Along with the fact that I humbly ask for your prayers for my sister, my family and me, I have another reason for sharing this journey with you. I hope that you don’t consider me to be indiscrete.
Greater than my commitment to my sister, is my commitment to my Franciscan vocation. That comes first. As a Franciscan Brother of Life, I am committed to proclaim the Gospel of Life with the simplicity of St. Francis, always using real life examples to show Catholics how God is present in our world and how sinful choices affect all of us.
If there is a message for Catholics here, it is this. Human life is sacred, from conception to natural death. Regardless of what anyone says, moral law holds that there is NEVER a justification for accelerating someone’s death. Those who participate in such an action: relatives, doctors, nurses, friends, politicians and so forth, are guilty of murder. The degree of culpability is proportionate to the degree of one’s involvement. Moral law is fair, otherwise it would not be moral law.
If I’m a Catholic nurse who is told not to give water to a patient who can take water and I comply with that order, then my degree of culpability is very serious. I have a moral duty to disobey that order, even if it means providing the water covertly.
The moral law is very simple. If the patient can take food, water and anti-biotics, they must be provided, no exceptions. If these become a hardship to the patient, then it is justifiable to withhold them. But it has to be a hardship to the patient, not the rest of the people around the patient.
If we were in a very poor country, there is another law that would also apply. If certain medical care were possible, but the cost is prohibitive, then the family is not morally bound to provide it, even though it’s available. You can’t rob Peter to feed Paul. I say this in this manner, because in the USA, a large number of people have insurance, medicaid or medicare. If you have the financial resources to provide for the patient and the patient can take the food, water and anti-biotics, you must provide them.
There is another point here. Some people have spoken to me about Terri Schiavo. I have heard some say that she did not want to have her life prolonged. I don’t know if this is true or not. But it does not matter. Moral law says that we do not have a right to make this choice. No human being can chooose to accelerate his or her death. Therefore, any family member or healthcare provider who complies with such a request, is morally culpable.
A person can choose to decline any assistance or healthcare when it is certain that death is imminent. If it is not certain, then the patient cannot decline. There are times when no one knows if death is imminent. We know that if we withhold food and water, it will become imminent. Even a person on a ventilator may not be a death’s door. Christopher Reeves breathed for years with technology. He was an active and productive member of his family and society. We must be very careful not to be misled by what people want to label as extraordinary.
Extraordinary or heroic measures are far and few between. They are not as common as today’s society makes us believe. If we can accelerate the death of our loved ones, what is to keep society from accelerating the death of those who are not in our inner circle? Where are the boundaries and are these boundaries so fluid that courts and family members can move them at will?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
