Doctors in New Orleans Killed the critically ill.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Sep 13 2005, 04:17 PM']I wonder if cases like this, it's morally permissible to do this.  If the doctors didn't kill them, the patients may have suffered greatly.
[right][snapback]722056[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No. It is never, [b]ever[/b] morally permissible to play God.

[Totus Tuus]

Sorry, didn't realize that ^^ had already been addressed.

[Catholictothecore]

May God have mercy on US all.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 07:02 PM']Paladin, the morally corageous (though not obligatory) thing to do for someone whose conscience would be so troubled would be to stay and defend them from the mob up until their death.
[right][snapback]722152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed.

It will also be troubling if the patients didn't have any say in this decision.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 06:16 PM']so medical professionals did not know if the doses of morphine they gave the patients would kill them? 
I suppose you're right so long as they are not doing it thinking it might kill them.
[right][snapback]722164[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sometimes it is hard to estimate the effect a certain dose may have, every patient is different.

Double effect says that you may know that your act may kill the person, but that that is not the intention of the act. Also the other requirement of the act is that it must be morally neutral. Here's another situation that may (I hope) clarify....

If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (where the fertilized egg is in the fallopian tube and may be fatal to the woman and the pregnancy cannot be saved) there are a number of treatments, for example. 1) the pregnancy can be ended by administering methotrexate, or 2) the fallopian tube, or part of it may be removed. Per double effect the first option is unacceptable, because although your intention is to save the woman, your action that acheives that is killing the baby. That is not a morally neutral action, it is abortion. The second option of removing part or all of the tube is a morally neutral action, you can forsee that the death of the child will occur, but you do not intend it, nor do you cause the death. Does that make sense? (If any of you Church Scholars see error in my explaination please let me know, I'm only a baby-student of double effect!)

Does that help at all?

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
9/13 - St. John Chrysostom
[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 06:02 PM']moreover, in a situation where one didn't know it was lethal that is still a questionable practice, seeing impending death and drugging yourself up so you won't suffer.... the virtuous thing to do is to face the suffering and death courageously offering it up for the salvation of souls.[right][snapback]722152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I want [b][i]YOU[/i][/b] to tell these people that they need to smell of elderberries it up for Jesus. That's ridiculous - [i]Salvifici Doloris[/i] explains quite clearly that redemptive suffering only occuring when JOY occurs in the midst of this suffering.

I find this answer to be ludicrous and entirely disconnected with reality. And you didn't attack my argument, you just asserted that I couldn't apply double effect because "doctors should know". You may apply this rashness to yourself, but do not force it as a universal moral norm.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
9/13 - St. John Chrysostom
[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Sep 13 2005, 06:49 PM']If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (where the fertilized egg is in the fallopian tube and may be fatal to the woman and the pregnancy cannot be saved) there are a number of treatments, for example.  1) the pregnancy can be ended by administering methotrexate, or 2) the fallopian tube, or part of it may be removed.  Per double effect the first option is unacceptable, because although your intention is to save the woman, your action that acheives that is killing the baby.  That is not a morally neutral action, it is abortion.  The second option of removing part or all of the tube is a morally neutral action, you can forsee that the death of the child will occur, but you do not intend it, nor do you cause the death.  Does that make sense?  (If any of you Church Scholars see error in my explaination please let me know, I'm only a baby-student of double effect!)
[right][snapback]722208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, this looks good. Another way to say it is that death can be forseen and tolerated, but never intended. Though death may be likely (it may be extremely likely), it is not directly willed or wanted. I think that these people are using a misnomer by calling what they did "euthanasia". I don't think it was euthanasia at all.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Sep 13 2005, 07:10 PM']JMJ
9/13 - St. John Chrysostom

No, this looks good.  Another way to say it is that death can be forseen and tolerated, but never intended.  Though death may be likely (it may be extremely likely), it is not directly willed or wanted.  I think that these people are using a misnomer by calling what they did "euthanasia".  I don't think it was euthanasia at all.
[right][snapback]722232[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, good. What do you think it should be called? In bioethics we'd call it involuntary euthaniasia.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Sep 13 2005, 08:07 PM']JMJ
9/13 - St. John Chrysostom

I want [b][i]YOU[/i][/b] to tell these people that they need to smell of elderberries it up for Jesus.  That's ridiculous - [i]Salvifici Doloris[/i] explains quite clearly that redemptive suffering only occuring when JOY occurs in the midst of this suffering.

I find this answer to be ludicrous and entirely disconnected with reality.  And you didn't attack my argument, you just asserted that I couldn't apply double effect because "doctors should know".  You may apply this rashness to yourself, but do not force it as a universal moral norm.
[right][snapback]722229[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


perhaps you could pay attention just a little bit, I already recanted that part of my statement.

other than that, I see no double effect in administering what is known or assumed to be a lethal dose of morphine. what is the morally neutral action?

I agree with Birgitta Noel's description, but administering morphine in such ammounts is the same as her first option. there is no morally neutral action, trained medical personal understand that administering high ammounts of morphine is going to result in an overdose.

