Commonweal editorial on "utmost care"

Thanks to Michael for his post about the Commonweal editorial on the CDF's statement on the nutrition and hydration of pvs patients. The Commonweal editorial, which relies on a more temperate essay by Daniel Sulmasy, is entitled "utmost care" and it is a plea for the Church to be cautious about pronouncing on moral questions. 

I was troubled by the editorial and the Sulmasy essay. My basic problem is that despite the concerns expressed about the burdens of treating pvs patients the real objection of the editorial and the Sulmasy essay is that the CDF doesn't seem to realize that the lives of these patients aren't really worth living. The editorial refers in an ambiguous way to pvs patients as "dying" and the intent here seems to be to draw from the view that considers these patients to be suffering from a "fatal pathology." In fact, the "problem" is that these patients won't die soon enough and the "solution" is to try to find a way to help them along. The editorial also expresses concern about the focus on "preserving physical life" and this reflects the dualistic understanding of the person that the CDF statement and its accompanying commentary reject. Sulmasy emphasizes that we ought to respect the "good-faith determination by the family that the patient would not want to live if unable to recover...." This doesn't seem to me to depend on the patient being terminally ill or even in a pvs condition. It doesn't seem to depend on the treatment at stake. It seems to be based on a judgment that the life of a pvs patient isn't really worth living.

The CDF statement took pains to emphasize that a pvs patient, however disabled, is still a person with fundamental human dignity. I think the CDF statement was a much-needed clarification of Church teaching on this issue. For my thoughts on these issues in the context of the Terri Schiavo case, see this paper. For Mark Latkovic's careful analysis of the moral issues, see this paper.

Richard M.