Would you call it murder?

SPECIAL UPDATE: The priest has answered my queries by email, and the story is even more horrifying than I had imagined. Readers can find out the latest news by scrolling to the end of my OP.

STOP PRESS: I have just been sent a copy (which I won’t be publishing, for privacy-related reasons) of the complaint filed by the wife. The priest’s story is true. Readers can find out more in the comments section.

People have various opinions about end-of-life decisions. The issues are complex, and reasonable-sounding arguments can be marshaled on both sides. However, few people would deny that a doctor who not only refuses to treat a patient with a life-threatening condition, despite his and his family’s explicit request for treatment, but administers a lethal dose of a drug to the patient, with the intention of hastening the patient’s death, is morally guilty of murder. Recently, I read of a case in Canada which might fit this description, if the account given is accurate. In this case, the account comes from the blog of a Catholic priest, Fr. X, a parish priest in Quebec. Catholic writer and social activist George Weigel, author of a best-selling biography of Pope John Paul II who also happens to be a member of Fr. X’s congregation during the summer months, has written an article in the religious journal First Things which discusses the case (It’s a Culture War, Stupid, August 22, 2017). Here’s an excerpt from Fr. X’s blog entry. I would invite readers to weigh in with their opinions on whether this case is morally equivalent to murder:

Tonight I am preparing to celebrate a funeral for someone (let’s call him ‘H’ to protect his privacy) who, while suffering from cancer, was admitted to hospital with an unrelated problem, a bladder infection. H’s family had him admitted to the hospital earlier in the week under the assumption that the doctors there would treat the infection and then he would be able to return home. To their shock and horror, they discovered that the attending physician had indeed made the decision NOT to treat the infection. When they demanded that he change his course of (in)action, he refused, stating that it would be better if ‘H’ died of this infection now rather than let cancer take its course and kill him later. Despite their demands and pleadings, the doctor would not budge from his decision. In fact, he deliberately hastened ‘H’s end by ordering large amounts of morphine ‘to control pain’ which resulted in him losing consciousness as his lungs filled up with fluid. In less than 24 hrs., ‘H’ was dead.

Again let me make this point abundantly clear: It was the express desire of both the patient and his spouse that the doctor treat the infection. This wish was ignored by a doctor who believed he alone and not his patient possessed the authority to determine whether or not he deserved to live or die.

Fr. X supplies a few personal details about the patient:

Let me tell you a bit about ‘H’. He was 63 years old. He leaves behind a wife and two daughters who are both currently working in universities towards their undergraduate degrees. We are not talking here about someone who was advanced in years and rapidly failing due to the exigencies of old age. We are talking about a man who was undergoing ongoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments. We are talking about a man who still held on to hope that perhaps he might defy the odds long enough to see his daughters graduate. Evidently and tragically, in the eyes of the physician tasked with providing the care needed to beat back the infection, that hope was not worth pursuing.

Let us assume that the patient was slowly dying of cancer, and that his cancer treatment would have at best delayed his death. A doctor’s deliberate refusal to treat a man who is slowly dying of one disease, and who has suddenly fallen ill with another disease which will kill him quickly if left untreated, could certainly qualify as murder, if the doctor thereby intends to bring about the death of an innocent human being. But if the doctor’s refusal of treatment is motivated instead by a desire to direct scarce hospital resources (staff, equipment, money etc.) at those patients who are most likely to benefit from medical treatment, then one might sympathize with the doctor’s plight, and it would be inaccurate to describe his/her behavior as murder.

In this case, however, the doctor went further, according to Fr. X’s account. He openly declared that it would be better if the patient died of an infection now, rather than dying of cancer later. In other words, he thought the patient would be better off dead, despite the fact that the patient and his wife vehemently disagreed. (And as far as I can tell, the cost of the treatment, even in the most severe cases, would have been no more than $20,000.) I call that medical arrogance. Even worse, the doctor then proceeded to administer “large amounts of morphine,” which killed the patient within 24 hours. I’ve spoken to nurses about morphine treatments, and believe me, there is a real difference between a dose given to alleviate pain and a massive dose which brings on death quickly. So I have to say that I find it hard to believe that the morphine was administered in order to “control pain,” when I read that the dose was a large one, and that the patient was dead one day later. And for those who are still inclined to doubt, here is what Canadian Virtual Hospice has to say in response to the question, “Does morphine make death come sooner?”:

If a person has never received morphine, the initial doses given are low. They are gradually increased to relieve the person’s level of pain or shortness of breath. After a few days of regular doses, the body adjusts to the morphine…

There is no evidence that opioids such as morphine hasten the dying process when a person receives the right dose to control the symptoms he or she is experiencing…

There’s a difference between natural dying and dying from too much morphine. When someone has received too much morphine, he or she usually can’t be woken up

In the case described above, Fr. X appears to claim that there was a single, massive dose of morphine, and he adds that the patient lost consciousness and died within 24 hours. What’s more, the doctor who administered the drug had previously declared that the patient would be better off dying quickly of an infection than dying slowly of cancer. If the claim is correct, then it may well be the case that the drug was deliberately administered in order to hasten the patient’s death. What should we call that?

I stated at the beginning of my OP that a doctor who not only refuses to treat a patient with a life-threatening condition, despite his and his family’s explicit request for treatment, but administers a lethal dose of a drug to the patient, with the intention of hastening the patient’s death, is morally guilty of murder. I may be wrong in my facts, but I have to say that if Fr. X’s account is correct, that may well have happened here.

