I just joined this discussion, so I’m not going to pretend to have read all 28 pages of this thread. But, I am very interested in this topic. I teach morality in a Catholic high school (sophomores, 15-16 years old). As part of my class, I like to regularly incorporate debates into the curriculum. I want the students to be able to take the concepts I give them regarding act analysis (object, intention, circumstance), and apply them in real-world scenarios. I’m going to use this case as a debate topic next week.
I am not at all convinced that the family or the hospital acted immorally in this case. While we have an obligation not to kill, the same obligation does not exist to never let someone die.
For the purposes of the discussion, let’s assume that the unborn baby was completely healthy. (As I understand the facts of the case, this was not true, but for the sake of argument, let’s just say that it was.) So, removal of life-support for a clinically brain-dead woman in accord with her, and her family’s, wishes would necessarily result in the death of her unborn child. So, let’s analyze this case, shall we?
First, the object. What is being done? In this case, it seems to me that the object of the act, to use the Thomistic language, is the removal of extraordinary life-sustaining care. This is not contrary to Church teaching, but is very much in accord with it. So, the object is morally good. The family is not actively willing the death of the mother. They are merely letting nature take its course.
Second, the intention. None of us have any way of knowing what the intention of the husband/father was in this case. But, it seems to me that his intention was simply to alleviate the suffering of his wife and family. Perhaps there was the desire to not accrue any further hospital costs, either directly on his family, or on their insurance provider, or on the state of Texas. Perhaps he did not want the responsibility of raising a child. Short of him coming out and saying, we’ll never know. But, let’s be charitable and assume the best intentions in people. Thus, we can charitably say that his intention was to alleviate suffering and save money and medical resources. These are good intentions.
Thus, the entire act, the object and intention, are good. Now, we have to look at the particular circumstances surrounding this case. Remember, that circumstances cannot make an act that is morally corrupt into a good act (this is called proportionalism, consequentialism, or utilitarianism…all different names for what is essentially the same philosophy). So, we cannot say that it is morally licit to intentionally kill the innocent, for example, in order to save more lives. You can’t do evil so that good may come about as a result. But, circumstances CAN render what would otherwise be a morally good act into an immoral act. For example, giving money to the poor (good object) with the honest intention of helping them (good intention) is a good act. But, let’s say the money was from your son’s college fund and he will now be deprived of a college education. The circumstances make the act itself immoral.
In this case, the circumstances are that allowing the death of the mother would necessarily cause the death of her unborn child. The knee-jerk reaction is to say that the evil of keeping her alive is disproportionate to the good that would be produced in saving the life of her unborn child. But again, this is the error of proportionalism. The correct way to look at it is to ask the question of whether or not there is a iusta causa, a just cause, to allow the negative, but foreseen and inevitable consequence of the death of the baby.
I think that there is. We have to be VERY careful to NOT use terminology like “outweigh.” That’s proportionalism.
So, my conclusion is that the object is good, the intention is good, and there is a iusta causa to tolerate the foreseen but unintended consequences of this action.
I am a middle-aged man with various health problems, but eat right, and work out to keep the in check.