I am sometimes pessimistic about the future of marriage in America. While I can be certain that what the Catholic Church teaches regarding marriage will not change, I am much less certain that marriage, as understood by the Church, will remain a public institution protected by law.
Apparently, I'm not the only one worried.
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Euthanasia Case Study
Two years ago, I took a class on Christian ethics. One of the areas of discussion in the class involved medical ethics. We were given a handout with five case studies, and if we had sufficient time in class, we were going to discuss each case. Unfortunately, we ran out of time (our class tended to ask a lot of questions and get into some pretty good discussions).
Case Five was particularly interesting to me.
Those who know us personally can see why I would be interested in where the classroom discussion was going to go. Our daughter Erin (who turned six on January 10th) has Down's syndrome and was born with with a tracheo-esophogeal fistula and esophogeal atresia (TEF/EA). From her mouth, her esophagus ended in a blind pouch. From her stomach, her esophagus was connected to her trachea. Dr. Christian (what a name!) bluntly described the condition as "inconsistent with life." It could be corrected through surgery, though her esophagus would always lack the muscle of normally-formed esophagi.
It never occurred to us to decline the surgery and just let her die. It's hard to imagine the hardness of heart that would lead any parents to choose death for their child. It seems like we risk reducing morality to legalism when we start thinking in terms of what constitutes extraordinary measures. It's a child. She might not be perfect, but neither am I. A relatively simple and common procedure will allow her to live. I don't understand why anybody should have to think about that.
I have a friend who is currently taking the same class from the same instructor. The classes have been increased from eight to ten since I took the class, so his class is more likely to discuss the cases. I intend to share with him the similarities between this case and our little saint.
Case Five was particularly interesting to me.
A newborn is diagnosed as a Down's syndrome child with the added complication of an intestinal blockage (duodenal atresia). The latter could easily be corrected with a fairly simple low risk operation. Without the operation the child could not be fed and would die. The parents ask that the operation not be done, and the physicians concur. Would omitting the operation be euthanasia?
Those who know us personally can see why I would be interested in where the classroom discussion was going to go. Our daughter Erin (who turned six on January 10th) has Down's syndrome and was born with with a tracheo-esophogeal fistula and esophogeal atresia (TEF/EA). From her mouth, her esophagus ended in a blind pouch. From her stomach, her esophagus was connected to her trachea. Dr. Christian (what a name!) bluntly described the condition as "inconsistent with life." It could be corrected through surgery, though her esophagus would always lack the muscle of normally-formed esophagi.
It never occurred to us to decline the surgery and just let her die. It's hard to imagine the hardness of heart that would lead any parents to choose death for their child. It seems like we risk reducing morality to legalism when we start thinking in terms of what constitutes extraordinary measures. It's a child. She might not be perfect, but neither am I. A relatively simple and common procedure will allow her to live. I don't understand why anybody should have to think about that.
I have a friend who is currently taking the same class from the same instructor. The classes have been increased from eight to ten since I took the class, so his class is more likely to discuss the cases. I intend to share with him the similarities between this case and our little saint.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The Issue
I am not a virtuous man. Virtue is the habitual disposition to choose good. As much as I would like to be virtuous, the sad fact remains that too often, choosing the good requires a conscious effort of the will on my part. If I were virtuous, I wouldn't have to think about it; it would be a habit.
For example, if I'm flipping through the television channels, I might involuntarily pause on a channel showing a Baywatch beach scene. I have to make an effort to click past such channels. That's why we've programmed out the channels that are most likely to show such content.
I have another example, but it requires a little background.
About six months ago, my wife was given the opportunity to purchase up to three magazine subscriptions at the discounted rate of $2 for a full year. We looked over the magazines on offer and selected a couple of home improvement and/or design magazines and one sports magazine.
Neither one of us really follows sports that closely, so why did we pick a sports magazine? I picked it to have something to talk to other men about. Too often, I find myself in the company of other men who only want to talk about sports, when my interests in conversation tend more toward religion, politics (both of which are allegedly taboo in polite company), and pop culture (my shallow side). I don't follow sports too closely because it seems that every time I start rooting for a particular team, all I'm doing is setting myself up for disappointment. I cannot bear to invest myself emotionally in a team when I have no direct control over the outcome of the contests.
