Catholic Physicians\u27 Guild

English

epublications@Marquette

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 41 | Number 4 Article 3November 1974Letters ... To the EditorCatholic Physicians' GuildFollow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqRecommended CitationCatholic Physicians' Guild (1974) "Letters ... To the Editor," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 41: No. 4, Article 3.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol41/iss4/3Letters. To the Editor: In the May, 1974 issue of Linacre Quarterly there appeared an article by Gerard P. J. Griffin, M.D. entitled "Catholic Physicians and the Direc-tives for Catholic Health Facilities." It struck me as I read the article that it seemed that the author was in-terpreting the 1971 Directives as "Directives for Individual Practicing Physicians," and in at least one in-stance, "Directives for Married Cou-ples." In fact, the title of the document is "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Facilities." Some things may be good for and indicated in the case of an individual person. Sometimes these same things, if adopted as an operational institu-tional policy may ultimately destroy what the institution was set up to ac-complish. There cannot be an undiffer-entiated transition from an individual application to an organizational ap-plication, or vice versa. Failure to realize this and lack of sophistication in the organizational sciences seem to be at the root of confusion for many who study and analyze the Directives. Sincerely, Sister Rebecca, S.S.M. Executive Director St. Mary's Hospital Medical Center Madison, Wisconsin To the Editor: It is difficult to understand Dr. May's justification (Feb. 1974) for directly attacking a fetus in the pro-cess of saving the mother's life. His "indirectly voluntary" killing of the fetus seems factious, in light of the fact that the mean,s chosen to save the mother's life is the killing of the fetus, which would seem to require a direct intention. It is quite possible that two November, 1974 acts are involved in his example, and that his "indirectly voluntary" inten-tion is a futile attempt to unify them into one. If two shipwrecked sailors were faced with a single lifejacket, the weaker would not be justified in shoot-ing the other to death, even though that were the only means of obtaining the jacket and thereby of saving his own life'. Yet, Dr. May seems to be justifying such a position. His analogy with self-defense ap-pears inadequate, since in morally justifiable self-defense there is an ad-ditional factor, namely the unjust ag-gression. It is not evident that the fetus is an aggressor in any sense of the word. The sometimes postulated "material aggressor" is no longer a realistic role to be played by any fetus. It should be kept in mind by moralists that, in light of modern obstetrical practice, there are no longer any valid merucal inrucations for a direct attack upon the fetus. There continue to exist only situations covered in cases traditional-ly exemplified by the cancerous uterus, ectopic pregnancy, etc., all of which provide for clear-cut, indirect intention toward the cessation of the fetal life. Sincerely yours, Rev. Edw, Robinson, O.P. Rogers Memorial Hospital Rogers, Arkansas 72756 The following is Dr. May's re-sponse. Dear Father Robinson: The editors of The Linacre Quar-terly have forwarded to me a copy of your letter of June 23 commenting on a section of my article on abortion. I appreciate your concern, and I hope that in this letter I will be able to clarify my position. First let me state that if the analysis I offered would logically require me to justifying one shipwrecked sailor to shoot another to death so that he could 235 thereby save his own life, then the analysis offered is definitely false. Second let me say that I firmly be-lieve that direct abortion . is a wrong-ful activity, one in which human beings ought not to engage. I suppose the difficulty arises when we seek to determine precisely what is meant by "direct abortion," that is an activity that must be regarded, as a moral or human act, as an act of fetic ide. This is an activity that is morally wrong and cannot be justified on the grounds of good consequences. My point is that at times one may perform an act that does , in fact, bring about the death of a fetus , and does so directly in a physical sense, and not take on as part of his moral iden -tity the indentity of a feticider be-cause the act itself is not truthfully to be described as an act of feticide. Why not? Because the thrust of the action itself - its finis operis in an older terminology, its own teleology -is not directed against the life of the fetus but is rather directed of its own inner thrust toward removing a force threatening the life of the mother. The means involved is not the death of the fetus but rather a human surgical ac-tivity ordered both of itself and by the agent toward saving the life of the mother, although it is foreseen that the fetus will die as a result of the action. What the action does is two-fold: it saves the mother and leads to the death of the