Above left above: Dr. Barbara Morris dismissed from her job by Centura Health for planning to assist cancer patient Neil Mahoney (center) to end his life under Colorado's Medical aid in Dying Act. Brittany Maynard (right) had to travel to Oregon in November 2014 to use the state's medical aid in dying law to gain relief from terminal brain cancer.
The issue of medical assistance for terminally ill patients has again come to the fore, this time here in Colorado. In a Denver Post story yesterday (p. 6A) we learned Dr. Barbara Morris had been terminated for offering assistance (under Colorado's Medical Aid in Dying Law) to a stage IV cancer patient, Cornelius Mahoney. The firing was done compliments of Centura Health Corp., which Roman Catholic owners now fully or partially control 5 of 10 major hospitals in the state.
The recent incident brought to mind earlier interference into personal moral choice with brain cancer patient Brittany Maynard 5 years ago.
Few of us can forget Brittany Maynard's decision to pull up stakes and travel to Oregon to avail herself of that state's medical assistance in dying law. She chose this rather than endure the terminal stages of brain cancer. Brittany specifically moved to Oregon to become a resident to be able to make the decision to end her suffering and carry it out without legal sanctions. As I wrote in a blog post at the time, after the Vatican's castigation of her decision as "absurd and reprehensible":
"Do the judgmentalists really understand what happens to people in the terminal phases of brain cancer? Do they appreciate that the victims become essentially vegetables incapable of consciousness or the most rudimentary thought - with no knowledge of their surroundings and all the time in unbearable pain as the tumor generates enormous pressures inside their craniums. Are they aware of how all control of bodily functions is lost, and the person becomes a writhing mass of flesh that must be cleaned up almost on the hour else is left lying in their own bodily waste? Are they aware the person's mouth must be wiped constantly to prevent the drool from pooling on the mattress?"
Among the codswallop trotted out at the time was recycled RC doctrinal bunkum from Melissa Harris- Perry that "there is redemptive value in undeserved suffering". Hence, Brittany ought to have been willing to go through the possibly months (or years) long suffering of terminal brain cancer including loss of all control of her bladder, brain and bowels. to expiate her "sins."
Evidently, Perry and the Vatican's fossils (in the Curia) who condemned her decision as "absurd and reprehensible" would have preferred she'd been reduced to a drooling vegetable, with nonstop incontinence issues, and not even cognizant of those around her. They'd not even grant her the dignity in death we allot to a sick pet dog suffering from terminal bone cancer. But this is how screwed up their morality is. It is why it has been encapsulated as "premoral" by ethicist Cheryl Mendelson in her book, 'The Good Life'. Therein she notes that irrationality is a prime attribute of premoral thinking and the premoral mind - which typically denies any role for individual conscience.
So what is the alternative, rational approach to morality? It is “moral provisionalism” or provisional ethics, as described by Michael Shermer ('The Science of Good and Evil'). According to Shermer:
"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"
Contrary to the Vatican's daft claim of "absurdity" in Brittany's choice, the moral provisionalist only recognizes such in allowing a sentient being to descend into a totally vegetative state lacking any life quality - with excruciating pain to go with it. Hence, Brittany's choice to end her life is a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions.
Nor is there any need for any "redemptive" BS because "sin" itself is a macguffin to keep humans in an inferior state as opposed to attaining mastery over their lives. In the case of Catholics, for example, confession ensures a constant "sin treadmill" where the person is never really free of the absolution of the assorted priests he sees over a lifetime. He keeps on "sinning" and then keeps coming back to confess them for relief - or "salvation". Thus, sin is also a ridiculous concept. As my atheist friend Rick put it: "How can a finite glob of ambulatory flesh "offend" a supposedly infinite Being? It's totally ludicrous."
I mention this because the "redemptive" baloney has also been invoked by Centura Health in its decision to fire a doctor (Barbara Morris), who had planned to attend to a stage IV cancer patient, Neil Mahoney. According to the earlier cited Denver Post piece:
"In a letter hand -delivered to Morris, who has worked in the health care system since 2013, Centura president Vance Maclaren said she had violated the firm's governing rules" i.e. "embodied in The Ethical and Religious Directives For Catholic Health Care Services."