I didn't say "smell of elderberries it up for Jesus" either.

anyway, I would not hesitate to explain to these doctors that what they did was not morally licit. And I would not hesitate to tell a culture not to be so obsessed with avoiding all sorts of suffering.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
9/13 - St. John Chrysostom
[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 07:59 PM']other than that, I see no double effect in administering what is known or assumed to be a lethal dose of morphine.  what is the morally neutral action?
[right][snapback]722268[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As I see it, they are not administering what is known or assumed to be a lethal dose of morphine. It [i]could[/i] be lethal, but any dose of morphine could be lethal. Just because death is [i]likely[/i] doesn't mean that death is [i]certain[/i].

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
9/13 - St. John Chrysostom
[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Sep 13 2005, 07:17 PM']Ok, good.  What do you think it should be called?  In bioethics we'd call it involuntary euthaniasia.
[right][snapback]722237[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In philosophy, it's simply called killing. Killing may be legitimae. Mercy killing is neither merciful nor killing, but murder wrapped in false charity.

[Socrates]

Why isn't this in the debate table?

[Marieteresa]

I am just wondering if the doctors would have left the patients there to die...To suffer, to be raped and or murdered. Is that ok? What if we were the patients? Would you want to be abandoned left there alone suffering in the darkness. Praying that we will not be raped or murdered? I had someone close to me suffer and die an painful death and I couldnt imagine them being left alone in a hospital waiting to die. Yes, I know that murder is wrong and goes against God. But if we were in the situation what would we do? If ones mother had 2 days to live would you leave her there to die? i just wanted to put in my random thoughts

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I dunno Pio Nono.. seems like we're giving too much credit to the doctors-- and too much semantics (i.e., "likely" and "certain")... I highly doubt the doctors went through all that thought.

The intent-- as the impression that the article itself gives-- is that these doctors intended to kill those critically ill patients because they could not help them. It's like shooting a guy who's bleeding to death just to "put him out of his misery".

Given their profession, I have a hard time putting this under the category of double-effect...

[ryanmeyersmusic]

without detailed descriptions of both sides of each death, it's unacceptable to assume sin or otherwise.

perhaps better for the edification of us all (myself included) one or many of the scholars amongst us could offer specific situations that it would be morally permissable/impermissible depending on the state of the patient, the capacity of the doctor, and the intention of either party?

[Aloysius]

it would seem that a morally neutral action would be to attempt to leave with them, even if they were too sick to be moved.

like in birgitta's example, the administering of the drug can really have no intention other than endangering their life. but the intention of bringing them with you, even though you know it would likely cause their death, is good.

I can't understand a situation in which a high dosage of morphine would be administered without the intention of endangering life, there really is no other intention. injecting someone with a high degree of morphine is not a morally neutral action.

I could just as likely have shot the person in the stomach, said that my intention was to save them from this suffering and that my action of shooting them in the stomach was intended to shock them into unconsciousness. the broad application of double effect here is a dangerous precedent.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
9/13 - St. John Chrysostom
[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Sep 13 2005, 08:38 PM']I dunno Pio Nono.. seems like we're giving too much credit to the doctors-- and too much semantics (i.e., "likely" and "certain")... I highly doubt the doctors went through all that thought.

The intent-- as the impression that the article itself gives-- is that these doctors intended to kill those critically ill patients because they could not help them. It's like shooting a guy who's bleeding to death just to "put him out of his misery".
[right][snapback]722312[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
1. The likely/certain distinction is KEY - if death is likely, then the action is permitted, but if death is certain, the action is forbidden. Philosophers have held this since Aristotle. If you think it's semantics, there's not much I can say to refute you, other than to point you to tradition.

2. It is not clear to me that these doctors intentionally killed these people. If death was the intention, then these doctors are to be blamed and punished. If death was the forseen but not determined outcome of the action, then these doctors are not to be blamed.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
9/13 - St. John Chrysostom
[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 09:22 PM']it would seem that a morally neutral action would be to attempt to leave with them, even if they were too sick to be moved.
[right][snapback]722363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I am not convinced of this, but will allow it for the sake of argument.
[quote]like in birgitta's example, the administering of the drug can really have no intention other than endangering their life.  but the intention of bringing them with you, even though you know it would likely cause their death, is good.
I can't understand a situation in which a high dosage of morphine would be administered without the intention of endangering life, there really is no other intention.  injecting someone with a high degree of morphine is not a morally neutral action.[/quote]
You're accepting the principle without accepting the application. On what basis is it morally permissible to endanger someone's life in situation (x), but not in situation (y)? Either the application holds with the principle, or both fail. If you're suspicious of the application, then say so, but the principle still holds that this action is permitted if death is not certain.

[quote]I could just as likely have shot the person in the stomach, said that my intention was to save them from this suffering and that my action of shooting them in the stomach was intended to shock them into unconsciousness.  the broad application of double effect here is a dangerous precedent.[/quote]
This is an invalid application; shooting someone in the stomach would not reduce pain at all. The "broad application of double effect" only sits within the philosophical tradition out of which I come. Again, if you don't like the application, then say so, but the principle still holds.

Edit: changed "an action is permitted" to "this action is permitted"

[RC_]

The act of killing someone simply because they are disabiled is neither mericiful nor heroic. It is murder, plain and simple.

[Winchester]

Let us say objectively not justified. Should never be legal.

Let the culpability rest in God's hands and pray for all concerned.