But we shouldn’t just blame the doctor for what happened. Canada’s health care system also has a lot to answer for. “Why so?” you ask. George Weigel explains:

Canada’s vulnerability to the culture of death is exacerbated by Canada’s single-payer, i.e. state-funded and state-run, health care system. And the brutal fact is that it’s more “cost-effective” to euthanize patients than to treat secondary conditions that could turn lethal (like H’s infection) or to provide palliative end-of-life care. Last year, when I asked a leading Canadian Catholic opponent of euthanasia why a rich country like the “True North strong and free” couldn’t provide palliative end-of-life care for all those with terminal illnesses, relieving the fear of agonized and protracted dying that’s one incentive for euthanasia, he told me that only 30 percent of Canadians had access to such care. When I asked why the heck that was the case, he replied that, despite assurances from governments both conservative and liberal that they’d address this shameful situation, the financial calculus had always won out—from a utilitarian point of view, euthanizing H and others like him was the sounder public policy.

(Are the bean-counters right here? For the record, I would like to note that a 2014 Fact Sheet on Hospice Palliative Care in Canada put out by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association states that “[d]epending on the estimate, expanding access to quality palliative care would have saved between 40 dollars and 345.5 million dollars between 2003 and 2011 in the province of Ontario,” adding that “[p]rojected savings from 2012 to 2036 range from just under 247 million dollars to just over 2.1 billion dollars, again depending on the estimate scenario.” The same report also claims: “Hospital-based palliative care reduces the cost of end-of-life care by 50% or more, primarily by reducing the number of ICU admissions, diagnostic testing, interventional procedures and overall hospital length of stay.”)

Weigel makes a telling comment in his final two paragraphs:

To reduce a human being to an object whose value is measured by “utility” is to destroy one of the building blocks of the democratic order — the moral truth that the American Declaration of Independence calls the “inalienable” right to “life.”…

When we lose sight of that, we are lost as a human community, and democracy is lost…

Sadly, that is what seems to have happened here. A health care system regulated by utilitarian bean-counters deemed a 63-year-old man’s life not worth saving, and the doctor then administered the man with a massive dose of a drug, after having declared that he would be better off dying sooner, of a quick death, rather than later, of a slow death. 24 hours later, the man was dead. Were the man’s rights violated? If the evidence presented is correct, it would appear that they were.

So I would like to invite my readers to weigh in. Would you call it murder? Why or why not?

I would ask readers on both sides to conduct their debate in a spirit of charity, free from rancor. And above all, I would urge readers to respect the privacy of everyone involved in this sad case – especially the doctor and the patient. When we don’t have all the facts at our disposal, any conclusions we arrive at should be provisional, and whatever our viewpoint may be, we should always acknowledge that we may be mistaken in our judgment of a particular case. And now, over to you.

FEEDBACK FROM READERS (see below for the latest update)

Hi everyone,

I’d like to summarize readers’ feedback on this story.

(1) A number of readers expressed skepticism as to the veracity of the story, on account of the sources: a Catholic priest and a grieving family, which has chosen not to take the case further. Fair enough. There are two sides to any story, and we’ve only heard one side. And as I said in my OP, “When we don’t have all the facts at our disposal, any conclusions we arrive at should be provisional.”

(2) Speaking purely hypothetically, some readers felt that if the facts as presented were accurate, and if the physician acted against the express wish of the patient, then what he did would be morally equivalent to murder. Others felt that criminal negligence and recklessness, a violation of trust and malpractice would be better ways to characterize the alleged act.

(3) Many readers felt strongly that end-of-life decisions should be left up to the patient. I was going to add “and his/her family,” but Alan Fox’s link to the Guardian article about the death of George V should give us all pause. In any case, this is not a post about voluntary euthanasia. The question at issue here is whether legalizing euthanasia paves the way to other practices which violate the patient’s consent. So far, no proof has been submitted that this actually occurs in Canada.

(4) One reader felt that I should have completely anonymized the story, so out of respect for all parties concerned, the name of the priest in my OP has been suppressed.

SPECIAL UPDATE: News from Fr. X.

Last night, I contacted Fr. X by email, and he responded almost immediately. I had three queries.

First, I asked Fr. X why the family had not made an official complaint. Fr. X told me that the family DID complain as soon as they realized what was going on. It turns out that H (the man who later died) was in hospital with a bladder infection for THREE DAYS before the family finally found out that his infection was not being treated. H’s wife then complained to FOUR different doctors, but none of them was prepared to countermand the order of the physician of record. By the time the family tried to move the complaint to a higher level, H had died. The family has now started going through the official routes for lodging a complaint. However, no response has been received to date, other than an acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint.

Second, I asked Fr. X how much morphine had been given to the patient, and on how many occasions. Fr. X replied that he didn’t know the exact size of the dose, but that ANY dose would have been too large, as the patient was wearing an ALERT BRACELET stating that he was ALLERGIC to morphine.

