Should illegitimate children be denied insurance coverage from Catholic institutions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter interestedman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fix said:
Yes, they can claim all sorts of things. Just like the government can declare some persons are not fully human. The power to do something does not make it true.
Click to expand...
They have the authority to do so, being that they govern our country. That’s their job. That’s why they are there.

There will always be somebody out there to not be happy about the decisions our government makes, but at the end of the day, all they can do is disagree with them, and try to gather enough support from their neighbors to change what they don’t like.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Personally, I would rather my family, who are Catholics and follow Church teachings, make such decisions than some charge nurse or “rent-a-doc” who, for all I know, might be into mercy killing.
Click to expand...
Right you are.
 
Rence said:
They have the authority to do so, being that they govern our country. That’s their job. That’s why they are there.
Click to expand...
Authority may be misused.
There will always be somebody out there to not be happy about the decisions our government makes, but at the end of the day, all they can do is disagree with them, and try to gather enough support from their neighbors to change what they don’t like.
Click to expand...
Sure, but in the mean time one does not deny reality.
 
Do_Good_Then_Go said:
That’s fine, just make sure the person or persons you choose has the legal authority to make those decisions, and make sure they will do what you want! Rence’s point is that family members who are likely to be distressed, shocked and sometimes not thinking straight can struggle if it’s never been discussed.

Doctors and nurses (99.99999% of them) aren’t into mercy killings or euthanasia or anything like that, they want to do the best thing by the patient, that’s what they do all day every day. It’s when wishes aren’t documented or when there’s conflict between family members or when the family think of what they want rather than what the patient would want that things don’t go well.

You’d be surprised how many people refuse to even discuss the subject.
Click to expand...
If they control the document, they control the decision. You can’t authorize anybody else to actually make decisions like that. You have to state it as your decision in the document. At least that’s the case in my state. (Mo)

As far as family members capabilities, one simply must ensure that one’s family member (or other trusted person) has had a proper Catholic formation.

I would dispute your assertion that 99.99999% of doctors and nurses are not into “mercy killing”. It depends on what you think of as “mercy killing”. I recently attended a conference presentation to medical students of all kinds, the subject matter of which was precisely the purposes and content of advance directives. I was there at the invitation of a nurse presenter. I really was appalled at how cavalier some of the presenters and a majority of the audience was about refusing care to the elderly or disabled. Maybe they all get a change of heart later in life, but I have my doubts. One of the physician presenters disclosed that his own father had terminal cancer but was not in terrible discomfort or in imminent danger of death from that. He wasn’t comatose normally. His father contracted pneumonia and was unable to voice decisions because of that. The doctor and his father’s doctor consulted together about whether to give his father antibiotics for the pneumonia. They decided against it because, after all, his father was going to die eventually anyway. So, his father died of treatable pneumonia. Why did they do that? Because they decided his father’s “quality of life” wasn’t very good and would get worse because of the cancer.

Most of the attendees (hundreds of them) clearly appeared to approve that decision.

The nurse presenter (a Catholic) opposed that view from the rostrum. After it was over, a handful of students came to her and informed her they felt as she did and thanked her for opposing that doctor’s viewpoint. But it was very clear to her that the majority did not agree with her.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I would dispute your assertion that 99.99999% of doctors and nurses are not into “mercy killing”. It depends on what you think of as “mercy killing”. I recently attended a conference presentation to medical students of all kinds, the subject matter of which was precisely the purposes and content of advance directives. I was there at the invitation of a nurse presenter. I really was appalled at how cavalier some of the presenters and a majority of the audience was about refusing care to the elderly or disabled. Maybe they all get a change of heart later in life, but I have my doubts. One of the physician presenters disclosed that his own father had terminal cancer but was not in terrible discomfort or in imminent danger of death from that. He wasn’t comatose normally. His father contracted pneumonia and was unable to voice decisions because of that. The doctor and his father’s doctor consulted together about whether to give his father antibiotics for the pneumonia. They decided against it because, after all, his father was going to die eventually anyway. So, his father died of treatable pneumonia. Why did they do that? Because they decided his father’s “quality of life” wasn’t very good and would get worse because of the cancer.

Most of the attendees (hundreds of them) clearly appeared to approve that decision.

