Rocket

"Pro-Life" Hospice Care?

"Pro-Life" Hospice Care?

Dr. Brian Kopp

There was a time, not long ago, when the idea of designating a hospice care program as "pro-life" would have seemed absurd. Most hospice care programs in the US in the 1970s and 1980s sprang from roots in Christian ministry to the sick and dying, and the sanctity of human life was always paramount in these grassroots hospices. To understand why things have changed, we need to understand the Christian roots of hospice care philosophy and how the hospice industry has deviated from those origins.

In the Middle Ages, many Christians made pilgrimages to the Holy Land. They frequently became sick on the long and arduous journey. Pilgrims who were unable to complete the journey home were admitted to the care of the Knights Hospitaller in their hospice in Jerusalem. Christian care was provided to fulfill the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy, and hospices were subsequently  founded along pilgrimage routes in other regions. In France, the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul opened hospices in the 17th century, and the Irish Religious Sisters of Charity opened a hospice in Dublin in the late 19th century. Churches led the way in the care of the dying well into the 20th century, which saw the emergence of two great leaders in the hospice field.

Most know of Mother Teresa and her pioneering work among the dying in India's poorest regions, her establishment of the first hospices for AIDS victims in the 1980s, and her uncompromising pro-life stance. England's Dame Cicely Saunders began her career in nursing, transitioned to social work and eventually completed medical school in order to help the development of modern hospice care. She also developed a lively faith as a result of joining a Christian study group founded by C.S. Lewis at Oxford University. She took a keen interest in the needs of the dying, recognizing that their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual needs and sufferings were simply not being met in the medical system of the first half of the twentieth century. Dame Saunders was fully committed to the sanctity of human life and strongly opposed euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The early grassroots hospice programs that started in the late 1970s in the USA took as their foundation the Christian philosophy of the sanctity of life held so dear by Mother Teresa and Cicely Saunders. Most hospice work was volunteer-based and primarily provided as Christian works of mercy. Unfortunately, the federal government's introduction of a Medicare hospice benefit in 1986, while providing stability and a revenue steam for these hospice pioneers, also introduced the profit motive.

Within two decades, big for-profit corporate hospice providers had completely displaced these grassroots non-profit community based hospices in many markets. Today, all of the large for-profit corporate hospice providers have been credibly accused of massive amounts of fraudulent hospice billing; the largest for-profit corporate hospice provider stands accused of a billion dollars per year in fraudulent insurance billing for the last ten years.

Most of this fraud consists of admitting patients to hospice who aren't actually terminal, thus billing for inappropriate care, or billing for higher levels of care than patients actually need. Fraud by neglect and by withdrawal of routine chronic medications is common. Also, omissions (e.g., inappropriate withdrawal of food and water) or commissions (e.g., over-medication) frequently lead to premature deaths. We call these deaths "stealth euthanasia" whether they are deliberate or not.

Sometimes these deaths occur simply because of greed. For instance, hospices commit fraud by not providing services and supplies to which patients are entitled, by denying patients medications for chronic conditions such as heart disease or diabetes, or by over-medicating patients to make them appear sicker than they are in order to bill more for higher levels of care. Sometimes, as in the case of Terri Schindler Schiavo's death at the hospice in Florida, deaths are caused deliberately. The pro-life movement needs to recognize, understand, and fight against "stealth euthanasia."

It is also imperative that the pro-life movement help develop and support "Pro-Life Hospice Care."

CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL

As the Synod approaches this fall, keep the following infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church handy, and compare anything you see or hear to these constant teachings. Anything that deviates from these documents is in error, and those promulgating such errors are to be resisted.

"...5. Many argue that the position of the Church on the question of divorced and remarried faithful is overly legalistic and not pastoral.

A series of critical objections against the doctrine and praxis of the Church pertain to questions of a pastoral nature. Some say, for example, that the language used in the ecclesial documents is too legalistic, that the rigidity of law prevails over an understanding of dramatic human situations. They claim that the human person of today is no longer able to understand such language, that Jesus would have had an open ear for the needs of people, particularly for those on the margins of society. They say that the Church, on the other hand, presents herself like a judge who excludes wounded people from the sacraments and from certain public responsibilities.

One can readily admit that the Magisterium’s manner of expression does not seem very easy to understand at times. It needs to be translated by preachers and catechists into a language which relates to people and to their respective cultural environments. The essential content of the Church’s teaching, however, must be upheld in this process. It must not be watered down on allegedly pastoral grounds, because it communicates the revealed truth.

Certainly, it is difficult to make the demands of the Gospel understandable to secularized people. But this pastoral difficulty must not lead to compromises with the truth. In his Encyclical Veritatis splendor, John Paul II clearly rejected so-called pastoral solutions which stand in opposition to the statements of the Magisterium (cf. ibid. 56).