Finally, I asked Fr. X if there was any INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION for his account. He answered that the family could corroborate his account, and that they had been interviewed earlier this week by a reporter from the Catholic Register. Fr. X added that there had recently been a second, very similar case that resulted in the death of another person last Sunday morning. In that case, Fr. X told me, the wife was so frustrated with the hospital and the doctor for their refusal to treat her husband that she went to the police in an attempt to have them intervene. Eventually a courageous nurse decided to ignore the doctor’s standing order, and she wheeled the patient down to the Emergency/ICU, even though she said it might cost her her job, because she couldn’t accept the morality of not treating him. Sadly, it was too late and the patient died about 12 hours later, as his kidneys had already shut down due to sepsis, which had spread through his body from the untreated bladder infection. And what was the doctor’s excuse? He said that the patient (who was in his late eighties) had been a resident in a nursing home for a few years, and that he wouldn’t have a ‘sufficient quality of life’ if he were to return there. Fr. X tells me that this family has also initiated an official complaint.

To all those readers who were skeptical of my account, and who thought that Fr. X was just making stuff up: I hope this answers your questions. The slippery slope of euthanasia is all too real.

199 thoughts on “Would you call it murder?

  1. You have painted a picture which, to me, looks one-sided. There is surely a different picture that represents the doctor’s point of view.

    In any case, we can avoid these situations. Let’s change the law so that treatment decisions are made by priests and judges, rather than by physicians. And I guarantee that we will then all be far worse off.

  2. Hi Neil Rickert,

    I certainly would not advocate involving the clergy in treatment decisions. Judges are another matter: sometimes legal rulings need to be made as to what kind of treatment a person residing in a given country is entitled to. The law is not always as clear as we would like it to be.

    Finally, I don’t believe that a physician should have the right to overrule the express wishes of a patient and his/her family, when they request a treatment which, even in the most severe cases, costs no more than $20,000. Nor do I believe that a physician has the right to administer a dying patient with a massive dose of morphine without the explicit and informed consent of the patient and his/her family.

    I can guarantee that a health care system which rides roughshod over patients’ wishes in this way will make everyone worse off, in the end.

  3. Neil Rickert: You have painted a picture which, to me, looks one-sided. There is surely a different picture that represents the doctor’s point of view.

    Exactly the impression I got.
    Why is there not a single link to an external source in his or your blog entries?

    Sorry but it looks fishy

  4. I am very sceptical of the “facts” as presented by the good Father. The Church has made no secret of their opposition to assisted suicide in any form. And there are people who will grasp at any slightly suspicious death to raise the spectre of death panels.

    My understanding of morphine is that a massive dose will kill a person quickly, not take 24 hours. I think that it is far more likely that a smaller dose was used and that it may have contributed to but not caused the death.

    I agree with Neil that this is a very biased report. If the doctor did and said exactly what was presented here, you would not have to wait for charges to be laid. His licence would be suspended immediately pending a hearing.

    The single user paid system we have in Canada is just a red herring here. Our system has all sorts of problems, but palliative care is available. Generally the patient is kept in their own home as long as possible, making use of travelling nurses. A lot depends on the level of support they have at home and the level of their incapacity as to whether home care is best or if institutional care is needed.

    At present, doctor assisted suicide is legal in Canada, and I have not heard of any serious abuses. But that is not to say that there will never be any abuses. I wish it was available when my mother was dying of cancer. It has been argued that some patients might opt for it to minimize the stress on their family. This may be so, but is that such a bad decision? As long as they aren’t being pressured into making this decision, who cares.

  5. vjtorley: Finally, I don’t believe that a physician should have the right to overrule the express wishes of a patient and his/her family, when they request a treatment which, even in the most severe cases, costs no more than $20,000.

    And yet you belong to an organization, the catholic church, which insists that the express wishes of the patient be overruled when it involves abortion. And, as far as I know, you support the church in such cases.

    We still have not seen the perspective of the physician. Perhaps, from that perspective, it was not nearly as simple as just following the express wishes of the patient.

  6. Neil Rickert: And yet you belong to an organization, the catholic church, which insists that the express wishes of the patient be overruled when it involves abortion. And, as far as I know, you support the church in such cases.

    To be fair,the Church recognizes the unborn as much of a patient as the mother.

  7. Sure, if the facts are as presented, this is at least a grave case of malpractice. Whether it’s murder is a more difficult question, but I would probably agree that it is.

    We are however left with “if the facts are as presented”, a fairly large “if”, considering the source.

  8. vjtorley: Finally, I don’t believe that a physician should have the right to overrule the express wishes of a patient and his/her family when they request a treatment which, even in the most severe cases, costs no more than $20,000

    Why did they family not request another doctor, is that not an option?

    Nor do I believe that a physician has the right to administer a dying patient with a massive dose of morphine without the explicit and informed consent of the patient and his/her family.

    This patient was dying?

  9. newton: To be fair,the Church recognizes the unborn as much of a patient as the mother.

    Following that logic, women who have abortions should be charged with premeditated murder.

  10. newton,

    This patient was dying?

    I don’t know. In my OP, I stated, “Let us assume that the patient was slowly dying of cancer, and that his cancer treatment would have at best delayed his death.” In other words, I was deliberately erring on the side of caution. The point of my argument was that even if he were dying, what the doctor did (assuming Dr. Moyle’s account is correct) is morally indefensible.

    Why did the family not request another doctor, is that not an option?

    Good question. I don’t know if the hospital was located in a big city or a remote small town.

    neil rickert,

    And yet you belong to an organization, the catholic church, which insists that the express wishes of the patient be overruled when it involves abortion. And, as far as I know, you support the church in such cases.

