Tuesday, March 22, 2005
More digital ink spilled...
I've been hesitant to weigh in on the Schiavo business, because I think I may be on the wrong side. All the people I am supposed to respect are on the other side, but here is my best effort to make sense of what is going on.
First, the Catholic position cannot be that the resolution of this situation depends on what the unfortunate woman would have wanted. I have seen no one make any argument -- let alone a convincing one -- that Catholic principles dictate who is the best representative of the woman's wishes in this situation: husband or parents. (After all, we don't believe in divorce.)
If it has any merit, the Catholic position must be that it doesn't matter what the woman would have wanted. The position would be that no one may permissibly choose to ignore this kind of medical care. The position would be: (1) in these circumstances refusing water and nutrition would amount to suicide; (2) suicide is a bad thing that should be prevented; (3) therefore continue water and nutrients.
If that is the position, is it really the Catholic one? Bishop Sgrecia says "yes," but I have my doubts. I do not at all see that the care that was being given the woman is of the ordinary sort that cannot be refused. Catholic positions on suicide are far more refined than Bishop Sgrecia admits (at least, than the article relates he admits). There are reams of print on the various desires that are permissible and impermissible for a Catholic. A Catholic can desire an end to pain; he can't desire death as such; he might desire a painkiller that increases the chances of death; he may not choose to step in front of a bus to end his pain; ad infinitum.
Again, I am hesitant on this point. But much as is the case with (1) the death penalty and (2) the President's position on stem cells, I cannot help but worry that the Catholic opposition is not founded on a rock-solid foundation in this case. Combine this with a worry that the Church spokesmen who have weighed in have had inadequate education (the last adequate Catholic training having taken place in the 1930s in the Toulouse province of the Dominican order), I am very, very worried. Worried to the point of not having time to worry about the poor woman.
First, the Catholic position cannot be that the resolution of this situation depends on what the unfortunate woman would have wanted. I have seen no one make any argument -- let alone a convincing one -- that Catholic principles dictate who is the best representative of the woman's wishes in this situation: husband or parents. (After all, we don't believe in divorce.)
If it has any merit, the Catholic position must be that it doesn't matter what the woman would have wanted. The position would be that no one may permissibly choose to ignore this kind of medical care. The position would be: (1) in these circumstances refusing water and nutrition would amount to suicide; (2) suicide is a bad thing that should be prevented; (3) therefore continue water and nutrients.
If that is the position, is it really the Catholic one? Bishop Sgrecia says "yes," but I have my doubts. I do not at all see that the care that was being given the woman is of the ordinary sort that cannot be refused. Catholic positions on suicide are far more refined than Bishop Sgrecia admits (at least, than the article relates he admits). There are reams of print on the various desires that are permissible and impermissible for a Catholic. A Catholic can desire an end to pain; he can't desire death as such; he might desire a painkiller that increases the chances of death; he may not choose to step in front of a bus to end his pain; ad infinitum.
Again, I am hesitant on this point. But much as is the case with (1) the death penalty and (2) the President's position on stem cells, I cannot help but worry that the Catholic opposition is not founded on a rock-solid foundation in this case. Combine this with a worry that the Church spokesmen who have weighed in have had inadequate education (the last adequate Catholic training having taken place in the 1930s in the Toulouse province of the Dominican order), I am very, very worried. Worried to the point of not having time to worry about the poor woman.
# posted by Anonymous : 10:55 PM
