Like its predecessor, the Vatican's New Charter for Health Care Workers (click for more detailed background) is divided into sections on procreation, living, and dying.
Click to
email the Apostolic Nuncio, Cardinals DiNardo and Dolan, Archbishop Chaput and his auxiliary bishops, and NCBC staff:
"The inseparable bond between conjugal love and human generation, imprinted on the nature of the human person, is a law by which everyone must be guided and to which everyone is held.'' A review of OBGYN physician directories in hospitals in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia indicates the overwhelming majority of OBGYNs would not be prepared provide authentic Catholic care. Continued use of ''Plan B'' (i.e., so called emergency contraception) flies in the face of evidence of abortifacient potential. Reference 167 of the NCBC's English translation of the New Charter for Health Care Workers is concerning as it seems to indicate approval of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, when Dignitas Personae did not. The NCBC appears to inaccurately speak as though the Church had given unequivocal acceptance to so-called brain death criteria. There is a need for a more clear statement on assisted nutrition and hydration , such as that suggested by Dr Chris Kahlenborn (Pro Life Health Care Alliance, 11/22/16)."
Procreating
The New Charter proclaims the truth that “The inseparable bond between conjugal love and human generation, imprinted on the nature of the human person, is a law by which everyone must be guided and to which everyone is held”; this truth underlies the Church's teachings on procreation (i.e., Fertility Regulation, Medical Responses to Marital Infertility, Prenatal and Preimplantation diagnosis, Freezing Embryos and Oocytes, and New Attempts at Human Generation and Procreation) and must certainly be evidenced in Catholic hospitals. Yet judging by a November 2018 look at their physician directories, it does not seem that Catholic hospitals in the Philadelphia Archdiocese are prepared to consistently provide authentically Catholic obstetric and gynecological care.
Within the boundaries of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (i.e., Pennsylvania's Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Philadelphia, and Montgomery Counties), there are only nine physicians (i.e., Joseph Harryhill, George Isajiw, Gregory Lubiniecki, Alfred Mauriello, Monique Ruberu, Lester Ruppersberger, Pedro Solanet, Eleanor Tiongson, and William Williams) to be found in an NFP- only directory - only two of whom are OBGYN doctors (i.e., Ruberu and Ruppersberger).
Living
Under its section on
living, the New Charter Church covers a vast array of topics (i.e.,
Human Life Inviolable and "Indisposable", Abortion and the Destruction of Nascent Life, Embryo Reduction, Interception and Contragestation, Ectopic Pregnancies, Anencephalic Fetuses, Conscientious Objection, Defending the Right to Life, Prevention, Prevention and Vaccines, Medical Prevention and Society, Sickness, Diagnosis, Interventions on the Genome, Gene Therapy, Regenerative Therapy, Treatment and Rehabilitation, Prescription and Appropriate Use of Pharmaceuticals, Access to Available Medications and Technologies, Sustainable Health, Pharmaceutical Companies, Rare or Neglected Diseases, Pain Relief Treatments, Informed Consent of the Patient, Biomedical Research and Experimentation, Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation, Determination of Death, The Removal of Organs from Pediatric Donors, Xenotransplants, Transplantation and Personal Identity, Abuses in Transplantation, Forms of Dependence, Drug Dependence, Alcoholism, Tobacco Dependence, Psychotropic Drugs, Psychology and Psychotherapy, Pastoral Care and the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, Ethics Committees and Clinical Ethics Counseling, Health Care Policies and the Right to the Preservation of Health.)
Some claim there can be a legitimate use for Plan B (so-called emergency contraception) in Catholic hospitals.
The New Charter offers absolutely NO guidelines for any supposed "moral" use of any method leading to Interception or Contragestation, which indicates the need to change practices at Catholic hospitals.
-
As per Fr. Juan Vélez, MD (an Opus Dei priest who also has a doctorate in dogmatic theology) and Rebecca Peck, MD, ''there is no safe period to give LNC-EC during a woman's cycle when it may be efficacious to prevent pregnancy without significant likelihood that it will have an abortifacient effect'' (The Postovulatory Mechanism of Action of Plan B, NCBC Quarterly, Winter 2013).
- Writing with Dr. Peck, we have also been alerted to abortifacient potential by Chris Kahlenborn, M.D. and Walter B. Severs, Ph.D., F.C.P. (Mechanism of action of levonorgestrel emergency contraception, Linacre Quarterly, February 2015; ), and
- Drs Walter Rella, Julio Tudelo, Justo Aznar and Bruno Moznegga (Does levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive have a post-fertilization effect? A review of its mechanism of action, Linacre Quarterly, April 2016).
- The Catholic Medical Association has indicated the need for change in 2015 and again in 2016, when it wrote: "The entailed risk of taking a human life through Plan B's MOA is ethically unacceptable."
- Most recently, Dr. Chris Kahlenborn's "Plan B: Current Controversies" (2018) explains the tragic current situation in Catholic hospitals
In the New Charter's section on
Regenerative Therapy, reference #167 might seem to infer a favorable judgment on the use of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells - that suggests a need to question the accuracy of the translation from the Italian original to English by the
National Catholic Bioethics Center, because Section 30 of the Vatican's
Dignitas Personae appeared to preclude their use.