    That’s because there are two patients, neither of whom has the right to deliberately kill the other. Cases where the unborn child is endangering the mother’s life fall into a different category, however.

    We still have not seen the perspective of the physician. Perhaps, from that perspective, it was not nearly as simple as just following the express wishes of the patient.

    Perhaps you are right.

  11. Hi acartia,

    At present, doctor assisted suicide is legal in Canada, and I have not heard of any serious abuses. But that is not to say that there will never be any abuses.

    How about this, then?

    An analysis of the actual results of Canada’s law is also more than a little troubling. The commission overseeing Quebec’s euthanasia law, the first of its kind in the country, reported 262 euthanasia deaths in the law’s first nine months—almost three times the expected number. And of those, 21—almost 10%, were found to be outside the legal regulations. (“Canadian doctors who signed up to do euthanasia are changing their minds…in droves” by John Stonestreet, Life Site News, April 3, 2017.)

    Or this?

    Canada is a prime example. Before the Supreme Court imposed a national euthanasia right on the country, the debate was all about terminal illness. But now that euthanasia is the law throughout the country, the push is on to allow doctors to kill the mentally ill who ask to die.

    The Globe and Mail’s pro-euthanasia health columnist, André Picard André Picard uses the suicide of a mentally ill person to push that agenda. From “The Mentally Ill Must Be Part of the Assisted Suicide Debate:” ….[etc.]

    (Canada Push To Allow Mentally Ill Euthanasia by Wesley Smith, National Review, April 18, 2017.)

    The following case is also well worth reading: Mother Killed by Hospice with Morphine Overdose (Hospice Patients Alliance, Case Three). I don’t know where it took place, however.

    You also write:

    My understanding of morphine is that a massive dose will kill a person quickly, not take 24 hours.

    My understanding (as a layperson) is that the time taken to die depends on the patient and the dose given. But if anyone knows differently, I would welcome their comments.

    Finally, you write:

    The single user paid system we have in Canada is just a red herring here. Our system has all sorts of problems, but palliative care is available. Generally the patient is kept in their own home as long as possible, making use of travelling nurses.

    I would question that. The following information is taken from a 2014 Fact Sheet: Hospice Palliative Care in Canada put out by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association:

    Only 16% to 30% of Canadians who die currently have access to or receive hospice palliative and end-of-life care services – depending on where they live in Canada.[2] Even fewer receive grief and bereavement services…

    When asked, most people have indicated that they would prefer to die at home in the presence of loved ones[9], yet almost 70% of Canadian deaths occur in a hospital.[1]…

    Residential Hospice palliative care programs are still at least 50% funded by charitable donations, and families must bear part of the cost of dying at home, in long-term care – almost anywhere outside a hospital.[32]

    The majority of Canadians (73%) feel that the provincial governments place too little priority on this end-of-life care, including over one-third (35%) who feel that it is far too little.[33]

  12. Autonomy: freedom from external control or influence; independence.

    I don’t know about you, but that’s my personal goal when it comes to end of life issues.

    (I’m 84 years old and determined to die with dignity.)

  13. VJT, with regard to your first reference, it is from LifeSiteNews. It is not exactly an impartial news source. They have a long history of banning any commenter who provides evidence that goes against the party line.

    With regard to extending doctor assisted suicide to the mentally ill, you are talking about a fringe talking point. But let’s assume that it was actually front and centre. The big question is whether or not they are capable of making an informed decision, not simply the fact that they have a mental illness. Having a mental illness does not mean that you are not capable of making an informed decision.

    With regard to your “facts” about Canadian paliative care, they are ill informed. Yes, the majority of people would like to die at home, yet most die in hospital. Guess what. When someone has a medical emergency, the first thing we do is call 911.

    I understand your opposition to doctor assisted suicide. And respect it. But it is a religious opposition. You are free to follow it in your own life. But forgive me if I oppose you trying to remove that option from me.

  14. Hi acartia,

    I understand your opposition to doctor assisted suicide. And respect it. But it is a religious opposition. You are free to follow it in your own life. But forgive me if I oppose you trying to remove that option from me.

    Just to be clear: this is not a post about voluntary euthanasia. As I acknowledged in the first paragraph of my OP:

    People have various opinions about end-of-life decisions. The issues are complex, and reasonable-sounding arguments can be marshaled on both sides.

    This post is about an alleged case of involuntary euthanasia.

    You write:

    Having a mental illness does not mean that you are not capable of making an informed decision.

    I’m glad we’re in agreement on this point.

    Finally, you question one of my sources in a comment above:

    VJT, with regard to your first reference, it is from LifeSiteNews. It is not exactly an impartial news source. They have a long history of banning any commenter who provides evidence that goes against the party line.

    I’ve never heard about this, and I’ve never read any comments on their articles, anyway. To be perfectly frank, I didn’t even know they had any.

  15. Sorry I call bullshit on the whole story. I’ve seen too many religious fanatics post these ridiculously one-sided and spun stories to trust them even for a second.

    Please provide some corroboration for this tall tale or we’ll be justified in assuming it’s bullshit.

  16. It’s a free country, Adapa. No-one’s stopping you from making that assumption.

    For my part, I’m inclined to take the story seriously, because George Weigel (who reports it in First Things) is an esteemed author with no less than 18 honorary doctorate degrees. But I may be wrong.

