The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1915-12-04

no longer ordinary, and the patient is
free il he choose not to adopt them.
The reason is plain. To begin with,
patients often die under treatment of
this kind; there is only hope and
not certainty of cure; many have
a great horror of the operating table;
and long journeys are attended with
their own dangers and inconvenience.
Moreover, it is often morally impos-
sible, as in the case of the poor, to
avail themselves of such remedies.
Hence in such circumstances it is
matter solely for the party concerned
to decide what course is to be taken.
They are free to adopt or reject them.
1t will be noted | am speaking OF
critical operations. Obviously when
there is question of only a slight
operation, attended by no danger, and
with comparatively little suffering,
the means can no longer be consid-
cred extraordinary. In such cases, the
patient must, to save his or her life,
avail themselves of this means when
it is within their power. Naturally
they must do the same for those I'M
der their care. The strides made by
medical skill and science, especially
i'll our own day, have rendered harm
less and painless, operations which in
times past might be attended with
considerable suffering and uncertain
ty. The use of anaesthetics, the de-
tailed knowledge surgeons now have
of the human system, together with
the very delicate instruments they
are possessed of, have in many cases
reduced pain and danger to a mini
mum When this is so, the operation
ceases to be extraordinary, and may
| be classified as common means.
Ordinary Care Would Have Saved
Baby.
Let us apply the foregoing remarks
to the case under discussion. Here
is an infant incapable of acting for
itself 1t has pleased the Almighty
that it be born defective. It's life is
in eminent danger. Clearly then there
is a most sacred obligation on those
to whom God has entrusted it to apply
the remedies at their disposal. Now
it has been admitted on all sides that
a Simple operation" would have pro-
duced the desired effect. In other
words had ordinary precautions been
taken, the child would now be alive.
Weak and defective though it was, it
| r;f 20
it's parents. Their duty in the matter
was clear as the MONDAY sun. That
duty they failed to accomplish. Nor
| let it be said that, were the child
capable of judging for itself, it would
have chosen death rather than life
mother has a right to assume this.
Each human being is an independent
personality, and an assumption of this
kind is entirely unjustifable. More
over life is i'll possession, and must
be given the benefit of the doubt.
Where the rights of others are at
stake, and especially this supreme
right, the safer course must be fol
| lowed. The operation ought without
a doubt to have been performed. This
is the Catholic teaching and the only
Teaching 2that sufficiently safeguards
| the rights OF human beings.
Mother and Doctor Wrong.
| What have been the arguments in
favor of the action of the mother and
| doctor in the case? AS far as one
can Judge, from the opinions eX.
pressed, the main defense, in fact the
only one made is that if allowed to
live, the child would be burden to
itself and to society generally. Now
even if this were strictly true; even
though it were absolutely certain that
this would be the case, would the
attitude taken on the part of the
] mother be lawful? Certainly not. As
q mother, she is bound to be prepared
for such emergencies, and her obliga-
tions toward delicate children are no
less imperative and sacred than
towards the healthy members of the
family. In fact the truly humane
mother will lavish special care on an
imbecile inasmuch as it is more in
need. But in this particular case even
this defense cannot be urged, for it is
by no means certain that the child
would be permanently disabled in
mind and body. The jury of physi
clans of Chicago while they try to
free the doctor from blame on the
plea that lie acted according to his
lights, really condemned his objective
action in the matter. The unanimous
decision was that had the operation
been performed, and the child allowed
to live, it could be reasonably hoped
that it would not remain a complete
cripple or a permanent burden to SO
ciety A further proof, if further
were needed, of what I have already
said-the benefit of the doubt in al
cases must be given to life. When
eminent doctors differ on vital ques
ton of this kind, as to whether a
disease here and now is or is not likely
to be permanent, then there is no sure
ground to go upon. 1t is therefore en-
4 tirely unlawful to act on the opinion
however probable that opinion may be
that the defect will remain through
out life. Every chance must be given
/ Famous Detectives.
And even if for sake of argument Il
be allowed that the defects. would re
/ f-I