- "One of the top researchers in the field of stem cells has said that iPS (induced pluripotent) stem cells, the 'embryo-like' cells hailed by many as the answer to the ethical problems presented by embryonic stem cells, are 'probably' actually already embryos and have already, with the right conditions and treatment in the lab, developed into 'complete animals' in experiments.... LifeSiteNews.com spoke with Dr. Dianne Irving, a former bench biochemist researcher with the National Institutes of Health in the US, who confirmed Dr. Gurdon’s assertion, saying, 'Some iPS cell are potentially embryos'....Given the ability of cells to be reverted to the embryonic stage, she said, 'any human cell can be used for reproductive purposes,' so pro-life people must start making very careful distinctions about what type of cell is being created and used and the methods used to obtain them...." (LifeSiteNews, 4/23/13)
With regard to
Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation and
Determination of Death, Dr. Peter Colosi (
Our Sunday Visitor Newsweekly, 8/8/12) has pointed out that
- "Some medical doctors and theologians doubt that brain-dead donors are actually dead. This would mean that the removal of the vital organ is the act by which the donor dies, but the Catechism (No. 2296) states, '[I]t is not morally admissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons'.... Eminent Catholic critics of brain death are Dr. Paul Byrne of St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Oregon, Ohio, and Josef Seifert of the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein and Granada, Spain. The medical studies of Dr. Alan Shewmon of UCLA Medical School are quite convincing indications that brain dead people are not dead, or at the very least that we do not have moral certainty that they are."
While some maintain that the Church pronounced favorably on brain death in 2000, Pope John Paul II’s statement did
not offer an unequivocal endorsement. The New Charter includes this
2008 cautious quote from Pope Benedict XVI:
- “In an area such as this, in fact, there cannot be the slightest suspicion of arbitration and where certainty has not been attained the principle of precaution must prevail. This is why it is useful to promote research and interdisciplinary reflection to place public opinion before the most transparent truth on the anthropological, social, ethical and juridical implications of the practice of transplantation."
If you
click and move to 22:25, you will hear a debate between
neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics Dr. Paul Byrne and National Catholic Bioethics Center President John Haas, PhD (NOT a physician). While Haas may have had the stylistic upper hand in the debate, Byrne suggests that Haas is "misleading the world" on so-called "brain death."
One could get the idea that Haas was mistakenly claiming that Saint Pope John Paul II had unequivocally endorsed brain death criteria (cf., Kresta in the Afternoon, 1/8/14).
Dying
Under the New Charter's section on dying, a wide range of material is covered
Under the New Charter's section on dying, a wide range of material is covered (i.e.,
Dying with Dignity, Civil Laws and Conscientious Objection, Nutrition and Hydration, The Use of Analgesics in the Terminal Stage, Telling the Truth to the Dying Person, Religious Care of the Dying Person, Destroying Life, and Euthanasia). Dr. Chris Kahlenborn (
11/22/16) has explained some reasons why we should be concerned about how well Catholic teaching is being applied.
"I have found that, in general, hospice and palliative care personnel try to dissuade patients from assisted nutrition and hydration. In my opinion, the reasons for this vary. Unfortunately, financial pressure often plays a significant role. Patients who forego ANH are frequently transferred to hospice centers and die within days from dehydration, thereby allowing hospitals to reduce their lengths of stay. In addition, insurance companies save money when a patient foregoes ANH since they do not have to pay the many expenses involved in treating these fragile patients. Today, insurance companies are actively putting pressure on hospitals to increase their number of palliative care consults, which is quite revealing....
"Some practitioners have the arrogance to state rather definitively that dying from dehydration is not painful. But, how can anyone know what a patient in this state is experiencing unless they themselves have experienced it? Anyone who has been moderately to severely dehydrated has noted the phenomenon of stinging eyes, dry skin, burning urine, and pain with swallowing. It would follow that the patient who is no longer given water would experience similar symptoms....
"Many people, often under the guidance of their lawyer, have living wills which specify what type of medical treatment they wish to have or forego should they have a terminal illness. There are several problems with this. First, the living will is a rather rigid document, often prepared years prior to the occurrence of the patient’s first medical illness, after which circumstances and opinions have often changed. Second, many physicians interpret a living will as a 'do not resuscitate (DNR)' order, so that, if you are admitted for a non-terminal illness, you could be categorized as a DNR patient, when that may not be your wish. Third, patients with living wills, in general, will get less aggressive hospital treatment. My advice is to speak with a trusted friend or family member and make them your power of attorney for healthcare decision maker instead of obtaining a living will....
"I think it would help if a more specific statement were made by the Church, especially since this is such a confusing area for the public and for most Catholics, including physicians. I suggest the following statement, which several theologians/scholars* have reviewed and believe is consistent with Church teaching**:
'The Church rejects either the act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering; therefore, any omission of nutrition and hydration, by itself or with the intention to cause or hasten a patient’s death, must be rejected. Therefore, we must hold for a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration for every patient-especially the dementia or stroke patient who receives hospice, comfort or palliative care. If a patient is not able to sustain himself (herself) by oral intake of food and water, then assisted nutrition and/or hydration (e.g., intravenous fluids, total peripheral nutrition {TPN} and/or a PEG tube) should be offered and should not be withheld or considered burdensome except for rare exceptions in which they could acutely worsen a person’s medical outcome (e.g., giving intravenous fluids to a patient who is experiencing an acute episode of congestive heart failure). These measures are ordinary treatments and therefore cannot be based on a person’s 'quality of life.' Patients who suffer from dementia or stroke should not die due to dehydration and/or malnutrition. The symptoms of dehydration should be treated with oral or assisted fluids and not via pain medications or sedatives such as morphine or lorazepam.'"