    P.S. I’ve just been looking at readers’ comments on George Weigel’s story, and one reader provides independent corroboration for it. You might like to check out his remarks. Please keep in mind what I wrote at the end of my OP about the importance of respecting people’s privacy.

  17. It would be murder in Asian (Buddhist and such) countries, but we Westerners have the concept of mercy kill, so it’s a bit more complicated here. In our culture, I’d say the question is whether mercy kill can be expanded to humans or not.

  18. I would say I found the doctors conduct revolting and unethical and incompetent and evil, but not what I’d call murder.

    A patient, for whatever reason may want to prolong their life despite the agony. They may want to have a few more precious hours to be with a loved one. That counts for something and a doctor should have more regard for the things a person values, not what the doctor values as good or bad.

    That said, in my book, for murder to be murder there must be malicious intent. Sometimes someone will commit to a course of action with benevolent intent, but the outcome looks bad.

    Jesus views the heart and motives as the origin of many sins. If the doctor hated the patient and wanted him dead out of hatred, that’s murder in God’s eyes.

    A mercy killing, though wrong, doesn’t strike me as having the same connotations as murder with hatred and pre meditation. In the US, allowance is made for the degree of malice and pre meditation when someone kills someone else. It goes from 1st degree murder, 2nd degree,….criminal negligence, man slaughter, whatever.

    The doctor may have felt he was doing this for the patients own good and comfort. He was wrong, he was evil in doing this, but personally I can not charge him with pre-meditated murder, or 2nd degree murder. I don’t know what category fits.

  19. vjtorley:
    It’s a free country, Adapa. No-one’s stopping you from making that assumption.

    For my part, I’m inclined to take the story seriously, because George Weigel (who reports it in First Things) is an esteemed author with no less than 18 honorary doctorate degrees. But I may be wrong.

    P.S. I’ve just been looking at readers’ comments on George Weigel’s story, and one reader provides independent corroboration for it. You might like to check out his remarks. Please keep in mind what I wrote at the end of my OP about the importance of respecting people’s privacy.

    If it’s factual, and that’s exactly what happened, it should be dealt with. It’s a very serious accusation. I just cant believe no one would report it to the authorities if it was true.

    Instead we have someone saying that “The story is well known around here. Fr Moyle has not exaggerated it. You won’t find it in the media because a Dr. withholding treatment is, simply, a non-story”

    A non story? seriously?

    Perhaps you could contact Moyle for more details

  20. Hi Sal,

    The doctor may have felt he was doing this for the patients own good and comfort. He was wrong, he was evil in doing this, but personally I can not charge him with pre-meditated murder, or 2nd degree murder. I don’t know what category fits.

    Good point. Assuming purely for argument’s sake that the story were true (and we don’t know that, because we aren’t in possession of all the facts), it would not necessarily follow that the doctor was legally guilty of any category of murder – which is why, in my OP, I was careful to ask whether the doctor was morally guilty of such an act.

    I might add that for an act to qualify as murder, it does not need to be performed out of hatred. An intention to take an innocent person’s life against their wishes, whether hateful or not, is enough to make it such an act.

  21. VJ,

    Thanks for your reply. Setting aside the issue of Canadian law, but my own personal view, I would call this something akin to criminal negligence and man slaughter. What he did was evil, no question. The fact that morphine was administered, which is a pain killer, and though at toxic levels, shows some degree of humaneness.

    I have veterinarian friends who routinely euthanize animals. They view that as a humane thing to do. The doctor may have felt the same way, but he was evil, imho, not to have a higher regard for the last wishes of a dying patient that had entrusted himself to the care of that doctor. So in my book, not medical murder. More akin to criminal negligence and recklessness and violation of trust and malpractice. As far as Canadian law, he’s probably innocent. As far as God’s law, I can only guess. But in my personal definition of what counts as murder, he doesn’t meet all the criteria, but he does meet the criteria for other crimes that I just mentioned.

  22. If the physician acted against the express wish of the patient, then it was murder and morally wrong.

    But like previous posters I question the story as it is told here.

  23. Under your hypothetical, I think that the answer to your semantic question “Would you call this murder?” depends on the doctor’s motivation.
    If he were motivated by compassion, then no.
    If he were motivated by personal convenience, or arrogance, then yes.
    If he were motivated by a utilitarian allocation of limited resources, then there is culpability, but it rests with the healthcare system, not the doctor (Sophie’s Choice, and other “kill one to save many” ethical dilemmas).

    I find the manner in which you presented this tale disingenuous, at best. If the “facts” of the case are unimportant to the hypothetical, then you should completely anonymize your tale. Instead, you provide named sources who are biased, and ask your audience to “respect the privacy of the doctor and the patient.” That smacks of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

    If I had to bet on what happened here, my money is on the patient asking the doctor to administer the morphine, and further asking the doctor to hide this fact from his Catholic family.

  24. Here’s an old case. I think making sure a dying monarch went at a convenient time for the morning papers is not a good defence to the accusation of murder. Harold Shipman also clarified the previously muddy waters of UK legislation regarding assisted suicide.

    I can relate several examples (my father, my mother, my wife’s father, my wife’s grandmother) where the issue of when treatment should continue, be withdrawn or active steps taken to hasten death have come up. The essential element ought to be the wishes of the person who is near death and in great pain. Living wills that have some legal weight might help.