The nurse presenter (a Catholic) opposed that view from the rostrum. After it was over, a handful of students came to her and informed her they felt as she did and thanked her for opposing that doctor’s viewpoint. But it was very clear to her that the majority did not agree with her.
Click to expand...
It’s difficult from what you write above to determine what exactly was going on with this physician’s father. You probably don’t remember, but why was his father unable to voice his decisions because of the pneumonia? And what does it mean, “he wasn’t comatose normally”? What kind of cancer did he have? What other therapies was he getting and how was he responding to them? Also consider that both medical and nursing students lack the experience in the field to understand that physician’s decisions based on the whole picture of that patient, which he may not have had time to reveal at the conference.

Just because a “nurse presenter (a Catholic) opposed that view” doesn’t make it wrong, with the lack of information that’s not easy to determine. But I’ve had people argue and arge ad nauseum over whether or not a terminally ill person should be kept on a ventilator, which the Church considers ‘extraordinary’ and doesn’t require it. I’ve had patients worry over the Catholic teachings of IV fluids and feeding tubes for a patient who clearly couldn’t process them anymore. So it’s difficult to come to the same conclusion you did without having more information about the patient.

You have the right to do whatever you want. If you don’t want an advanced directive, don’t have one. That’s really a personal choice.
 
Ridgerunner said:
If they control the document, they control the decision. You can’t authorize anybody else to actually make decisions like that. You have to state it as your decision in the document. At least that’s the case in my state. (Mo)

As far as family members capabilities, one simply must ensure that one’s family member (or other trusted person) has had a proper Catholic formation.

I would dispute your assertion that 99.99999% of doctors and nurses are not into “mercy killing”. It depends on what you think of as “mercy killing”. I recently attended a conference presentation to medical students of all kinds, the subject matter of which was precisely the purposes and content of advance directives. I was there at the invitation of a nurse presenter. I really was appalled at how cavalier some of the presenters and a majority of the audience was about refusing care to the elderly or disabled. Maybe they all get a change of heart later in life, but I have my doubts. One of the physician presenters disclosed that his own father had terminal cancer but was not in terrible discomfort or in imminent danger of death from that. He wasn’t comatose normally. His father contracted pneumonia and was unable to voice decisions because of that. The doctor and his father’s doctor consulted together about whether to give his father antibiotics for the pneumonia. They decided against it because, after all, his father was going to die eventually anyway. So, his father died of treatable pneumonia. Why did they do that? Because they decided his father’s “quality of life” wasn’t very good and would get worse because of the cancer.

Most of the attendees (hundreds of them) clearly appeared to approve that decision.

The nurse presenter (a Catholic) opposed that view from the rostrum. After it was over, a handful of students came to her and informed her they felt as she did and thanked her for opposing that doctor’s viewpoint. But it was very clear to her that the majority did not agree with her.
Click to expand...
The attitude is not new and has going on at least since the 1970s. The morals of the people making these decisions, helping others make these decisions, are no different from the prevailing culture. So-called medical ethics is mostly utilitarian and situational ethics.
 
Ridgerunner said:
If they control the document, they control the decision. You can’t authorize anybody else to actually make decisions like that. You have to state it as your decision in the document. At least that’s the case in my state. (Mo)

As far as family members capabilities, one simply must ensure that one’s family member (or other trusted person) has had a proper Catholic formation.

I would dispute your assertion that 99.99999% of doctors and nurses are not into “mercy killing”. It depends on what you think of as “mercy killing”. I recently attended a conference presentation to medical students of all kinds, the subject matter of which was precisely the purposes and content of advance directives. I was there at the invitation of a nurse presenter. I really was appalled at how cavalier some of the presenters and a majority of the audience was about refusing care to the elderly or disabled. Maybe they all get a change of heart later in life, but I have my doubts. One of the physician presenters disclosed that his own father had terminal cancer but was not in terrible discomfort or in imminent danger of death from that. He wasn’t comatose normally. His father contracted pneumonia and was unable to voice decisions because of that. The doctor and his father’s doctor consulted together about whether to give his father antibiotics for the pneumonia. They decided against it because, after all, his father was going to die eventually anyway. So, his father died of treatable pneumonia. Why did they do that? Because they decided his father’s “quality of life” wasn’t very good and would get worse because of the cancer.

