By Nancy Valko
2012, New York Times: “Instead of attempting to legalize physician-assisted suicide, we should focus our energies on what really matters: improving care for the dying — ensuring that all patients can openly talk with their physicians and families about their wishes and have access to high-quality palliative or hospice care before they suffer needless medical procedures. The appeal of physician-assisted suicide is based on a fantasy. The real goal should be a good death for all dying patients.” (Emphasis added)
2016, Journal of the American Medical Association: “CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are increasingly being legalized, remain relatively rare, and primarily involve patients with cancer. Existing data do not indicate widespread abuse of these practices." (Emphasis added)
The writer of these conflicting views on assisted suicide is Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., PhD., a very influential doctor who is Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the architects of Obamacare. He is considered an expert on medical ethics who speaks and writes prolifically for both medical journals and general media outlets.Read more
A pair of philosophers, writing in a bioethics journal, are advancing the argument that if we’re going to say that infanticide—the killing of innocent newborns—is wrong, then all the arguments against apply equally to abortion.Read more
By Domenico Bettinelli, MCFL Director of Community Engagement
CRISPR is an acronym for a new medical technology that allows scientists to edit human DNA before birth, with the potential to cure untold numbers of genetic abnormalities that lead to ailments and disease. The process itself is not objectionable in theory because it involves operating on the unborn child without harming them. (For a more extensive exploration of the power and promise of CRISPR, see this article from our member magazine last year.)
However, while the eventual therapeutic application of the technology is not a concern for pro-lifers at this time, the research in developing it could be.
Scientists have now, for the first time in the US, edited the DNA of actual embryonic unborn children using CRISPR, but the unborn children were aborted after they were done.
The research — which has yet to be published — was led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University. It involved editing a “large number” of viable embryos and effectively correcting disease-causing genes, according to MIT Technology Review. (It’s unclear exactly how many embryos were edited, or which genes.) The embryos were developed for only a few days and were not implanted. Without implantation, embryos cannot develop into babies.
This is unacceptable. We cannot let the ends justify the means. We cannot and should not accept the creation and death of one set of human beings in order to develop medical treatments for others. The linked article debates the ethical concerns of editing human DNA for how it can affect humanity in the future, but the present concern is how the use and disposal of human beings in research is affecting our humanity now.
We are continuing our review of the presentations given at 2017 Convention in April. You may also find these presentations in our quarterly member publication, MCFL News. In this presentation, three physicians discuss how doctor-prescribed suicide will change their profession
Dr. William Lawton began his presentation on a physician’s perspective concerning doctor-prescribed suicide (DPS) by reflecting on the traditional ethic of the Hippocratic oath: to give no deadly medicine and to do no harm. He said, “Hippocrates understood what we as a culture increasingly do not understand: that a physician cannot be both healer and killer and maintain the trust of his patient.”Read more
As we await the next ruling from the judge in the case of Charlie Gard, the British infant whose parents are trying to keep him alive despite the best efforts of the hospital to let him die, R.R. Reno at First Things has a solid analysis of this and similar cases and the moral distinctions involved. It also explains why a case that takes place so far away would so concern us here in Massachusetts.Read more
By Nancy Valko
A disturbing statement made by Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for life, appearing to support the European Court of Human Rights decision to reject Baby Charlie Gard’s parents’ request to go to the US for an experimental treatment for their critically ill son struck a nerve with many Catholics. And although Pope Francis quickly expressed his support for Baby Charlie and his parents shortly after the statement, the ethical issue of experimental treatment remains confusing to many people, Catholic or not.
But what has the Catholic Church really said about experimental means?Read more