  25. vjtorley:
    For my part, I’m inclined to take the story seriously, because George Weigel (who reports it in First Things) is an esteemed author with no less than 18 honorary doctorate degrees. But I may be wrong.

    The story should be taken seriously since it accuses a doctor of violating the basic principle of medicine, if he did and there should be a public record of him being charged by the family beyond a ambiguous blog post.

    P.S. I’ve just been looking at readers’ comments on George Weigel’s story, and one reader provides independent corroboration for it. You might like to check out his remarks. Please keep in mind what I wrote at the end of my OP about the importance of respecting people’s privacy.

    I guess I am a little confused about this privacy issue, if you felt your husband was murdered by a doctor who we assume is still practicing would you not have an ethical obligation to expose criminal behavior beyond having your priest write a blog post about culture wars?

    I understand the use of the hypothetical but you seem to using the hypothetical as support for the truth of the story. A one sided story which has a definite political slant sourced from the view of a grieving family of a cancer patient whose was undergoing chemotherapy and radiation at the time admitted for an infection.

    And medical system while accused of employing a potentially murderous doctor Is at the same time providing potentially life extending care.

    As for hospice a patient who still is actively trying to cure his disease is not a hospice patient, hospice is about caring for the patient not curing which is what the family objected to about the doctor. The availability of hospice seems irrelevant in this case

  26. vjtorley: I’ve never heard about this, and I’ve never read any comments on their articles, anyway. To be perfectly frank, I didn’t even know they had any.

    This from Wiki:

    Wiki: The Campaign Life Coalition (often called Campaign Life) is a Canadian political lobbyist organization founded in 1978. Based in Toronto, the organization advocates for socially conservative values.[1] In addition to its initial goals of opposing abortion and euthanasia, Campaign Life Coalition advocates for traditional family values including opposition to same-sex marriage.

    Campaign Life Coalition founded LifeSiteNews, a self described news website dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family that was created in 1997. … A pro-choice Catholic priest, Raymond Gravel (died 2014), “who bluntly spoke out in favour of gay marriage, ordination of gay priests and a more tolerant attitude toward abortion”, filed a lawsuit against the website in 2011 for defamation.

    LifeSiteNews has a long history of cherry-picking information to support their views. and of blocking any commenter who disagrees with them. Something like another website that we all know and love.

  27. Hi everyone,

    I’d like to summarize readers’ sentiments before wrapping up.

    (1) A number of readers expressed skepticism as to the veracity of the story, on account of the sources: a Catholic priest and a grieving family, which has chosen not to take the case further. Fair enough. There are two sides to any story, and we’ve only heard one side. And as I said in my OP, “When we don’t have all the facts at our disposal, any conclusions we arrive at should be provisional.”

    (2) Speaking purely hypothetically, some readers felt that if the facts as presented were accurate, and if the physician acted against the express wish of the patient, then what he did would be morally equivalent to murder. Others felt that criminal negligence and recklessness, a violation of trust and malpractice would be better ways to characterize the alleged act.

    (3) Many readers felt strongly that end-of-life decisions should be left up to the patient. I was going to add “and his/her family,” but Alan Fox’s link to the Guardian article about the death of George V should give us all pause. In any case, this is not a post about voluntary euthanasia. The question at issue here is whether legalizing euthanasia paves the way to other practices which violate the patient’s consent. So far, no proof has been submitted that this actually occurs in Canada.

    (4) One reader felt that I should have completely anonymized the story, so out of respect for all parties concerned, the name of the priest in my OP has been suppressed.

  28. So the options are:

    1. There’s a potentially murderous doctor left off the hook by the family of the victim
    2. An innocent doctor is being defamed
    3. It’s all made up, fake news, lying for Jesus

    Place your bets

  29. vjtorley: P.S. I’ve just been looking at readers’ comments on George Weigel’s story, and one reader provides independent corroboration for it. You might like to check out his remarks. Please keep in mind what I wrote at the end of my OP about the importance of respecting people’s privacy.

    Yes. Very compelling. Here is the totality of the corroboration.

    Tim Perry: I serve in a small (Protestant) church in the community where the hospital is located. The story is well known around here. Fr Moyle has not exaggerated it. You won’t find it in the media because a Dr. withholding treatment is, simply, a non-story. I am thankful the same doctor was not in the ER when I brought my father, who has stage 4 colon cancer, with an intestinal blockage last year. He would be dead already.

    Have you ever heard the term Urban Myth? The factuality of this story ranks right up there with alien abductions and flying priests. Repeating a false story hundreds of times does not make it any more true. Rumours spread. That is their nature. The more emotionally charged a rumour is, the faster and wider it will spread.

    If the incident was as claimed in this story, why didn’t the family lodge a complaint with the hospital, or the government, or with the College of Physicians? I know I would if this happened to a member of my family. The more likely scenario is that Moyle blew the incident way out of proportion. To the point that it no longer resembles fact. But given that it supports is opposition to euthanasia, he will be more willing to accept it as gospel. As, apparently, do you.

  30. vjtorley: The question at issue here is whether legalizing euthanasia paves the way to other practices which violate the patient’s consent.

    Laws can always be violated. If patient consent is required but the doctor knowingly ignores it, (s)he should be heavily punished. I think you’re pulling a slippery slope kind of argument, what if a cop uses his firearm to kill his family? Is arming cops paving the way to evil practices?

  31. Acartia,

    If the incident was as claimed in this story, why didn’t the family lodge a complaint with the hospital, or the government, or with the College of Physicians? I know I would if this happened to a member of my family.

