- Return
to Pro Life Corner
Finn Case Divides Family,
Highlights Church Teaching
on Life Support
By Michael F. Flach
HERALD Staff Writer
MANASSAS — When Pope John Paul II spoke to a group of U.S. bishops Oct. 2 on keeping people alive by medically assisted nutrition and hydration, U.S. Catholics were witnessing a concrete case of the moral dilemmas surrounding the issue.
The case of 44-year-old Hugh Finn, who was involved in a 1995 automobile accident in Louisville, Kentucky, gained national and international attention. Prior to Finn's death on Oct. 9, his family members and friends struggled with the moral ramifications of allowing him to starve to death in a Manassas nursing home.
The family of the former TV newscaster decided last week to remove his feeding and hydration tubes — despite reports that Finn had communicated with friends and family members with gestures, words, nods and winks.
The pope addressed the issue as he met with the bishops of California, Nevada and Hawaii, the 11th of 13 groups of U.S. bishops making their every-five-year visits to Rome this year.
On the question of medical and other treatment to save life the pope said, ``A great teaching effort is needed to clarify the substantive moral difference between discontinuing medical procedures that may be burdensome, dangerous or disproportionate to the expected outcome -- what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls 'the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment' -- and taking away the ordinary means of preserving life, such as feeding, hydration and normal medical care.''
He added: "The statement of the United States Bishops' Pro-Life Committee, 'Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Considerations,' rightly emphasizes that the omission of nutrition and hydration intended to cause a patient's death must be rejected and that, while giving careful consideration to all the factors involved, the presumption should be in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients who need them.
"To blur this distinction is to introduce a source of countless injustices and much additional anguish, affecting both those already suffering from ill health or the deterioration which comes with age, and their loved ones.''
The Finn family appeared completely divided
in the emotional debate. Finn’s parents, Joan and Thomas Finn of Our Lady
of Angels Parish in Woodbridge, said they reluctantly gave up their
legal battle because of limited resources.
"We had run out of avenues and options," said Joan Finn. "We still feel we don’t want this to happen to Hugh. "I just don’t think he should be put to death. Tom and I are willing to take care of him."
Finn’s wife, Michele, has led the fight to
remove her husband’s feeding tube. She was supported in her effort by two
of Hugh’s sisters. Her own sister and mother support Finn’s parents and
seven brothers.
"I just don’t understand what Michele is doing," said her mother, Mary Margaret Keeley, who traveled from her home in Uniondale, Pa., to attend the Oct. 4 vigil. "I think that she has just become so devastated and just so confused and mixed up because of the terrible thing that happened. I don’t think that the judges have been able to hear Hugh Finn’s side of the story."
Keeley said the majority of the family wanted Hugh to be kept alive.
A last-minute attempt Sept. 30 by Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore to reinstate the feeding tube met with failure when his motion was denied by the Virginia State Supreme Court.
"Governor Gilmore believes he had a duty as
governor to bring this matter to the highest court," said Gilmore’s spokesperson.
"The court has issued its ruling and that brings this matter to a
close."
Evidence of Finn’s reportedly alert mental condition was compiled by Virginia House of Delegates member Robert G. Marshall, whose legislative district includes the Annaburg Manor Nursing Home.
Marshall, who appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" Oct. 5, released a statement which asked: "Is Hugh Finn in a persistent vegetative state?" He relayed eye witness reports to more than 300 people attending an Oct. 4 prayer vigil outside the nursing home.
— On September 18, Finn said "Hi" to Nurse Marie Saul, who swore under oath to this fact the next day;
— Over the past week, Finn communicated with several government social workers by nodding his head to various questions;
— On Friday, Oct 2, Steve Martino, a close friend of Finn's, visited him and asked him if he wanted to eat. Finn blinked "yes."
— Credible and repetitive evidence
from family members and third parties have said that Finn has spoken, kissed,
sang and performed other acts that would not be done by a person in a
persistent vegetative state.
The fact that video taping of Finn was not allowed has kept the world in the dark concerning his ability to communicate. Round the clock vigils were held at the nursing home to protest the decision not to feed Finn. It is hoped that he could be placed in protective custody and receive food pending further investigation of his condition.
Students from Seton School in Manassas were pictured in the Washington Post on Oct. 3 praying for Finn, who is also a Catholic. Prayers are urgently requested for Finn and his family.
Even before the pope spoke about the nutrition-hydration issue, print and broadcast media covering the Finn case devoted considerable attention to the moral issues the Catholic family was confronting as it struggled over whether the tubes should be removed.
The 1992 committee statement that the pope cited approvingly was the first full-scale entry by the U.S. bishops into a life-and-death issue that has become increasingly complex and compelling with the advances in medical technology of the past two decades.
In the 9,000-word statement, which took four
years to complete, the 21-bishop Committee for Pro-Life Activities categorically
rejected "any omission of nutrition and hydration intended to
cause a patient's death.''
The committee said there must be a "presumption
in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to patients
who need it.'' But it added that this presumption is not absolute:
It "would yield in cases where such procedures
have no medically reasonable hope of sustaining life or pose excessive
risks or burdens.''
While it is always wrong to omit or halt medical
treatment or care for the purpose of killing a patient, "we should not
assume that all or most decisions to withhold or withdraw medically
assisted nutrition and hydration are attempts
to cause death,'' the committee said.
It acknowledged that Catholic moral teachings and principles "do not provide clear and final answers to all the moral questions that arise as individuals make difficult decisions'' in that area. The committee noted that one of the issues debated by theologians is whether medically assisted nutrition and hydration are "normal care,'' which must always be given, or "medical treatment,'' which is subject to classical medical-moral analysis in terms of weighing benefit and burden or determining whether a treatment is ordinary or extraordinary.
"The teaching of the church has not resolved
the question,'' the committee said. It said oral feeding is clearly in
the realm of care, but when technology and expert medical assistance are
needed, the factors change so much from patient
to patient and from one procedure to another that it is "difficult to classify
all feeding procedures as either 'care' or 'treatment.'''
It warned against interpreting a lack of clear, black-and-white answers to every case as permission to "dismiss patients without apparent mental faculties as nonpersons or as undeserving of human care and concern.''
"As Christians who trust in the promise of eternal life, we recognize that death does not have the final word,'' it said. "Accordingly we need not always prevent death until the last possible moment; but we should never intentionally cause death or abandon the dying person as though he or she were unworthy of care and respect.''
The most famous U.S. case highlighting the legal and moral issues involved in medically assisted nutrition and hydration was that of Nancy Cruzan, a Missouri woman whose parents went to the U.S. Supreme Court to try to get her artificial nutrition and hydration ended on grounds that she would not wish to go on living in a persistent vegetative state.
The court in a narrow ruling in June 1990 decided against withdrawing food and water from Cruzan. But later, a Missouri court, taking into account new evidence, ruled her feeding could be stopped and she died Dec. 26, 1990.
Jerry Filteau from Catholic News Service contributed to this report.
Copyright ©1998 Arlington Catholic Herald, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article was published in the Arlington
Catholic Herald,
200 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 607, Arlington, VA 22203; Vol 23, No 40;
dated Oct 8, 1998, on page 2.
E-mail:
letters@catholicherald.com
Fax: 703/524-2782;
Editorial: 703/841-2590;
Advertising: 703/841-2594;
Circulation: 703/841-2565
A note from the Web Master:
All Human life is Sacred!
This page is hosted
by
Get
your own Free Home Page
Todays Date: