| (cont.)
I. The Consistent Ethic of Life
Although the consistent ethic
of life needs to be finely tuned and carefully structured
on the basis of values, principles, rules and applications
to specific cases, this is not my task this afternoon.
I will simply highlight some of its basic components
so that I can devote adequate attention to its application
to health care systems and the issues they face today.
Catholic social teaching is based on two truths about
the human person: human life is both sacred and social.
Because we esteem human life as sacred, we have a
duty to protect and foster it at all stages of development,
from conception to death, and in all circumstances.
Because we acknowledge that human life is also social,
we must develop the kind of societal environment that
protects and fosters its development.
Precisely because life is sacred, the taking of even
one human life is a momentous event. While the presumption
of traditional Catholic teaching has always been against
taking human life, it has allowed the taking of human
life in particular situations by way of exception—for
example, in self-defense and capital punishment. In
recent decades, however, the presumptions against
taking human life have been strengthened and the exceptions
made ever more restrictive.
Fundamental to this shift in emphasis is a more acute
perception of the multiple ways in which life is threatened
today. Obviously such questions as war, aggression
and capital punishment have been with us for centuries;
they are not new. What is new is the context in which
these ancient questions arise, and the way in which
a new context shapes the content of our ethic of life.
One of the major cultural factors affecting human
life today is technology. Because of nuclear weapons
we now threaten life on a scale previously unimaginable—even
after the horrible experience of World War II. Likewise,
modern medical technology opens new opportunities
for care, but it also poses potential new threats
to the sanctity of life. Living, as we do, in an age
of careening technological development means we face
a qualitatively new range of moral problems.
The protection, defense and nurture of human life
involve the whole spectrum of life from conception
to death, cutting across such issues as genetics,
abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare and the
care of the terminally ill. Admittedly these are all
distinct problems, enormously complex, and deserving
individual treatment. No single answer and no simple
response will solve them all. They cannot be collapsed
into one problem, but they must be confronted as pieces
of a larger pattern. The fact that we face new challenges
in each of these areas reveals the need for a consistent
ethic of life.
The pre-condition for sustaining a consistent ethic
is a "respect life" attitude or atmosphere
in society. Where human life is considered "cheap"
and easily "wasted," eventually nothing
is held as sacred and all lives are in jeopardy. The
purpose of proposing a consistent ethic of life is
to argue that success on any one of the issues threatening
life requires a concern for the broader attitude in
society about respect for life. Attitude is the place
to root an ethic of life. Change of attitude, in turn,
can lead to change of policies and practices in our
society.
Besides rooting this ethic in societal attitude,
I have demonstrated, in a number of recent addresses,
that there is an inner relationship—a linkage— among
the several issues at the more specific level of moral
principle. It is not my intention to repeat these
arguments today.
Nevertheless, I would like to examine briefly the
relationship between "right to life" and
"quality of life" issues. If one contends,
as we do, that the right of every unborn child should
be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus,
then our moral, political and economic responsibilities
do not stop at the moment of birth! We must defend
the right to life of the weakest among us; we must
also be supportive of the quality of life of the powerless
among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the
homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed
worker, the sick, the disabled and the dying. I contend
that the viability and credibility of the "seamless
garment" principle depends upon the consistency
of its application.
Such a quality-of-life posture translates into specific
political and economic positions—for example, on tax
policy, generation of employment, welfare policy,
nutrition and feeding programs and health care. Consistency
means we cannot have it both ways: we cannot urge
a compassionate society and vigorous public and private
policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then
argue that compassion and significant public and private
programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral
fiber of society or that they are beyond the proper
scope of governmental responsibility or that of the
private sector. Neither can we do the opposite!
The inner relationship among the various life issues
is far more intricate than I can sketch here this
afternoon. I fully acknowledge this. My intention
is merely to bring that basic linkage into focus so
I can apply it to the issues facing health care systems
today.
Page 1 - 2 -
3 - 4
| 