The letter went on to say:
"Rather than encouraging patient Cornelius Mahoney to receive care consistent with that doctrine or transferring care to other providers, you have encouraged a morally unacceptable option"
And what, pray tell, was the option she ought to have selected? We learn the answer from the document cited by the Post:
"Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering."
In other words, be accepting of a nice, tortuous and prolonged demise where you will be barfing and shitting your bedclothes and everything else most of the time - even as you're barely conscious of much more than the odor and filth. A dog in this country deserves better and gets it, but not terminal human cancer patients. Those the church beckons to roil in their "redemptive" suffering for whatever...imaginary sins they committed in the past.
But let's cut to the chase and drop the bafflegab and formalist bullshit and "doctrine" cited by Centura. As the Denver Post piece observes (ibid.) the prime culprit is the Trump administration's recent imposition of "religious freedom" edicts embodied in its 'Denial Of Care Rule' for medical providers. Below an excerpt from the piece:
What is this so-called "conscience rule" about? Archdiocese of Denver spokesperson Mark Haas put it thusly (ibid.):
"Asking a Christian hospital to play any role in violating the dignity of human life is asking the Christian hospital to compromise its values and core mission. This is not the hospital forcing its beliefs on others but rather having outside views forced upon it."
Which is pure balderdash. First, the top sentence means the "Christian" hospital actually invests more "dignity" in a contorted, tortured, puking and nonstop- shitting person than for that person to die with dignity. How is that for twisted logic? Sophistry anyone? As Florida Lawyer Robert Rivas pointed out, skewering this claptrap (ibid.):
"When you look closely at what they're saying, it turns out they really want to be empowered to force their religion on others."
As for the last line of Haas' statement, that also is a terrific excuse for running roughshod over a state law which entitles any Coloradan suffering from the final stages of a disease to get final respite at any hospital. In reality, the only "outside force" at work here, providing leverage (empowerment) for this sanctimonious refusal, is the nation's pussy grabber- in -chief, Dotard Trump. This asswipe excuse for a president is their moral dictator- like he is now for the evangelicals, e.g.
As Americans United CEO Rachel Laser put it, after this farce of a conscience rule was ordained by the nation's number one sexual predator, liar, grifter and con man:
"This is the Trump administration's most dangerous attempt yet to weaponize religious freedom, and we won't stand for it."
And it's now rearing its ugly, deformed head in challenging the state's medical aid -in- dying act passed by a large majority of Colorado voters. So we are clear on this politically implemented rule, no matter how its gussied up in doctrine or dogma:
"It invites any health care worker - including doctors, nurses, paramedics, administrators and even clerical staff- to deny medical treatment and services to patients because of personal religious or moral belies."
This is exactly what's happened here in Colorado, never mind the "redemptive suffering" malarkey. Thousands of terminal or near terminal cancer patients are hoping this religious rebellion based on bogus first amendment sophistry can be nipped in the bud. Else, patients will find other ways - not medically or legally sanctioned - to end their misery. As Dr. Morris explained to the Post:
"These are complex, ill patients. We have a pretty big thing n medicine about not abandoning patients, so that's a pretty big issue."
In her lawsuit filed with Mr. Mahoney, she argues that "Centura's policy prohibting doctors from prescribing aid in dying drugs is broader than state law allows."
With which I concur. And that's why I do hope the state AG joins the suit, especially as an ancillary state law mandates that "health care facilities may not limit or otherwise exercise control over a physcian's medical judgement" .
We cannot allow religions which now - via mergers and other operations -control so many hospitals, to have the final say on a citizen's well being. And that well being includes his or her choice to shuffle this mortal coil without undergoing "redemptive" torture.
See also:
If Trump Gets Another 4 Years: Look For Religious ...
No comments:
Post a Comment