Most of the attendees (hundreds of them) clearly appeared to approve that decision.

The nurse presenter (a Catholic) opposed that view from the rostrum. After it was over, a handful of students came to her and informed her they felt as she did and thanked her for opposing that doctor’s viewpoint. But it was very clear to her that the majority did not agree with her.
Click to expand...
Well, of course it depends on a lot of factors. Pneumonia in someone with terminal cancer would normally be treated if it was felt that it would benefit the patient (ease symptoms) or that the patient would in fact recover from the pneumonia, and it usually does one or the other. But sometimes people with terminal cancer or end stage chronic illnesses develop pneumonia simply because it’s what happens as the body shuts down and there’s nothing that can be done to reverse it. It’s not always best to try to fight the inevitable. I would say that truly futile care that is distressing and painful for the patient is a lot more common than not treating something like pneumonia. There’s a difference between denying care and allowing nature to take its course too.
 
Rence said:
It’s difficult from what you write above to determine what exactly was going on with this physician’s father. You probably don’t remember, but why was his father unable to voice his decisions because of the pneumonia? And what does it mean, “he wasn’t comatose normally”? What kind of cancer did he have? What other therapies was he getting and how was he responding to them? Also consider that both medical and nursing students lack the experience in the field to understand that physician’s decisions based on the whole picture of that patient, which he may not have had time to reveal at the conference.

Just because a “nurse presenter (a Catholic) opposed that view” doesn’t make it wrong, with the lack of information that’s not easy to determine. But I’ve had people argue and arge ad nauseum over whether or not a terminally ill person should be kept on a ventilator, which the Church considers ‘extraordinary’ and doesn’t require it. I’ve had patients worry over the Catholic teachings of IV fluids and feeding tubes for a patient who clearly couldn’t process them anymore. So it’s difficult to come to the same conclusion you did without having more information about the patient.

You have the right to do whatever you want. If you don’t want an advanced directive, don’t have one. That’s really a personal choice.
Click to expand...
The doctor-presenter did not give details such as the kind of cancer, how many months he had to live, etc. He did, however, make it very plain that his father was not in imminent danger of death from the cancer, was not flat-line brain dead, was unable to communicate because of the pneumonia (he didn’t explain why, but it’s easy enough to imagine) and that the decision was made on a “quality of life/he’s going to die anyway” basis.

He gave his “bright line” criteria for refusing treatment as being “whether a person could do that which he enjoyed most in life”. He was then asked if being unable to play golf if that was the person’s favorite thing to do, would fit his criteria. He replied affirmatively to that.

One can quibble with almost anything. One can pose “what ifs” until the cows come home. But the point of the vignette and of what I’m saying is that individuals vary greatly in their view of what is considered an “acceptable” life. When one puts that power into the hands of someone else, one really needs to know how that person thinks. Putting an advance directive into one’s chart is simply a gamble.

I never said one should not have an advance directive. I am saying it’s foolish to put the decision making into the hands of strangers whose views of life might vary from one’s own or, for that matter, from Church teaching.

The fact that a huge percentage of the American people favor euthanasia when asked, should give one pause in putting advance directives into random hands. nytimes.com/1991/11/04/us/euthanasia-favored-in-poll.html
 
Do_Good_Then_Go said:
Well, of course it depends on a lot of factors. Pneumonia in someone with terminal cancer would normally be treated if it was felt that it would benefit the patient (ease symptoms) or that the patient would in fact recover from the pneumonia, and it usually does one or the other. But sometimes people with terminal cancer or end stage chronic illnesses develop pneumonia simply because it’s what happens as the body shuts down and there’s nothing that can be done to reverse it. It’s not always best to try to fight the inevitable. I would say that truly futile care that is distressing and painful for the patient is a lot more common than not treating something like pneumonia. There’s a difference between denying care and allowing nature to take its course too.
Click to expand...
I think it’s obvious, even in this thread, that there are differences in how people see different situations. My point in this argument, and my only one, is that one should not entrust advance directives (which are subject to interpretation) to people about whom one knows nothing. Instead of putting one into one’s physician’s chart, then, one should entrust it to someone like a family member, whom they know well and whose judgment and fidelity to the Church, they trust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top