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.
Your update confirms my suspicions that “Fr. X” is making stuff up.
“I deeply regret that some of my parishioner’s family and neighbors have taken offense that I am ringing this alarm bell so loudly and so quickly after the man’s death.”
Re the update: There is much here that could be confirmed by a third party without bothering the grieving family, so that’s good. Tracking the “official complaint” is probably doable, for example. But it should probably be confirmed by someone other than the priest in question before it should all be credited.
Wait, this is some anonymous guy online, you got his email address, he responded immediately, and now, instead of just showing his response, you are retelling what he said in your words, instead of his words?
Why?
I actually had very little interest in this story, but as I look closer it is even more convoluted by the minute. First off VJ says
but what it looks like he actually means is, Here is an excerpt from George Weigel, saying it is an excerpt from Moyles blog. But when you go to Moyles blog, all I found was a link to the article by Weigel!
So where is the actual blog post from Moyle, there is no link to it anywhere I saw?
Then VJ goes and writes to the guy, and apparently gets a rather lengthy reply (was it multiple replies VJ?) and then instead of just quoting what the Father supposedly said, VJ goes and rewrites the entire correspondence. And where is the blog entry? And the only evidence for this story is Weigel saying he heard it from Moyle who said he heard it from the family, who perhaps heard it from someone else in the family?
And now the evidence is that VJ heard it from Moyle, who then went and asked VJ’s questions to the family, and then VJ paraphrased Moyles paraphrasing from someone in the family (who perhaps is a second cousin who is paraphrasing what his first cousin told him)?
Holy Cow-speak.
Whose privacy are we supposed to be protecting, the Priests? The one named in the article YOU linked?
What readers, where? Are you Father Moyle? George Weigel? WTF?
The particulars are fake news. I’d rather discuss the principles.
Thanks for the update
The principles may well also be fake news.
“Why are gorillas being fed to migrant workers in Texas? Maybe its fake, but let’s discuss if its right or wrong.”
@phoodoo Good example of fake news. Not of any sort of principles though.
Erik,
Is it ok to feed gorillas to migrant workers?
@phoodoo You treat fake news as if real news. You do this because you have no principles. Consequently there is no way to discuss principles with you.
Erik,
The Chinese are selling babies to aliens on Neptune, as fuel for their electric cars. In return the Neptunians are making them chopsticks that feel pain, so the Chinese will know if their noodles are too hot to eat.
Let’s discuss!
But you wrote this?
You mean you want to treat this fake story as if its a real story?
The main principle is that these kinds of examples never prove anything, other than that someone has an ax to grind.
It is a real story, its accuracy was the question.
Hi everyone,
I’m absolutely amazed that some people are calling this story “fake news.” Pathetic.
I sent one and only one email to the priest who posted this story on his blog. I got a reply within two hours. The reason why I haven’t quoted directly from it is that it’s my understanding that it’s technically illegal to do that, which is why I paraphrased the response. But if anyone knows otherwise, then I’d be happy to post the contents of the email.
Believe me, it’s real, people. Get your heads out of the sand, and stop putting doctors on a pedestal.
My story about the babies on Neptune is also a real story, its just not accurate.
Because a Priest who has an entire blog devoted to these topics says it is so, then we should believe you? And him? And the guy who told him?
And what is this FEEDBACK FROM READERS? What readers?
And why would we need to protect the identity of the Priest, when the Priest wrote about it on a public blog (which you linked to, were you hoping no one would open the link )? How many illogical things can you say in one post?
I just don’t get it. Why isn’t this all over the media?
And what did the police do exactly? I don’t think they can just ignore the family, at least they should have filed a report so the family can file a lawsuit or something.
It doesn’t make sense to keep it in close quarters since making it a public issue would obviously spark a debate and help their case against euthanasia.
You have priests on a pedestal, so there’s that. All we’re asking for is to hear from the other side of the story.
If you would stop portraying them all as saintly virtuous individuals I will stop portraying the horrible things that some of them have done, and the even more unfirgivable coverups by those higher up in the church hierarchy, all the way to the popes.
So far all you have is an uncorroborated anecdote. That is not news. News involves providing names, supported facts, locations, etc. All you have is a story told be a priest, corroborated from the same priest.
Let’s wait until the Catholic register publishes the story of their interview with the family.
I’m afraid there is not enough room on that pedestal for any doctors given all of those priests that you have placed there.
I see VJT has added more unconfirmed one-sided tales supposedly from the Priest. The whole concept of independent validation seems to elude him.
I’d also like to hear the doctor’s / hospital’s side of the story. I’m guessing the gentleman in question had advanced terminal cancer with a prognosis of days to weeks to live.
By all means. I’m confident I’ll be vindicated.
It boggles the mind that there are still some people who disbelieve the priest’s account. Think about it. Imagine you’re a “liar for Jesus” (as the skeptics would have us believe this priest is), and you’ve written a blog post with a big whopper story (entirely BS) about how a doctor withheld life-saving treatment for a bladder infection from a cancer patient, and then deliberately hastened the man’s death with a morphine injection. Two months go by. Then, out of the blue, someone (that’s me) contacts you by email from Japan, asking for corroborating details regarding the story. What would you do?