    It’s not that simple. Doctors are highly respected people, and in the absence of independent witnesses, most people would give them the benefit of the doubt.

    We don’t know if there is any substance to the story, but I am dismayed at the cynicism of some readers who imagine that priests would just make up stuff. That doesn’t normally happen, either.

  32. vjtorley: Doctors are highly respected people, and in the absence of independent witnesses, most people would give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Which is why respected Doctor Harold Shipman was able to murder at least 218 victims before being caught.

  33. VJT, I normally enjoy your OPs as they tend to stimulate discussion, even if we disagree. But the approach that you have used here makes me (and probably others) question the motives for this OP. If you had have presented a completely fictitious hypothetical and asked for opinions, I would not have any concerns. But the fact that you present an unsubstantiated rumour as a likely fact, calls into question your motives, and possibly your ethics. In short, I don’t see the value in further spreading an unsubstantiated rumour.

  34. I mention Shipman as this tragedy impinged on my mother. The rules regarding death certificates [in the UK]* have been tightened up considerably following his conviction. When my mother died in a nursing home at 93, suddenly, because no doctor was present at her death and her own doctor felt unable to sign one as she was not being treated for any illness there had to be a post-mortem. Prior to Shipman, this would not have arisen.

    *ETA

  35. vjtorley: I am dismayed at the cynicism of some readers who imagine that priests would just make up stuff. That doesn’t normally happen, either.

    Doctors don’t normally kill people like that.

  36. Acartia,

    When I came across George Weigel’s article last night on First Things, I was absolutely horrified. I felt I had to say something.

    A rumor is a story without a source. I considered the source credible. You may of course disagree. I am, however, happy to admit that I may be mistaken.

  37. vjtorley: We don’t know if there is any substance to the story, but I am dismayed at the cynicism of some readers who imagine that priests would just make up stuff. That doesn’t normally happen, either.

    Where have you been the last fifty years? What excuses did the pedophile priests use to get little Johnny alone. What did the priests who ran the residential school system say they were doing? Priests are no less likely to make things up then anyone else. But I don’t expect that something as sinister as this was the case of this priest. I suspect that he honestly believes this story. But the fact that he is emotionally opposed to any type of euthanasia might make him less likely to question a story that, when looked at rationally, is very suspect.

    vjtorley: It’s not that simple. Doctors are highly respected people, and in the absence of independent witnesses, most people would give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Do you honestly believe this? If your loved one had cancer and had developed pneumonia, and a doctor refused to treat the pneumonia, said that it was better for him/her to die now than to wait for cancer to take him/her, and then administered a large dose of morphine that he knew would shorten his/her life, are you saying that you wouldn’t say anything because people would take the doctor’s word over yours? You should start smelling what you are shovelling.

    The fact is that there are absolutely no substantiated records of this actually happening. No formal complaint, media report, nothing. Yet you are willing to accept it as gospel.

  38. Make of it what you will, but “Father X.” couldn’t even get “H”‘s age right. He was 65, not 63.
    Of course, in keeping with vjt’s desire to protect the privacy of the family, I’ll say no more than that he “Passed away peacefully surrounded by his loving family”.
    The medical malpractice aspect of this tale remains uncorroborated.
    I’m not saying the priest is making stuff up (although his alleged behavior is pretty weird, if you actually bother to think about it), but he may well be missing a key fact here: the patient’s wishes, expressed to his doctor.

  39. Acartia,

    Re pedophile priests: this is completely irrelevant to the present case, as the priest in question had nothing to gain.

    Re doctors, I’ll give you just two names that should tell you why I’m inclined to take what this priest says seriously:

    Charlie Gard
    Alfie Evans

    I’ll tell you something else, too. A lot of people feel intimidated by doctors.

  40. Acartia:
    VJT, I normally enjoy your OPs as they tend to stimulate discussion, even if we disagree. But the approach that you have used here makes me (and probably others) question the motives for this OP. If you had have presented a completely fictitious hypothetical and asked for opinions, I would not have any concerns. But the fact that you present an unsubstantiated rumour as a likely fact, calls into question your motives, and possibly your ethics. In short, I don’t see the value in further spreading an unsubstantiated rumour.

    Thanks for clarifying it Acartia…

    I wasn’t sure whether I missed something or VJT had not made the point clear enough…

    However, I would still give him the benefit of the doubt as his record is more than impeccable…

  41. vjtorley: Re pedophile priests: this is completely irrelevant to the present case, as the priest in question had nothing to gain.

    I wasn’t the one who implied that a priest would have no reason to lie about something. But how do you conclude that the priest had nothing to gain? If you are vehemently opposed to euthanasia, are you suggesting that there is nothing to be gained by spreading this unsubstantiated rumour?

    Re doctors, I’ll give you just two names that should tell you why I’m inclined to take what this priest says seriously:”

    We were talking about a doctor in Canada and you have to scour the world to find a problem in another health care system? How does this make this priest’s story any more credible?

    As I mentioned, our health care system has huge challenges. But the story that you related is not supported by anything resembling credible evidence. No complaints. No charges. No suspensions. No disciplinary action. Nothing but a priest propagating a rumour. Yet you give full credence to the opinion of a man who’s philosophy is supported by presenting this rumour as fact.