So, when the conversation inevitably turns to sports, I'm left standing mute. I don't know which teams are having good years, and I don't know any of the players. The subscription in the magazine was an attempt to at least allow me to follow the conversation, even if not being an active participant.
My wife had one reservation: the annual swimsuit issue. Which is where the whole subject of virtue (or lack thereof) and conscious acts of the will comes in.
The swimsuit issue comes out in February. Two weeks ago, I was flipping through the December 29 issue, and I saw a notice at the bottom of the Letters page: "If You Don't Want the Swimsuit Issue." The notice included directions for opting out of receiving the issue and provided both a toll free telephone number and a website URL. The fact that the magazine posted the notice and has a button on the customer service website specifically for those who prefer not to receive the issue seems to indicate that the number of subscribers who don't want the issue is not negligible.
As I've noted, I am not a virtuous man. If I were, I would have immediately called the number or gone online to decline the Swimsuit Issue. However, it took me two weeks. It took two weeks of telling myself what I should do, before I did it. The worst part of it is that there was (is) a part of me that didn't want me to do the right thing. "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. . . I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do." (Romans 7:15, 18-19)
St. Joseph, most chaste spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, pray for me.
Please note, that my dear wife did not put any pressure on me to decline the issue, aside from her initial reservation those many months ago when we first got the subscription. Note also that, content-wise, the weekly issue of Sports Illustrated are quite good, with very little that is morally objectionable (not nearly as bad as the direct mail soliciation from Men's Health magazine), some good human interest stories, and some truly amazing photographs (that don't feature models in swimsuits).
For example, if I'm flipping through the television channels, I might involuntarily pause on a channel showing a Baywatch beach scene. I have to make an effort to click past such channels. That's why we've programmed out the channels that are most likely to show such content.
I have another example, but it requires a little background.
About six months ago, my wife was given the opportunity to purchase up to three magazine subscriptions at the discounted rate of $2 for a full year. We looked over the magazines on offer and selected a couple of home improvement and/or design magazines and one sports magazine.
Neither one of us really follows sports that closely, so why did we pick a sports magazine? I picked it to have something to talk to other men about. Too often, I find myself in the company of other men who only want to talk about sports, when my interests in conversation tend more toward religion, politics (both of which are allegedly taboo in polite company), and pop culture (my shallow side). I don't follow sports too closely because it seems that every time I start rooting for a particular team, all I'm doing is setting myself up for disappointment. I cannot bear to invest myself emotionally in a team when I have no direct control over the outcome of the contests.
So, when the conversation inevitably turns to sports, I'm left standing mute. I don't know which teams are having good years, and I don't know any of the players. The subscription in the magazine was an attempt to at least allow me to follow the conversation, even if not being an active participant.
My wife had one reservation: the annual swimsuit issue. Which is where the whole subject of virtue (or lack thereof) and conscious acts of the will comes in.
The swimsuit issue comes out in February. Two weeks ago, I was flipping through the December 29 issue, and I saw a notice at the bottom of the Letters page: "If You Don't Want the Swimsuit Issue." The notice included directions for opting out of receiving the issue and provided both a toll free telephone number and a website URL. The fact that the magazine posted the notice and has a button on the customer service website specifically for those who prefer not to receive the issue seems to indicate that the number of subscribers who don't want the issue is not negligible.
As I've noted, I am not a virtuous man. If I were, I would have immediately called the number or gone online to decline the Swimsuit Issue. However, it took me two weeks. It took two weeks of telling myself what I should do, before I did it. The worst part of it is that there was (is) a part of me that didn't want me to do the right thing. "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. . . I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do." (Romans 7:15, 18-19)
St. Joseph, most chaste spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, pray for me.
Please note, that my dear wife did not put any pressure on me to decline the issue, aside from her initial reservation those many months ago when we first got the subscription. Note also that, content-wise, the weekly issue of Sports Illustrated are quite good, with very little that is morally objectionable (not nearly as bad as the direct mail soliciation from Men's Health magazine), some good human interest stories, and some truly amazing photographs (that don't feature models in swimsuits).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)