phatcatholic Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 [url="http://www.acim-asia.com/To_Live_and_Let_Die.htm"][b]To Live and Let Die: Some Questions on the Moral Limits of Medical Treatment[/b][/url][list][b]The Magisterium of Pius XII[/b] Confronting the new medical technologies, and the ever more daring theories widely spread by too liberal theologians, many persons found themselves in doubt and asked the Church to present again her point of view on these questions. Pope Pius XII went back to sound tradition, to the basic principles of natural and Christian morals.[url="http://www.acim-asia.com/To_Live_and_Let_Die.htm#13B"][b]13[/b][/url] He reaffirmed the principle of totality. The good of man is the good of the whole person, not only his bodily integrity, but also the subordination of biological life to higher goods, the common good of civil and ecclesiastical society, the good of our own spiritual welfare: [list]"[The patient] is bound by the immanent purposes fixed by nature.…Because he is the beneficiary, and not the proprietor, he does not possess unlimited power to allow acts of destruction or of mutilation of anatomic or functional character. But in virtue of the principle of totality, of his right to employ the services of the organism as a whole, he can give individual parts to destruction or mutilation when and to the extent that it is necessary for the good of his being as a whole, to assure its existence or to avoid, and naturally to repair, grave and lasting damage which could otherwise neither be avoided nor repaired.[url="http://www.acim-asia.com/To_Live_and_Let_Die.htm#14B"][b]14[/b][/url] "What purpose would be served by the use and development of the body, of its energies, of its beauty, if it were not at the service of something more noble and lasting, namely, the soul?…It is sound to teach man to respect his body, but not to esteem the body more than is right.…Care of the body is not man’s first anxiety, neither the earthly and mortal body as it is now, not the glorified body made spiritual as it will be one day. The first place in man’s composite being does not belong to the body taken from the earth’s slime, but to the spirit, to the spiritual soul." [url="http://www.acim-asia.com/To_Live_and_Let_Die.htm#15B"][b]15[/b][/url] [/list] Pius XII also restated the notions of ordinary and extraordinary means. Ordinary are those treatments which offer reasonable hope of benefit without imposing unacceptable burdens on the patient or others, and they are considered always in relation to the different circumstances of persons, places, times and cultures. Extraordinary are those means which do impose unacceptable burdens. The Pope did not address the specific criteria for distinguishing between ordinary and extraordinary treatments, but made only one specific application: the respirator for a dying patient can be considered as extraordinary means. [/list] [url="http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/india/bii28.htm"][b]Bioethics in India: Proceedings of the International Bioethics Workshop in Madras: Biomanagement of Biogeoresources[/b][/url][list][b]Christian Perspectives in Medical Ethics[/b] [i]3.7. Principle of Totality [/i] The principle of totality has evolved in the Christian tradition. Traditionally, the principle of totality was understood thus: "Any treatment, including mutilation, is licit if it is necessary for the saving or the well-being of the whole individual organism (16)." In other words, the principle was restricted to the somatic aspect of life. Because of the weakness inherent in the traditional notion, the principle has now been expanded by many recent authors to include not only the somatic good of the human organism, but also the person's spiritual well-being. For instance, Bernard Haring affirms: "The main criterion is the principle of totality -- not a totality of mere organic functions but a perspective of wholeness that considers the total vocation of the human person. It is not just a question of the meaning of the bodily organism; the most urgent issue relates to the meaning of an integral human life in response to man's earthly and eternal values." (17) After affirming thus, he defines the principle of totality in the following way : "The dignity and well-being of man as a person in all his essential relationships to God, to his fellowmen and to the world around him." (18) footnotes: 16. G.V.Lobo, Current Problems in Medical Ethics, 3rd ed., St.Paul Publications, Allahabad, 1980, p.31. 17. Bernard Haring, op.cit., p.62. 18. Ibid. [/list] [url="http://www.ewtn.net/library/PROLENC/ENCYC102.HTM"][b]Surgical Sterilization[/b][/url][list][b]The Catholic Church Position on Sterilization. Barnyard Birth Control.[/b] Sexual sterilization is sometimes sneeringly referred to as "Catholic birth control." This term, and the misguided assertions of a number well-known dissident Catholic priests, has led to confusion about what the Catholic Church teaches about sterilization. Quotes on Sterilization. In his address to the Congress of Urology on October 8, 1953, Pope Pius XII outlined the specific conditions under which sterilization (or any amputation, for that matter) may be performed: [list]Three things condition the moral permission of a surgical operation requiring an anatomical or functional mutilation; (1) that the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete organism [this is the 'principle of totality']; (2) that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least notably diminished, except by the amputation in question and that its efficacy is well assured; and (3) that it can be reasonably foreseen that the negative effect, namely, the mutilation and its consequences, will be compensated by the positive effect: exclusion of a damage to the whole organism, mitigation of the pain, etc. [As far as sterilization is concerned], the conditions which would justify disposing of a part in favor of the whole in virtue of the principle of totality are lacking. It is not therefore morally permissible to operate on healthy oviducts if the life or (physical) health of the mother is not threatened by their continued existence. [/list] [/list] [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12PSYCH.HTM"][b]The Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment[/b][/url] [i]An address given September 14, 1952 by His Holiness to the First International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System.