I read with interest the Mr. G. Bonett’s letter entitled ‘Exemplary coverage and support to worthy causes’ and which appeared in your newspaper on 22 September.
In his letter, Mr Bonett cited an extract from a speech that Pope Benedict XVI gave on research and developments in the medical sphere.
It is worth reproducing these extracts once again since this teaching of Pope Benedict XVI should be considered as the basic concept on which human morality and medical ethics should be based.
The Pope stated that “We cannot refuse such developments but we must also be attentive. When people begin to make distinctions – and often this is already done in the maternal womb – between a life that is worthy and one that is unworthy of living, no other phases of life will be spared, especially not old age and infirmity.”
Earlier Benedict XVI had asserted the constant principle, incorporated in Christianity “that the human being should be protected precisely in situations of weakness; the human person always takes priority over other aims.”
It is worth noting that the Pope also referred to those cases whereby in the medical jargon they refer to them as “infirmity”. The term infirmity refers to a bodily ailment or weakness, especially one brought on by old age but it could also be a condition or disease producing weakness.
What the Pope is saying is that even in such cases one should not consider the abrupt withdrawal of any medical treatment through which intervention the life of the individual can be prolonged.
Any different interpretation and conceptual beliefs of individuals from the Pope’s teaching, especially of those professing the medical profession, should be considered and interpreted as a case of euthanasia. One cannot talk about social inclusion if the basic right to life of any human being is left at the mercy of individuals who have a misconception about what is moral and ethical and what constitutes euthanasia or not.
As human beings, irrespective of the religion one professes, we expect that the responsible authorities make sure that this basic concept of morality and ethic of right to live is enshrined in all our medical fraternity and is being adhered to in practice. In fact the medical profession should not even contemplate during the course of its routine work to raise such issues. The medical profession is there to help their patients regain back their health and make sure that the patients will continue to exist by the use of both ordinary and extraordinary means. In all frankness, I cannot understand the meaning of “extraordinary means” when it comes to life of a human being.
Dr Paul DeBattista
St Julians