fetus. What the action says - its meaning or signifi-cance or intelligibility as a human act - is performing the only action pos-sible to save the life of the mother. Per-haps an analogy will help. Suppose that a doctor is amputating the leg of a person afflicted with bone cancer. This act of amputation is , in a physi-cal sense, directly mutilating that per-son, but it is not, morally speaking, an act of mutilation, nOr is the doctor taking on the identity of a mutilator in doing it. His action does two things : it mutilates the person whose leg is amputated and likewise saves his life ; 236 his action says that the doctor is per-forming the only surgical operation possible to save that person's life, while foreseeing that the person will be mutilated as a result of the activity. One shipwrecked sailor may not rightfully shoot another in order to get the one life· preserver that can save his own life because his act is an act of killing. The act itself is tar-geted in and of itself on the death of the other sailor, and the means that he takes to save his own life is an act of killing. Even in unjust aggression one can-not rightfully intend the death of an assailant - if the intent of the agent is to kill the aggressor, if that is what he is setting out to do through his act, the action is no longer an act of self-defense or of defense of another but is now an act of killing. I think that a careful examination of Summa Theologiae II-II, 64, 7, will bear out this analysis. In the article I indicated that the position I took was influenced greatly by studying the writings of Germain Grisez and Paul Ramsey, as well as St. Thomas in the article cited, and J. Glenn Gray in his book The War-riors (in particular, pp. 51-55). I think that if you read this material and re-flect on the position set forth in the article, you might better see what I am trying to say. It is morally wrong for a human being to kill other human beings directly , that is, to perform ac-tions that inevitably mean that he is taking on as part of his moral identity the identity of a killer, of a doer of a deed that is in and of itself targeted on the death of other humans. If the type of abortion that I seek to justify in my essay is in truth an act of this kind , then it is an act that a human being ought not to perform. I believe, how-ever, and I hope that I have been able to explain why, that some actions that do in fact bring about the death of a fetus, are not acts of killing, acts of feticide. They are no more acts of feticide than are actions leading to the Linacre Quarterly death of a fetus when a cancerous uterus or ectopic pregnancy is re-moved, although in all of these the death of the fetus is foreseen and is physically direct. To summarize my position. An act that will issue in the death of a fetus is morally justifiable only when there is a proportionate good to be achieved and the agent does not directly, that is, properly intend the death of the fetus and does not do so because the action that he is performing is of itself not directly targeted on the life of the fetus but rather on saving the life of the mother. I hope that this letter may help to clarify my position. I realize that this position may be erroneous, although I believe that it is true. But I repeat: if it is true that the type of action that I justify is directly abortive in the moral sense, then this is a type of action that simply cannot be justified, and it cannot be justified because it is an act that inevitably requires one to ' take on as part of his moral identity the identity of a feticider, a killer of fetuses. Sincerely, William E. May Order Your CHRISTMAS GIFT Subscription NOW! The LINACRE QUARTERLY will make an excellent gift for doctors, nurses, priests, hospital and medical school administrators, social workers, lawyers, dentists, and all concerned with the philosophy and ethics of medical practice. SPECIAL CHRISTMAS OFFER: 5 issues for the price of 4. We'll mail this issue of the L.Q. to those you designate, plus all four issues in 1975. In addition, we'll send an acknowledgment letter informing the recipient that you have subscribed to the L.Q. for him. Order as many subscriptions as YOU wish. Be sure· to list exact name, address and zip codes. Enclosed is my check to cover gift subscriptions for the following persons: (S6 for each annual subscription). Make checks payable to LINACRE QUARTERLY and mail to Linacre Quarterly, 2825 N. Mayfair Rd., Milwaukee, Wis. 53222 Send Subscription to: Name __________________________________________________________ ___ Address __________________________________________________________ _ City _________________________ State/Province _____________ Zi p _____ __ Your Name __________________________________________________________ _ Your Address ________________________________________________________ _ Your City ______________________ State _________________ _ Zip ___ _ November, 1974 237 

Letters ... To the Editor

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1305&amp;context=lnq

Letters ... To the Editor

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette