Tonight’s hypothetical situation is brought to you by classic E.R. I just finished watching an episode and would like to pose a question to you all…
The child died.
Question: Is this moral? Would he have been justified to violate hospital policy and state laws if it ment he saved the child’s life? Or should one always obey the laws of man first and foremost?
In the Catholic Catechism, at
1776, we are told * “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment.**…”* The “Law” to which this passage is referring is the Natural Law, written onto the hearts of men by God. Then at
1777 we are told* " Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil…"
*So, in other words, it is expected that we will know when man made laws, regulations, directions and edicts are morally wrong. Most of us would intuitively know that allowing the baby to die in the ER scene as given to us by the OP, is “not fair”, or “horrible”, or just plain “wrong”. We could argue for hours and hours over what constitutes “wrong” in this scenario and in any other. However, the main point is, what should we do if and when we are confronted by a law, an edict, a proclamation, or a rule, that almost forces us to do something which we intuitively know is wrong? Do we measure up the harm that will be done if we acquiesce with a ‘bad’ law? For instance we might be required to do X and we know that if we do X someone will losen their job. However, we can tell ourselves, well, that isn’t so bad, because I get to keep mine by not rocking the baot and the other person will find another job sooner or later, so I may as well do X, even though X is wrong. Or, what if I do X and the result is permanent and irreversable, such as the death of the baby in the scenario given us by the OP? The principle in question is the same, which is, should an unjust law be obeyed? If we analyse the consequences, it all seems a bit utilitarian, haphazard and reeks of moral expediency.
Or, if we see a law, an edict, a promulgation, a rule, that we intuitively know is ‘bad’ , should we ignore it and disobey it if necessary? If we go on to the Catechism at** 1780, we are told that **
"The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the* prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment."
*That passage tells us we must exercise prudent use of our reason. In the scenario given us by the Op, the baby was going to die because of the actions of a third person, not because of the actions of the doctor. The baby would live because of the intervention of the doctor, but not die because of the actions of the doctor. So, was the doctor prudent in acquiescing with the rule of the hospital? After all, he kept his license. Or did he violate a basic moral edict that says he should act to save a life?
The question is, when push comes to shove, should we obey the law of the land, regardless of its moral content, or should we make a stand aginst those man made laws which we discern to be immoral?
Personally, I’d have told the hospital to go shove their stupid rule, but afterwards, when my license has been revoked and my name trashed and I can’t pay the mortgage, nor feed the wife and kids, I might see my action as imprudent.
