
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.”
[…]
Well, my goodness me! I think that I shall take up bank robbery for a living, and will go to Cardinal Marx to have my endeavors blessed before I head out for a heist. And while I’m at it, I’ll go out and commit perjury, but I’ll ask him for a blessing ceremony beforehand. And, y’know, there are some people who really annoy me, so I think I’ll poison or knife or shoot them – but I’ll be sure to get Cardinal Marx to “accompany me as an individual” as I do it.
It is a terrible thing to have evil on the loose in the Church, with corrupt leaders cooperating with it.
It must be exhausting to have to juggle so many “concrete situations” at once.
Perhaps I can hide some of those stabbed, poisoned, and shot annoyances in the concrete.
An internal contradiction of immense proportions. It is not possible to square this circle.
To be led away from Christ in the name of “mercy”.
Why doesn’t Cardinal Marx just convert to Anglicanism?
Dr Maike Hickson German born wife of Dr R Hickson and member of the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family recently interviewed Dr Josef Seifert for 1Peter5 on his firing in Spain. Seifert cited Prof Gerhard Hover’s repudiation of intrinsic evil [Time is greater than space], the phi theological basis of Pope Francis’ New Paradigm, and basis for Cardinal Reinhard Marx’ position on homosexual union. From my Thomistic perspective “concrete circumstances” frequently cited by Pope Francis as moral determinants however mitigating or thought favorable cannot make an evil act good since the object of the act must be ordered to God. The moral law referencing human acts that are inherently evil reflect the divine law, and God who is neither subject to time or change. Evil is in the will of man, due to a willful privation of direction to a due end. If as Gerhard Hover argues time is reduced to the continuous motion of the Aristotelian tradition [form and absence of form which affects human acts] it must be taken as an excessive limitation [coarctata temporis acceptio]. Time Hover says is actually greater than the space by which it is measured. Human acts are of themselves transient in nature inclusive of their intrinsic moral nature. Time in this sense transcends the limitations of space and consequent restrictions like intrinsic evil. This theorem [Hover’s] effectively denies that evil is in contradiction to God. Evil must then exist as commensurate to the divine nature as good or evil, but dependent on human measurable time. Then nothing is intrinsically and forever evil to God. Since it is man that determines what is good or evil. That is apotheosis. Instead God unchanging undivided Pure Act and First Principle cannot be subject to moral divisibility that mirrors a Zoroastrian good and evil composite of justice, namely what is evil today is good tomorrow. In God there is no Darkness.
Hi ,
I’ve been a Catholic all my life, that’s almost 59 years.
This Cardinal Marx seems to have stopped being a Catholic AND DEFINATLY A CHRISTIAN, with his heinous attack on our Faith. How can you bless someone who quite clearly is facing an eternal punishment for their sin, and then inviting this perversion into any Christian church.
He should be guiding lost souls to the right path.
He is an insult to everything he is supposed to be, but more importantly what the Catholic faith is supposed to be.
I fear this could be a case of ” birds of a feather. He should get out of our Religion instead of soiling the already bad image Catholism already has with crimes against children.
This person or wanna be do gooder is a complete imbecile, if he finds his job too hard to do he should get out ,and stop damaging 2000 years of Christianity.
Hi Father Peter,
I find your comments very very deep and learned, complicated and difficult to understand.
But to simplify.
God does, many many times through the bible point out what is good and what is evil. This to me is where mankind finds the answers to life’s conundrums, so in ” the rule book” or bible every conceivable sin for mankind is addressed.
Now, if an individual commits certain sins throughout their lives and never seeks forgivenesses and most importantly, never ceases these sins – then their soul is lost for eternity. This may sound very harsh BUT this is Gods law and no matter how hurtful any individual may find this, this is the truth.
Now anyone who tries to alter the word and teachings of God is foolish because the Bible is foolproof, but NOT for the foolish.
To be truly fair to anyone who seeks advice and who genuinely does not know the answers it is best to make them fully aware of the dire eternal consequences of leading a sinful life.
God Bless
Brian.
I’m not sure about these German Marxes whether they be Reinhard or Karl. I’d rather take Groucho and Harpo.
Groucho Marx…. ” Love goes out the door and innuendo”.
Hi ,
I’ve been a Catholic all my life, that’s almost 59 years.
This Cardinal Marx seems to have stopped being a Catholic AND DEFINATLY A CHRISTIAN, with his heinous attack on our Faith. How can you bless someone who quite clearly is facing an eternal punishment for their sin, and then inviting this perversion into any Christian church.
He should be guiding lost souls to the right path.
He is an insult to everything he is supposed to be, but more importantly what the Catholic faith is supposed to be.
I fear this could be a case of ” birds of a feather. He should get out of our Religion instead of soiling the already bad image Catholism already has with crimes against children.
This person or wanna be do gooder is a complete imbecile, if he finds his job too hard to do he should get out ,and stop damaging 2000 years of Christianity.