Furthermore, concerning the position of the Magisterium as regards the question of divorced and remarried members of the faithful, it must be stressed that the more recent documents of the Church bring together the demands of truth with those of love in a very balanced way. If at times in the past, love shone forth too little in the explanation of the truth, so today the danger is great that in the name of love, truth is either to be silenced or compromised. Assuredly, the word of truth can be painful and uncomfortable. But it is the way to holiness, to peace, and to inner freedom. A pastoral approach which truly wants to help the people concerned must always be grounded in the truth. In the end, only the truth can be pastoral. “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (Jn. 8:32)."

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH'S TEACHING
ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL [1]

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

​

Official Vatican teaching on the divorced and remarried and Holy Eucharist, Given at Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 14 September 1994, Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross:

"...the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).

This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: "They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage"(7).

The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only "to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples'"(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.​

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL​

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO OF POPE JOHN PAUL II, 1981

"However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."(180)

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage."
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO
OF POPE
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE EPISCOPATE
TO THE CLERGY AND TO THE FAITHFUL
OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE ROLE
OF THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY
IN THE MODERN WORLD​

No one can change these teachings.

No one.

I Will Not Serve! I Will Not Be Served!

Jan. 23, 2015

PHA Monthly Newsletter for the Pro-Life Healthcare Alliance Eighteenth Edition

From the Chairman's Desk

  

I Will Not Serve! I Will Not Be Served! 

Dr. Brian Kopp 

The sexual revolution embraced a mindset that is best described by Jeremiah's phrase, "I will not serve!" 

"Long ago you broke your yoke, you tore off your bonds.

'I will not serve!' you said."

 - Jeremiah 2:20

Jeremiah attributes the declaration "I will not serve" to the people of Israel in their rejection of God. More generally, it is attributed to Lucifer in his refusal to serve the Creator-God and his desire to himself be worshiped. The phrase "I will not serve!" appropriately describes the sexual revolution's rejection of God and His moral law and the idolization of youth and unrestrained sexuality. The "I will not serve" mentality has strewn wreckage in its path.

There is a corollary to "I will not serve": "I will not be served!"

In Scripture, when Jesus talks about the Last Judgment, He says:

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me...Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." - Matthew 25:35-36, 40

One can almost hear the lament:

"I will not be served because whatsoever you do to the least of His brothers that you do unto Him. I've always done everything for me. I've never done anything for Him. I'm not going to start now! I'm not going to humble myself. I will not allow anyone to do unto Him by letting them do unto me.

"I will not suffer. I would rather die. Now and in eternity, I will shake my fist in the face of God, spit in His eye one last time when I refuse my last meal, take my last pill, draw my final breath. My last act will be eternal rebellion and thus damnation."

This rejection of suffering short circuits the cycle of grace that comes both in serving "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" and in being served as "the least of these."  By humbling ourselves so that we may be served, those who serve us may attain Eternal Life.

The tip of the spear in the present battle regarding stealth euthanasia* is death by dehydration. In the vast majority of cases of stealth euthanasia, death occurs primarily due to withdrawal of fluids, leading to volume depletion, organ failure, shock, and death. The symptoms of dehydration are almost always masked by narcotic analgesics, sedatives and anti-psychotics. Stealth euthanasia is not just unethical and immoral, but also an obvious violation of the basis on which Jesus said we would be judged.

Today many are not only quietly acquiescing to the stealth euthanasia agenda, but are requesting the legalization of assisted suicide. The same generation that idolized youth and sex is refusing to bear the ignobility of sickness, old age and vulnerability.

Why accept natural death? Because, instead of final rebellion, it is final surrender. Acceptance of death at the time of God's choosing says:

 "Please, Lord, let this cup pass me by. But not my will but Your will be done. If that means taking this cup of spoon feeding or tube feeding or IV hydration, Your will be done! If that means letting others care for me and giving up my radical autonomy, so be it! If that means letting others clean my face or behind,this, Lord, seems too much to bear! But this too I accept. I am not sufficient unto myself. Without You, God, I am nothing.

"Your will be done. I humble myself and permit others to serve You in my person, in my weak and vulnerable and suffering body, in the ignobility of age and sickness. I accept that, where once I did for others, now I must permit others to do for me. Because I am one of "the least" now, and in Your providence You call forth the next generation to love and serve selflessly, I must swallow my pride. I am no longer the strong one, the warrior. I am now the one who needs protection. You call new warriors into the arena to protect me, feed me, clothe me, bathe me.

"I permit others to console Your heart by consoling and caring for me in my need. That alone makes it possible to bear my cross. Because in doing it for me, they do it for You."

Ultimately, the battle against euthanasia and assisted suicide is a battle for eternal souls--our own souls, the souls of those for whom we fight and for whom we care, and the souls of those who care for us.

* "Stealth euthanasia": hastening death by neglect or intention while pretending to provide appropriate end-of-life care.