The Right to Life Spring Lecture Series began with a lecture entitled, “Ethics at the End of Life,” delivered by Christopher Tollefsen, professor of philosophy at Emory University.
Tollefsen noted that this year marks the seventh anniversary of the death of Terri Schiavo, the woman whose persistent vegetative state was terminated after many years and many Florida court battles by the removal of her feeding tube. Despite Jeb Bush’s attempted intervention, Schiavo’s nutrition and hydration tubes were removed on February 25, and 10 days later she died.
Tollefsen commented on the political and moral implications of this event and argued that they relate to the implications of abortion.
Foundational to the discussion was the belief in human life and health as a basic good. “These facts about the good of human life ground our positive beliefs,” Tollefsen said. Two principles follow: First, nothing removes life’s goodness, and second, one should not intentionally damage or destroy life or health. Tollefsen stressed the importance of specificity concerning the second claim, since so many behaviors, such as eating junk food, harm health.
A distinction was made between intended effect and side effects that proves important for making ethical decisions at the end of life. Some treatments damage life unintentionally, for example, though intending to ease pain. Also important to end of life ethical considerations, Tollefsen said, is the principle that one is not morally obligated to pursue all possible means of prolonging life.
“Life is not the only basic good,” said Tollefsen. “There is also knowledge, friendship, aesthetic experience; health is not an absolute good to be pursued.”
How can one choose rightly between the types of treatment to accept and deny near the end of life? The traditional Catholic position, Tollefsen explained, is that one ought to make decisions based on the proportion of benefit to burden, considering pain, or physical and emotional damage. Discernment regarding one’s vocation is an essential component as well.
One must accept ordinary treatments, Tollefsen said, those with proportionate benefits and burdens, but one need not accept extraordinary treatments. Generally, medical decisions should be made by patients, not doctors. According to Tollefsen, the patient has the right to refuse treatments, but not the right to override doctors’ consciences, ordering assisted suicide.
He concluded by arguing that that even patients in a persistent vegetative state still possesses value as an image of God.
Liz Everett’s first novel, an instant classic, flowed from her brain to the pages when she was 12. It is only fitting that she has blossomed into a sophomore PLS major and English major living in McGlinn Hall. She is accepting ideas for her next masterpiece; contact her at eeveret1@nd.edu.
