Doctors in New Orleans Killed the critically ill.

[Colleen]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 04:39 PM']it is better that they suffer than be murdered.  though the circumstances may be "tough" it is only because our society's values have forgotten the value of suffering and now worship comfort.

what the doctors did is as reprehensible as any euthanasia and is objectively a mortal sin.  the fact that the patients would have suffered if they didn't do it doesn't lessen the culpability (whether they knew, or had ever had the oppurtunity in their life to know, that it is wrong is what would affect the culpability)

this was murder, plain and simple.  you cannot kill a person to help them avoid suffering, there's purgatory suffering time left for most people on earth anyway.
[right][snapback]722086[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree. I don't believe the intentions of the doctor justified the act. And I wouldn't call this assisted suicide; murder would be a more appropriate term, as there is no indication that these people requested to be killed.

This whole situation is horrible, but you [i]cannot[/i] take innocent life, even if the person is suffering greatly and will likely die anyway.

[Aloysius]

I think it is really stretching it to attempt to apply double effect here. these people are trained in medicine and know what dosage of morphine is lethal.

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.

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.

[toledo_jesus]

Pio Nono crystallized my thoughts for me.

It really smells of elderberries though.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 13 2005, 06:02 PM']I think it is really stretching it to attempt to apply double effect here.  these people are trained in medicine and know what dosage of morphine is lethal.

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 agree, I don't think that this is double effect.

The Church does not however support that this is a questionable practice. It is virtuous to suffer as you die, but it is not required.

[Aloysius]

[quote]Pio Nono crystallized my thoughts for me.

It really smells of elderberries though.[/quote]
so medical professionals did not know if the doses of morphine they gave the patients would kill them?

[quote]The Church does not however support that this is a questionable practice. It is virtuous to suffer as you die, but it is not required.[/quote]

I suppose you're right so long as they are not doing it thinking it might kill them.

I don't see why there would ever be a case so hopeless though. personally I would never give up a chance of life... I'd jump out the window or off the roof or make a sprint through the flames hoping by some miracle I would still survive

[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].