[/i][list]13. As for the patient, he is not absolute master of himself, of his body or of his soul. He cannot, therefore, freely dispose of himself as he pleases. Even the reason for which he acts is of itself neither sufficient nor determining. The patient is bound to the immanent teleology laid down by nature. He has the right of use, limited by natural finality, of the faculties and powers of his human nature. Because he is a user and not a proprietor, he does not have unlimited power to destroy or mutilate his body and its functions. Nevertheless, by virtue of the principle of totality, by virtue of his right to use the services of his organism as a whole, the patient can allow individual parts to be destroyed or mutilated when and to the extent necessary for the good of his being as a whole. He may do so to ensure his being's existence and to avoid or, naturally, to repair serious and lasting damage which cannot otherwise be avoided or repaired. 29. The community is the great means intended by nature and God to regulate the exchange of mutual needs and to aid each man to develop his personality fully according to his individual and social abilities. Considered as a whole, the community is not a physical unity subsisting in itself and its individual members are not integral parts of it. Considered as a whole, the physical organism of living beings, of plants, animals or man, has a unity subsisting in itself. Each of the members, for example, the hand, the foot, the heart, the eye, is an integral part destined by all its being to be inserted in the whole organism. Outside the organism it has not, by its very nature, any sense, any finality. It is wholly absorbed by the totality of the organism to which it is attached. 34. We cannot refrain from explaining once more the point treated in this third part in the light of the principle to which one customarily appeals in like cases. We mean the principle of totality. This principle asserts that the part exists for the whole and that, consequently, the good of the part remains subordinated to the good of the whole, that the whole is a determining factor for the part and can dispose of it in its own interest. This principle flows from the essence of ideas and things and must, therefore, have an absolute value. 35. We respect the principle of totality in itself but, in order to be able to apply it correctly, one must always explain certain premises first. The basic premise is that of clarifying the <quaestio facto>, the question of fact. Are the objects to which the principle is applied in the relation of a whole to its parts? A second premise is the clarification of the nature, extension and limitation of this relationship. Is it on the level of essence or merely on that of action, or on both? Does it apply to the part under a certain aspect or in all its relations? And, in the field where it applies, does it absorb the part completely or still leave it a limited finality, a limited independence? The answers to these questions can never be inferred from the principle of totality itself. That would be a vicious circle. They must be drawn from other facts and other knowledge. The principle of totality itself affirms only this: where the relationship of a whole to its part holds good, and in the exact measure it holds good, the part is subordinated to the whole and the whole, in its own interest, can dispose of the part. Too often, unfortunately, in invoking the principle of totality, people leave these considerations aside, not only in the field of theoretical study and the field of application of law, sociology, physics, biology and medicine, but also of logic, psychology and metaphysics. [/list] [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/MEDMORLS.HTM"][b]Medicine and Morals[/b][/url][list][b]The Principle of Totality and Its Application in Medicine[/b] The second speaker, Fr. Gunthor, began by explaining how the principle of totality could be understood in. different ways. Vatican Council II in the Pastoral Constitution, for example, stressed the unity and totality of man in body and soul. This had wide repercussions in medical practice which could no longer concentrate only on the diseased organ but must take into account the whole person. The principle of totality, in the specific sense of the word, states that the part of the totality of a human being exists for the whole, consequently it is subordinated to the whole; and that the whole holds a pre. dominant power over the part and may dispose of it in its own interest. (Pius XII) Although this principle is evident, its application is not always easy. The principle itself has undergone undeniable development. Whilst Pius XI spoke rather of the body in which the parts are disposed, Pius XII always paid more consideration to the whole person, to whom the parts have a relationship of finality. In this perspective, justification may be found, for example for psychosurgery, for proper aesthetic medical care, etc. From this point of view, the solution is also found for the problem of transplanting an organ from one living human body to another. A transplant is not simply in favour of the recipient of the organ but also favours the donor who in this way under certain conditions realizes the ontological social structure of the human person. In the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, the Pope does not allow certain applications of the principle of totality to matrimonial problems; for example, the single act cannot be considered as a part of the totality of matrimonial life, for if it were, the single act could no longer be a total dedication. Furthermore, the principle of totality, even from another point of view, cannot be applied to marriage, in the sense that a man could interfere with his nature for the benefit of his personal good or that of his wife. Anyone who reasons in this way fails to see that the concept of nature is analogous. It may in fact refer to certain physical data, more or less contingent, which may and in some cases ought to be dealt with within the limits of the principle of totality. But nature may also mean a series of attitudes and human acts, richly and deeply meaningful and of sublime significance. And in this sense nature cannot be trifled with; it can only be fulfilled or destroyed. [/list] [url="http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/leep/leep_01dignity1.html"][b]Personhood, Dignity, Suicide, and Euthanasia[/b][/url][list][footnote] [i][b]11.[/b] John Finnis, "Misunderstanding the Case," 62-65. Note also that the examples Kamm gives of cases in which all of us seem to condone doing evil to achieve a good are not cases of choosing to destroy, damage, or impede a basic human good. When one amputates a limb for the sake of the individual life, the limb is not a basic human good. The parts of one's body are good just to the extent to which they, as parts, contribute to the good of the whole. If they get in the way of the survival of the whole then they are not good. This, of course, is the traditional principle of totality. It says, not that one may do a small evil for the sake of avoiding a greater, but that the goodness of the part consists in it contribution to the whole. But a whole person is not a part. [[url="http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/leep/leep_01dignity1.html#b11"][b]Back[/b][/url]] [/list][/i]
Recommended Posts