If you were a liar, you’d probably crawl under a rock and hide. You wouldn’t reply to the email at all. That would be the safe thing to do.
But what did this priest do? He replied within just two hours, and added a wealth of detail to his account. He also stated that the family had complained to four different doctors, and that it has now started going through the official routes for lodging a complaint. To cap it all, he added that added that there had recently been a second, very similar case that resulted in the death of another person last Sunday morning, and that in this case, the family (which has since lodged an official complaint) had gone to the police in an attempt to get them to intervene. Now, does that sound like the sort of thing a liar would say?
I can only ask: why do you have such a hard time believing the priest’s account?
Not even remotely parallel. Does anyone seriously think there’s a law of Nature preventing doctors from euthanizing patients, or that the probability of a doctor performing involuntary euthanasia is about the same as the probability of there being aliens on Neptune?
If you’re so confident you’re right, then why don’t you contact the priest yourselves, as I did?
phoodoo,
If you want the original link to the priest’s story, Google “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” and it’s the fifth link down from the top. Date: June 17, 2017. A child could do it.
What the priest has to say is of little relevance.
What’s the story from the doctor’s point of view? That’s what’s missing.
All we have are his words. And, yes, priests have been known to lie. But I don’t think that is what is going on here. I suspect he talked to a grieving family and blogged about it without confirming any of the facts.
But if there was even a grain of truth to it, it would be all over the news outlets up here. The papers publish accounts of inappropriate doctor behaviour all of the time. The health care system in Canada is always fair game for criticism and the papers here don’t miss an opportunity to do so. Given that we have not seen anything, strongly suggests that there is no story.
Acartia,
Has it ever occurred to you that the family doesn’t want to run afoul of Canada’s libel laws? And has it ever occurred to you that doctors are usually fairly wealthy people, who can afford to bring lawsuits against individuals who name them and publicly accuse them of a crime?
Why? We already have his story. What we don’t have is a single piece of evidence to support his story. A single name or location to follow up with. A second source to corroborate his story. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
vjtorley,
Aside from everything else dubious about this story, you still haven’t explained who YOUR READERS are?
So several doctors refuse to treat a patient ignoring his and his family’s wishes, the police ignores the family and finally the doctors give him morphine despite the fact that he’s wearing a bracelet informing them he’s allergic to morphine…. and they’re not suing anybody? Yeah, sure
That would be people like you, phoodoo.
Um, but you referenced THE READERS in the OP. The people read the story before you posted it? Huh?
Nonsense. I do not recall a single incident of a doctor in Canada suing a grieving family member for libel for making a public statement about how they think their family member was treated. But there are plenty of examples of family members suing doctors and hospitals for malpractice. The family would know this.
With regard to doctors being fairly wealthy, you obviously know nothing about the Canadian health care system.
The decision has already been handed down by Elizabeth that it’s ok to publish the contents of private email exchanges on this site without regard to its legality. She even encouraged it.
At least if the sender is Barry Arrington.
Just like the stories evolutionists tell! Let’s discuss the principals.
It’s fake news because you are making a big deal out of it while the information is limited and one-sided – the little that you have undisclosed you are being disingenuous about. On one hand you are asking “Would you call it murder?” and on the other at the same time you have your privacy bla bla. Have your cake and eat it too.
For the exact same reason they have a hard time believing anything you write. Anti-Catholic bigotry. Have you ever considered converting to Islam?
That right there is the problem!
A yes, the Appeal to Missing Evidence fallacy. The evidence we do have hardly matters. So common here. 🙂
Do you have reading problems, dazz? My latest update states quite clearly that the family is going through the official routes for lodging a complaint. And it was a doctor (not doctors) who gave the man morphine.
Acartia, if you access George Weigel’s article on First Things, and scroll through the readers’ comments, you’ll find that second source, and he even declares his name. And if you want the location, you can easily find it yourself. Or are you trying to goad me into naming names, which I declared I did not wish to do?
I mentioned the Catholic Register above. Here’s their website: https://www.catholicregister.org/
I might also add that the deaths in question seem to have occurred in a small town. Stay tuned.
phoodoo,
I wrote, “I would invite readers to weigh in with their opinions…” etc. That obviously means: the people who are going to read my blog post.
But the opening post is already talking about what the readers have to say, before they have even had a chance to read your post. You don’t see the problem there? Were you being prophetic?
You are intentionally being misleading here, there seems to be some things you are not telling us. Have you already posted this blog elsewhere?
All evidence matters, what we lack is the evidence used in the diagnostic evaluation which seems relevant to the situation.
That is not a second source by any stretch of the imagination. It is someone who heard a rumour. And since the priest never mentioned a town, we can’t even be sure if we are talking about the same rumour.
Perhaps you live in a country where a person’s health records are not protected by law.
It is illegal to post an email someone sent you?
Well, that certainly narrows it down. How many small towns can there be in Canada.
Nobody here is saying that this couldn’t have happened. After all, there is currently a case in Canada where a nurse has been charged with killing patients in a nursing home. What is being questioned is this specific case where all you have are the uncorroborated word of a priest.