Thelin, MIDTERM

In response to the recent changes enforced upon the Sasquatch community Hospital, the Catholic Church wishes to engage our own perspectives and insights in the on-going ethical debates relating to the public subsidizing abortion services, fertility treatments, and amniocentesis; the spiritual counseling’s role in the medical healing process; and the professional rights and duties of the tenured nurses opposed to performing abortion and reproductive services. As a long-tending Catholic Monsignor serving the Christian Sasquatch community for over forty-years, I believe it is my professional and religious responsibility to clarify and provide resolution to moral problems raised as a result of both the altercation to the hospital’s religious affiliation and cultural diversification of surrounding community. Through this declaration, I do not aim to settle on compromise for these complex issues, but instead, strive to uphold the status of the church as “the expert in humanity”, and further celebrate the values and means by which the church has sought to bring order in moments of moral chaos during its 2000 years of existence (Cahill et al. 142).

Throughout the centuries, when moral questions relating to advanced technology and cultural shifts have risen, the church has provided the framework for understanding how these changes would be implemented for the human life. Questions of kinship, fertility, and the right to life are not new ethical landscapes. However, the present age has proven to pave a new pathway down the familiar terrain. Modern medicine and advancements in biotechnology now challenge the previously established framework for understanding what role humans play in the reproductive process through the introduction of new methods and technologies that allow for the human to completely dominate reproduction. Procedures such as abortion, in-vitro fertilization treatments (IVF), amniocentesis, and many more, are unnatural and yet, readily available tools that hold the power for a human to subjectively select for the life outcome of another individual. Thus, critical evaluation and formal explication from the church relating to these topics is urgently required in order to ensure that we remain grounded in our own humanity.

As a Catholic Monsignor, I see it as my spiritual and professional duty to comment on the current crisis within our community. My professional duties include, but are not limited to, providing homily at every Catholic service, managing the parish education program, facilitating outreach ministries to both local and outside communities, conducting the seven sacraments, and providing guidance and counseling to members of the church who seek help. With much respect to medical professionals, who are responsible for providing relief to the physical ailments of one’s disease or condition, I see my responsibility as providing relief to the spiritual afflictions and moral concerns introduced by the condition. My professional ethics serve as the basis for my arguments, and I seek to have my opinions and concerns evaluated as both sincere and legitimate even as they apply within the medical context.

The hospital should not subsidize abortion services or IVF treatments for under-insured patients, nor should the hospital permit abortion services to any patient. Prenatal testing procedures such as amniocentesis may be subsidized for under-insured patients (given the process induces no damage to the baby). However, further action or altercation to the baby as a response to the test results (i.e. abortion) is not permitted. Furthermore, it is morally illicit for the hospital to collect unused embryos and use them for research and experimentation.

In-vitro fertilization treatments are morally illicit procedures as described by the “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation”, which states, “Heterologous artificial fertilization is contrary to the unity of marriage, to the dignity of the spouses, to the vocation of the proper parents, and to the child’s right to be conceived and brought into the world in marriage and from marriage” (Cahill et al. 158). Children, by nature, are the fruit of marriage. Every child must be granted the right to be brought into the world through marriage, and be raised within a marriage. Children, thus, may only be naturally conceived through the proper conjugal act. Any means of reproducing otherwise not only deprives the child of his rights, but also exceeds the limits of reasonable domination of nature that overrides God’s significant power over man. Furthermore, no child must be subject to murder through abortion practices, as this act also exceeds the limits of reasonable domination of nature. The abortion issue will be further addressed in section III below.

Amniocentesis, currently used by a large proportion of Catholic mothers (Rapp 157) may continue to be used. However, the results of the test may not justify reasons for the mother to abort her child. As written in the “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation”, “a diagnosis which shows the existence of a malformation or a hereditary illness must not be the equivalent of a death sentence” (Cahill et al. 150). A malformation is not the equivalent of a disease that must be eradicated. A child born with disability is still deserving of the same human rights as any other individual. Any acts that reject these rights should be subject to legal punishment.

