House

[criffton]

I don’t follow any TV series, but recently saw a episode of House in which a man that had been in a vegetative state had a medicine change, and because of the shock it put his body into, he woke up, fully aware, cognizant, and with completely fine motor control. However, as soon as his body adjusts to the new medication, he will fall back into the vegetative state.

At the same time, his son is dieing in the hospital from problems with seizures and heart problems stemming from alcoholism, the reason he drinks is because he was involved, by no fault of his own, in an accident that caused a fire in his house, his father saved him, but when back in for the mother, something happened in the house that put the father into the vegative state, and the mother died. The son blames himself for all this.

The father ends up hanging himself so that he can give his heart to his son and save his son’s life. But the church has a very hard stance on suicide.

So I got to thinking, and I think it is ethical under the double effect. To my understanding, the double effect
* the act itself must be good or morally neutral
* the good effect must be a result of the act and not of the evil effect
* the evil effect must not be directly willed, but may be foreseen and tolerated
* the good effect outweighs the evil effect, or the two are at least comparable
-from Wikipedia

The act was giving his heart to his son, the good effect was saving his son’s life, which results from the father giving his heart to his son. The evil effect is the father will die, there is no way to get around that, but is isn’t directly willed. Also, the evil effect is outweighed by the good effect. The father would fall back into a vegetative state in less than 24 hours, but the son still has all of his life to live.

I am not very familiar with the nuances of moral theology, and may be wrong. Thoughts?

I think it s

 

[quasimodo]

I don’t follow any TV series, but recently saw a episode of House in which a man that had been in a vegetative state had a medicine change, and because of the shock it put his body into, he woke up, fully aware, cognizant, and with completely fine motor control. However, as soon as his body adjusts to the new medication, he will fall back into the vegetative state.

At the same time, his son is dieing in the hospital from problems with seizures and heart problems stemming from alcoholism, the reason he drinks is because he was involved, by no fault of his own, in an accident that caused a fire in his house, his father saved him, but when back in for the mother, something happened in the house that put the father into the vegative state, and the mother died. The son blames himself for all this.

The father ends up hanging himself so that he can give his heart to his son and save his son’s life. But the church has a very hard stance on suicide.

So I got to thinking, and I think it is ethical under the double effect. To my understanding, the double effect
* the act itself must be good or morally neutral
* the good effect must be a result of the act and not of the evil effect
* the evil effect must not be directly willed, but may be foreseen and tolerated
* the good effect outweighs the evil effect, or the two are at least comparable
-from Wikipedia

The act was giving his heart to his son, the good effect was saving his son’s life, which results from the father giving his heart to his son. The evil effect is the father will die, there is no way to get around that, but is isn’t directly willed. Also, the evil effect is outweighed by the good effect. The father would fall back into a vegetative state in less than 24 hours, but the son still has all of his life to live.

I am not very familiar with the nuances of moral theology, and may be wrong. Thoughts?

I think it s

the act was hanging himself - which is not good so the test fails on that

By the way - an amazing number (and percentage) of people in PVS can be brought out of the condition temporairly by administration of a specific drug - a specific sleeping pill whose name escapes me. The effect is temporay but the degree of recovery is amazing.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I actually fell asleep during this program, so I’m glad to know how it turned out.

The act was giving his heart to his son,

This is okay; removing the heart of a corpse is morally neutral.

the good effect was saving his son’s life, which results from the father giving his heart to his son.

This is okay; it is undoubtedly good to save a life.

The evil effect is the father will die, there is no way to get around that, but is isn’t directly willed.

This is incorrect. In order to harvest a heart for transplant, the donor must already be dead. The death of the father is not an effect of the transplant.

The death of the father is an effect of the father’s suicide, which is, as you note, **not **a morally neutral act.

tee

 

[rpp]

the act was hanging himself - which is not good so the test fails on that

By the way - an amazing number (and percentage) of people in PVS can be brought out of the condition temporairly by administration of a specific drug - a specific sleeping pill whose name escapes me. The effect is temporay but the degree of recovery is amazing.

While I do not trust any medical information from Hollywood, I recall a movie several years back called “Awakenings”. It was based on a true story and explored this affect with patients who suffered a form of encephalitus I believe. The drug used in that movie was, I think, L-Dopa.

 

[rpp]

Oh as for the morality question…

Even if the father is in a PVS as a result of a suicide attempt, it is not morally licit to harvest his organs. Nor would it be morally licit to withold food or water to bring on death. One must wait until natural death occurs. If another person dies waiting for an organ, that is God’s will. God may have intended the organ(s) for someone else.

 

[criffton]

Oh as for the morality question…

Even if the father is in a PVS as a result of a suicide attempt, it is not morally licit to harvest his organs. Nor would it be morally licit to withold food or water to bring on death. One must wait until natural death occurs. If another person dies waiting for an organ, that is God’s will. God may have intended the organ(s) for someone else.

He decided to end his life to give his heart to his son, it was a cognizant decision of his own. As GK Chesterton puts it, suicide is so grave because it is a rejection of everything else. Instead of killing one man, it kills all men, ect. However, he was not motivated to kill himself as a rejection of all else, but as embracing the world as good, and wanting his son to experience that. I think it may partially fall under giving his life for another.

In the catechism, it would be considered suicide by 2280, but not by 2281, or at least debatable

 

[tee_eff_em]

However, he was not motivated to kill himself as a rejection of all else, but as embracing the world as good, and wanting his son to experience that. I think it may partially fall under giving his life for another.

This seems dangerously close to the despairing suicide’s erroneous (and irrelevant) belief: *“Everyone will be happier/better off when I’m dead”. *But in any case, recall one of the conditions you have listed above:

the evil effect must not be directly willed, but may be foreseen and tolerated

If you can make a convincing case that the man committed suicide without *willing *to cause his own death, you might have something. (And having slept through the show, I can imagine a way he might have done so, but do not know that the writers went that route)

An example of legitimate double-effect, similar to what you wish to ascribe to this show, is the martyrdom of St Maximilian Kolbe. He neither willed his own death, nor pulled his own trigger (so to speak), though he could foresee that another would do so when he volunteered to take the place of a condemned man.

tee

 

[criffton]

the method was he took a bottle of aspirin to protect his heart and hung himself, doing it in a way that he would die of strangulation so to do less damage to the heart

So he willed his death, that was what he did, however, his goal and intent wasn’t his death but his son’s life. So he willed for his son to live, and for his son to live he would need the father’s heart, and the father would have to be dead to give it to him

 

[FCEGM]

. . .So he willed his death, that was what he did, however, his goal and intent wasn’t his death but his son’s life. . . .

OTC, he knew he would be returning to a “vegetative” state and the fact of his son needing a heart transplant made it just that much easier for him to end his life and to do what he would have done anyway (though in a less painful manner, since this manner ensured an optimum outcome for his son). I guess all fathers and mothers of children in need of transplants should follow his “noble” suicide? I doubt if you think so, so you’ve answered your own question as to the morality of his act.