious to know what you make of these.
Ordaining women is part of a sure path to shrinking congregations & irrelevance. I returned recently from a trip to the UK & this was the case in each CE church we visited. One cathedral c. 670 AD had exactly three elderly couples attending evening prayer led by a woman clergy member. The church events calendar advertised upcoming Elvis & Abba themed music performances inside the cathedral. Using what should be sacred space for Elvis impersonations might garner a higher attendance than evening prayer but does little for a dwindling church membership.
LJ, I agree completely with all of your points.
To your question of why women don’t stick to ministries open to them, the answer is that the question is not, nor has it ever been, about ministry. It’s all about power, whether perceived or actual. One simply has to listen to any of the arguments in favor of priestesses. All of them involve repetitive use of terms such as “patriarchy”, “hierarchy”, “sexism”, “exclusion” and the like. These are expressions of grievance that refer to power or its lack. These are not the words of those who seek first the salvation of souls or expanded understanding of the splendor of truth (both capitalized and lower case).
What’s critically important to understand is that when the the Church says “no”, She always points at the same time to an exalted “yes”. The key is to find, and to live, the yes. Therein lies the path to eternal life.
I too believe I would be uncomfortable with woman in the role of priests. Mostly, I think because Jesus and the apostles were male. Some would say that was the times, the culture. But yet, the Bible clearly states the role of the husband and a wife in marriage. Priscilla along with her husband Aquila are mentioned as helpers to Paul. She seemed to be an important source of spreading the gospel but she was not a priest. I do get tired of women who insist they are being demeaned, disrespected, etc. if not allowed to be a priest. There are so many ways to participate in the faith.
Well, thanks I guess.
Maybe Cardinal Müller will have one friend. If I recall, that was crucial in middle school
Welcome common sense from Sweden and not for the first time. Who would’ve thought?
Sweden apparently exercised some commonsense during Covid also. At least it seems that way so far.
I never in my right mind thought I’d live to see the day when a bishop from Scandinavia came out as a Defender of the Faith.
(Just in case anyone should be inclined to accuse me of not being aligned with the Catholic Church : “Francis truly IS the Pope.” There, I’ve repeated the required mantra.)
It certainly shouldn’t be a focal point of the discussion. It shouldn’t be any part of the discussion, truth be told.
As a Discalced Carmelite, I am grateful to my Swedish Brother for his clear and charitable presentation of the faith!
I recently posted my own statement on the ordination of women in reply to an article in The Tablet: https://flemingtoncarmel.org/posts/the-place-of-women-in-the-church