Embryos collected from IVF treatments and left unused may not be employed as scientific material for experimentation, as living embryos hold the potential for human life and thus are deserving of the same rights as all individuals. As discussed in the “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation”, “If the embryos are living, whether viable or not, they must be respected just like any other human person; experimentation on embryos which is not directly therapeutic is illicit” (Cahill et al. 152). If the goal of the experimentation is to provide the embryo some form of therapeutic relief, then the procedure may proceed. However, if such experimentation results in death or harm inflicted upon the embryo, then the individual(s) responsible for such acts will be subject for legal consequences in rejection of human rights.

The hospital should continue to provide spiritual counseling by the Catholic clergy. Additionally, in response to the growing influx of immigrant community members of diverse spiritual and religious backgrounds, the hospital should seek employment of other religious leaders in order to satisfy the spiritual needs of all patients.

Medical professionals primary concerns include identifying and diagnosing disease, guiding patients through treatment plans that mitigate the physical symptoms of the disease, and healing the body within the physical sphere. Religious leaders responsibilities focus on targeting spiritual concerns or gaps within the patient’s experience of the disease, providing guidance and counseling to the patient throughout and beyond the treatment process, and healing the human soul within the spiritual realm of existence. Just as I, a religious leader, respect the boundaries of the medical professional and do not impose my training and talents in treatment of the physiological disease, I would expect medical professionals to demonstrate the same line of respect and not interfere with my methods and pathways of spiritual healing. Therefore, given that both the medical professionals’ and religious leaders’ interests lie in healing the human composed of both body and soul, I defend the right of all religious leaders to contribute their spiritual healing specialities to the patient during the healing process. Furthermore, I preserve the right for religious leaders to provide guidance to patients challenged by moral dilemmas without intrusion from medical professionals (i.e. doctors, nurses, etc.).

In response to the recent changes that have transformed the hospital from a Catholic institution into a non-denominational institution of medical practice, I propose additional spiritual leaders from other sects of religion be hired in order to ensure the hospital continues to serve the spiritual needs of all patients. Although I acknowledge that in future cases I may disagree with guidance provided by other religious leaders on issues such as IVF and abortion, I will vow to remain open for discussion on the moral disagreement. Furthermore, I will continue to work within the community legal system as an advocate for laws against such treatments like abortion and IVF, as I truly believe they violate the American constitutional human rights for the individual.

The hospital should not offer any abortion services, and thus not force any nurse or doctor to perform such services. Abortion is equivalent to first-degree murder, and thus, subject to both mortal spiritual and licit consequences.

As written in the “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, “The child is not an object to which one has a right nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: Rather, a child is a gift, “the supreme gift” (Cahill et al. 168). Under this reasoning, the child in the womb cannot be seen as an object, but rather, another subject. Our moral compass has evolved in recent centuries to disavow acts of human beings owning other human beings. Likewise, the mother of a child cannot claim to own the human growing inside of her as her own property. The child is another human endowed with rights, and therefore, acts such as abortion that intentionally inflict harm upon the human by another human are morally illicit and subject to the most severe legal consequences.

The argument often proposed by pro-choice defenders in response to the abortion debate often centers around the idea that “the government cannot tell a person what decisions to make about their body”. However, many governmental laws already intact do manage the way citizens conduct their bodies if it is in the interest of protecting another life. For example, the government tells all of its citizens that they are prohibited to swing their arms continuously with a knife in their hand and murder another person. Laws presently imposed on our bodies inhibit the behaviors that inflict pain or death upon another individual. Thus, laws against abortion serve to protect the life of the baby from harm intentionally imposed upon them.

Furthermore, the hospital may not force any medical professional to perform abortion, as the action itself violates the ethical guidelines and mission in the medical field. The values driving the professional medical field including diagnosing and treating disease, while preserving the right to life and death with dignity. Performing an abortion and killing the life of a child is in direct conflict with the medical professional’s ethical mission (Ginsburg 66). Thus, nursing professionals who have voiced concern over the procedure and stated an unwillingness to perform such services must be heeded to by hospital administration. The nurses have the right to choose to act within what they believe to be their profession’s ethical boundaries.

References:

Donum Vitae In Shanon, Thomas A. and Lisa Sowle Cahill, Religion and Artificial Reproduction: An Inquiry into the Vatican “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Reproduction.” (Crossroad, 1988).

Faye Ginsburg, Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American (University California Press, 1989).

Rayna Rapp, Testing Women, Testing the Fetus (Routledge, 2000).