    If you can find any evidence that this rumour is true, we can talk about a serious problem. Until then, all we are doing is talking about a problem that you want to be real.

  42. J-Mac: However, I would still give him the benefit of the doubt as his record is more than impeccable…

    Who’s record? VJT still claims that flying priests are real. Or are you talking about Moyle’s record?

  43. Acartia: Who’s record? VJT still claims that flying priests are real. Or are you talking about Moyle’s record?

    Oh! Thaaat…is a shame all right…Flying priests…huh?
    Well…I guess nobody is perfect…

    It is interesting though how we tend to remember someone’s boo-boos rather than the opposite…

  44. J-Mac: It is interesting though how we tend to remember someone’s boo-boos rather than the opposite…

    I have commended VJT. And I am sincere about this. But when he presents an argument that propagates an unsubstantiated rumour, I call it for what it is.

    The flying priest was just too fun to ignore.

  45. Acartia: I have commended VJT. And I am sincere about this. But when he presents an argument that propagates an unsubstantiated rumour, I call it for what it is.

    The flying priest was just too fun to ignore.

    I hope no harm was done by his OP…he didn’t name names…
    I’ve heard unsubstantiated stories about people levitating …but there were usually drugs or spiritism involved…never a priest though… lol

  46. I’ll be brief, as this will be my last post on the subject.

    1. The story of the flying priest may sound ridiculous, but it’s about the most well-documented miracle in history: dozens of sworn depositions taken from eminent people (cardinals, popes, inquisitors, nuns, physicians, musicians, sculptors, painters, shepherds, and fellow friars), and tens of thousands of witnesses to levitations lasting hours (in some cases) and spanning a period of thirty-five years. Dr. Michael Grosso, who as far as I can tell isn’t religious, has written a book about the priest, who lived in the 17th century. If you’re not interested in the book, you can read a pretty good summary of the evidence here. I’ll leave you with a quote: ““Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you shall learn nothing.” (T. H. Huxley)

    2. I gave you two names – Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans – to show you that doctors can and sometimes do override the wishes of the family, and your reply was: not in Canada.

    3. You seem to believe that priests would happily make up stories to bolster their religious views about euthanasia, and foist them on the public. Might I remind you that such acts of deceit would constitute mortal sin (for which the penalty is everlasting hell fire) according to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

    4. I’m not the only one who took George Weigel’s report seriously: http://www.realclearreligion.org/

    5. It’s not easy to make an official complaint when the burden of proof is very high.

    6. I have repeatedly urged caution in discussing this case, as we don’t know all the facts, and I have repeatedly urged readers to respect the privacy of the parties involved. I have no idea if the story is true, but it might be. And if it were true, it would be worrying. That’s all I have to say.

  47. vjtorley: dozens of sworn depositions taken from eminent people (cardinals, popes, inquisitors, nuns, physicians, musicians, sculptors, painters, shepherds, and fellow friars),

    Yup. That has convinced me. How many of these sworn depositions were taken years after the supposed events? This guy sounds like he would make a great televangelist. Part huxter, part charletan, part con man.

    I gave you two names – Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans – to show you that doctors can and sometimes do override the wishes of the family, and your reply was: not in Canada.

    So, two incidents in the entire world of doctor malfeasance and you are raising the red flag of death panels? All you have done is relate a completely unsubstantiated story. A story that doesn’t stand up to even the simplest of scrutiny. A story that, conveniently, doesn’t mention a town, hospital, patient or doctor. Supposedly, to protect privacy. Forgive me if I call bullshit on this. If a doctor actually did this, the good priest is complicit in this crime by not mentioning names. Or is it more likely that naming names would land him in court for libel (or is it slander?)?

    You seem to believe that priests would happily make up stories to bolster their religious views about euthanasia, and foist them on the public. Might I remind you that such acts of deceit would constitute mortal sin (for which the penalty is everlasting hell fire) according to the teaching of the Catholic Church.”

    Yet numerous priests were having sex with little boys, and their acts being covered up by bishops, cardinals and popes. Please don’t pretend that priests, on average, are any more moral than the rest of us. The evidence simply doesn’t support this.

    It’s not easy to make an official complaint when the burden of proof is very high.”

    Actually it is quite simple. The Quebec government, hospital boards and the college of physicians post procedures on how to do this on their web sites.

    I have repeatedly urged caution in discussing this case, as we don’t know all the facts, and I have repeatedly urged readers to respect the privacy of the parties involved.”

    Since it has proven impossible to find out any details about this incident, let alone the patient’s or the doctor’s name, this seems like a pointless caution.

    It is a shame that this is your last post on this subject because I would love to hear your justification for propagating such an unsubstantiated rumour.

  48. Hi everyone,

    Please scroll to the end of my OP for the latest update. The story is even more horrifying than I had imagined.

    Acartia, I’ve had about enough if your portraying Catholic priests as a bunch of pedophiles and/or religious fanatics who make up stuff to suit their purposes. It’s time you faced the facts.

  49. This hits close to home. My own father was sent home to die. I wonder if it wasn’t because the hospital did not want to have to explain why he died in their care.

  50. vjtorley: Please scroll to the end of my OP for the latest update.

    The update supports my suspicion that the physician did not act alone, in the sense that what he did was known to other physicians. I would be unlikely to consider it murder. Whether it was malpractice — I would have to know more about the basis for the medical decision before reaching a conclusion on that.

Leave a Reply