CDF's new letter on care of the terminally ill . . . editing

[Fr_of_Jazz11]

The new letter by the CDF Samaritanus bonus beautifully reaffirms the traditional teaching on end of life issues, as far as I can see.

But there appears to be one paragraph in it that the editors didn’t quite manage to smooth out. Here it is (V:3):

“When the provision of nutrition and hydration no longer benefits the patient, because the patient’s organism either cannot absorb them or cannot metabolize them, their administration should be suspended. In this way, one does not unlawfully hasten death through the deprivation of the hydration and nutrition vital for bodily function, but nonetheless respects the natural course of the critical or terminal illness. The withdrawal of this sustenance is an unjust action that can cause great suffering to the one who has to endure it. Nutrition and hydration do not constitute medical therapy in a proper sense, which is intended to counteract the pathology that afflicts the patient. They are instead forms of obligatory care of the patient, representing both a primary clinical and an unavoidable human response to the sick person.” [bold added]

Within the same paragraph mind you, the sentence in bold, as it stands, contradicts what is immediately before. The material from the bold sentence on should go with the preceding paragraph. I think they could have done a better job. Thoughts . . .

 

[27lw]

Oops. Too many edits or editors. Maybe they should have written it in Latin first to clarify and discipline their thinking.

 

[Bithynian]

Thoughts . . .

I think it makes sense, but the logic is curiously structured. It seems that the first two sentences - which provides a clarification or nuance - would be more meaningful when placed at the end of the paragraph: ‘Withdrawing sustenance is bad… but when there’s no benefit to the patient, etc.’

 

[Fr_of_Jazz11]

Right. And the logical sequence which you suggest is the way the section as a whole starts, with the general principle being clearly enunciated in the paragraph before the one (which I quoted) offering the nuance. But then in the middle of the paragraph offering the nuance, and without any transition, it jerk’s back to the general principle in such a manner as to appear to contradict what went before. Here’s the paragraph before which in fact ends hinting at the nuance in the sequence you suggest:

“A fundamental and inescapable principle of the assistance of the critically or terminally ill person is the continuity of care for the essential physiological functions. In particular, required basic care for each person includes the administration of the nourishment and fluids needed to maintain bodily homeostasis, insofar as and until this demonstrably attains the purpose of providing hydration and nutrition for the patient.” [Bold added]

I would have put “until” first, however. “insofar as” is the qualification.

Still, it’s a small thing in an otherwise beautiful reaffirmation of the traditional faith of the church.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz11]

Good point.