AmericanPapist Comments
Because it must be remembered, headlines that read, "Church of England bishops issue reasonable, nuanced statement about life and death" will never sell a single paper...
While the Church of England may not support active euthanasia, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does advocate euthanasia of newborns and touts it as a means of reducing late term abortions. The CofE gave its rather imprecise input, but where are the voices of our British Catholic Bishops?!
If the C of E had wished to take advantage of the recent statement of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists by countering with its own statement as a clear contrast, they could have done so. Instead, they chose mushy ambiguity. One is forced to infer that the C of E is trimming, in the spirit of "can't we all just get along?"
In their clarification, the Anglican Church said they would deny treatment to a disabled baby, even if they knew it would mean death...they deny that they support outright euthanasia of infants.
I personally don't see the difference.
If an adult chooses to refuse certain procedures, that is their right.
But a newborn infant should be cared for and given every chance to live.
In fairness to the C of E, only a small excerpt was used in the article. The whole statement may be much clearer, but the journalist seems to have had a pretty clear agenda in writing the article. I think they could have said "Sod off" and the journalist could've made it sound like they supported euthanasia.
But that's just me, and this is probably the only time you'll hear me defend the C of E. :-p
I don't know, but they do support the wearing of fuchsia clerics. That may mean something right there.
AP: Although I respect you a terrible lot, I may have to disagree or ask for some clarification. As far as I am concerned:
Although the church could not accept the argument that the life of any baby was not worth living, the submission stated, the church nonetheless felt there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained" at all cost.
"There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved."
I do not see how this is anything but indirectly expressing support for euthanasia. Is not withdrawing life-supporting treatment the same as letting someone die?
Where do we draw the line between giving life-sustaining support and not giving it?
Am. Pap.,
I'm with Christine and Muslihoon: I don't see much distinction between "witholding life-sustaining treatment" and euthanasia when you're talking about newborns. Newborns will die very shortly, if they don't get nourishment; thus, if you want to end the suffering of a newborn in a timely fashion, there is no need to actively give the newborn a lethal injection or to do another overt act; all you have to do is let the newborn sit on the table for an hour or two. For a newborn, life-sustaining treatment means (at least) nourishment, and a refusal to give nourishment is euthanasia/infanticide in my opinion.
I thought there might be alot of comments on this story. I'll update the post and try to clarify my position and what I understand the CofE to be actually saying.
... did that help?
The difference is between letting (on the one hand) a newborn infant starve to death and letting (on the other hand) an underlying pathology (i.e., massive heart failure) be allowed to take its natural course presuming that NO medical intervention will increase the child's chance of survival.
Thank you so much, AP. God bless you.
Am. Pap.,
I see your distinction, but I think you're giving the CofE too much of the benefit of the doubt. I understand the distinction between removing ordinary care and extraordinary care: the distinction can be easily seen in the example of the terminally-ill senior citizen hooked up to life support. (It's alright to remove those extraordinary means supporting life, but not alright to remove food and water.)
The thing with newborns (especially premature babies) is that they often require extraordinary care to begin with, in order to get them over the hump to a time where they no longer need the extraordinary care. The extraordinary care for newborns born with complications is not being used to artificially prolong life the way it is used for the senior on life support; instead, it's being used to try to give the newborn a chance at life. Thankfully, with modern medicine, the extraordinary means to support a newborn born with difficulties are often successful in getting the newborn over this hump; though sometimes, it is sadly not successful.
In my opinion, the CofE document is shifting the life vs. death debate from one centered on whether life is being sustained artificially (as it is for the senior on life support) to one centered on whether the infant's future life is treatable or not. Though the CofE document tries to step away from simple weighing of costs vs. suffering, I think they've already started down that path.
Take a premature baby with cerebral palsy, born with complications because of the premature birth. Let's say it's in intensive care for 6 months, getting over its initial complications (using extraordinary means for 6 months). However, once the initial complications are overcome, the child will still have an untreatable life with cerebral palsy necessitating many future hospital visits and operations. Should the baby have received the extraordinary treatment in the first place? I say yes; I think the CofE would tend to say no.
Again, I think the CofE document is shifting the discussion to a consideration of whether a life with an untreatable disability is worth the cost and the suffering, which is a short step away from outright infanticide.
Thales, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. However, if you read the document (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/
bioethics.html) I think it tends towards a different direction.
Mind you, I'm far from wanting to cast my lot in with the CoE'ers, but:
(#1-3 are introductory)
#4 "The primary principle from the Christian tradition is that all life is a gift from God, whether inside the womb or outside, whether disabled or not... We cannot therefore accept as a justification for killing them the argument that their lives are not worth living."
#5 - could be open to abuse I'd say.
#8 "It would, for example, never be justified to decide not to save a fetus or neonate because that fetus or neonate was not considered worth saving."
#9 "Great caution should be exercised in bringing questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided."
#10 "Where lives are at stake society should be extremely cautious over concluding too readily that new techniques cannot be afforded. There needs, too to be a recognition that people with disability have as much a right to life as everyone else, and that the ongoing cost of caring for them should be shared, not left solely to the families concerned."
#11 "The principle of compassion, for a Christian, is key. There are many instances in the life of Christ where he overrode rule-based systems. There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the ‘rule’ that life should inevitably be preserved. Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this."
# 12 is basically conclusiory.
Sections 8 & 9 seem to be very ANTI the position that expensive treatments outweigh the obligation to provide extraordinary care. Does it not?
I think the greater worry is not this "cost vs. quality of life" debate but the imprecise language used in Section 5.
Here's another way of looking at it.
You correctly point out that it comes down to whether the treatment is futile, because then the treatment could be withheld.
What is futile, however, is different for the senior on life support than for the premature disabled baby. For the person on life support, treatment is futile because the person is in the last stages of dying, and the extraordinary means is only artificially prolonging the approaching death.
"Futile" is different for the infant born with untreatable complications. In a way, treatments for the premature infant with cerebral palsy are "futile", because there is no cure or treatment. Yet, that doesn't mean treatment should not be granted to the infant. Though the baby will never be cured of its disability, the treatment should still be undergone because it gives the baby life, even though it is a life with many medical complications.
If you want an example of the latter, take the recent case of Charlotte Wyatt in England. I think the CofE might apply their reasoning to the Charlotte Wyatt case.
Sorry Am. Pap., I just cross posted with you.
I agree with you that the actual document has some good looking language in protecting disabled people, and all life is from God, etc. Yes, # 8 and 9 look good, but the language of 11 is just too dangerous.
Yes, 11 AND 5 are too wishy-washy. One just has to hope that the three notes at the beginning of the document are given overuling weight ... especially the second one.
Finally, "futile" must be understood to mean "futile at continuing life" not "futile in curing the child's handicap."
I think that's pretty much where we're at for now...
Commenting by HaloScan
