Category: ChristianityCatholic

A Source of Hope Yet a Test of Faith; Can Health Practitioners Conscientiously Object to the COVID-19 Vaccines?

Lexology

Barry Wilson, William Harris

The rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations is presenting many difficulties and issues including for health practitioners who have a conscientious objection to the vaccination or administering it on the basis of personal beliefs.

Religious views

One issue that is not unique to COVID-19 vaccinations is their usage of cell lines from aborted foetuses. Australia is deploying the Pfizer and AstraZenca vaccines with the latter developed with the assistance of foetal cell lines. Notably, these cell lines are not the ‘original’ cell lines from the aborted foetuses but are genetically modified cells and the foetal cells used in developing the vaccine are reportedly not present in the final product. . . continue reading

Dying with Dignity Bill represents a failure of compassion

Mandatory referral “unacceptable”

News Release

Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference

The following statement has been agreed by the Spring General Meeting of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference which took place this week. 

Statement

In January 2021, the Council for Life of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference made a submission to the Oireachtas Committee on Health, regarding the Dying with Dignity Bill. Alongside the protection of human life, our concern is to offer our pastoral support to people living with terminal illness and to their families. We are very aware that, sadly, all across Ireland, many families are engaged day by day in accompanying loved ones through terminal illness.

The Bill currently before the Oireachtas wrongly proposes the deliberate ending of life as a way of conferring dignity on people with terminal illness. The opposite is the case. Human dignity belongs to every person by virtue of his or her human nature. Terminal illness does not take away that dignity. Indeed, in our experience, the inherent dignity of the person often shines through under those difficult circumstances. Under existing law and current best practice, people with terminal illness are supported by family members, by doctors and nurses and palliative care teams, in living life to the full until death comes naturally. We take this opportunity to thank the many healthcare professionals who so generously devote their lives to the care of people with terminal illness.

What this Bill proposes may be appropriately described as “Assisted Suicide”, because it involves one person taking his or her own life, with the active participation of another. We believe that every life has an inherent value, which should be endorsed by society. This Bill, if passed, would be a sad reflection of the unwillingness of society to accompany people with terminal illness. It would reflect a failure of compassion.

The Dying with Dignity Bill presents the deliberate ending of life as an expression of personal autonomy, but what is proposed in this Bill has implications for society as a whole. Once it is accepted in principle, that one person may participate actively in ending the life of another, there is no longer any logical basis for refusing this same option to any person who feels that life is no longer worth living. We are aware that, in countries where it is legally permitted for healthcare professionals to be directly involved in the taking of human life, it has very quickly been extended to include people who are not terminally ill (the elderly, people with intellectual disability, young adults on the autistic spectrum and even minors who, in other circumstances, would not be considered capable of giving legal consent).

The Bill anticipates that doctors and nurses, whose vocation and purpose is to serve life, will now be prepared to involve themselves in ending life. This would represent a radical transformation of the meaning of healthcare. While the Bill does, theoretically, provide for conscientious objection, it still requires healthcare professionals to refer their patients to other medical practitioners who will carry out their wishes. This means that, one way or another, healthcare professionals are required to involve themselves in something which they believe to be contrary to morality and to medical best practice. This, in our view is unacceptable.

As we mark the anniversary of the arrival of Covid-19 in Ireland, and consider the enormous efforts that have been made across every sector of society to protect the life and health of people who are most vulnerable, this Bill is in clear contradiction with the shared commitment of our society. It is at odds with the common good, which it is the function of the state to promote. This Bill is fundamentally flawed. It cannot be repaired or improved and we call on Catholics to ask their elected representatives to reject it entirely.

ENDS         

For media contact: Catholic Communications Office Maynooth: Martin Long +353 (0) 86 172 7678 and Brenda Drumm +353 (0) 87 310 4444.

Joint Statement on Vaccines and Conscience Protection

News Release

Catholic Medical Association

Philadelphia, PA- March 2, 2021- It has been over a year since the first diagnosis of COVID-19 in the United States. Due to this pandemic’s effects, our society has experienced limitations in personal freedoms to a level we have never known. Social interactions and work environments have been changed by social distancing, masks, hospital and nursing home visitation restrictions and working from home. Freedom of movement about our communities and the nation has been limited by “stay-at-home orders” and mass travel restrictions. The availability of vaccines provides a sliver of hope but also raises many questions. Issues our society must address include prioritizing equitable vaccine distribution and the potential for coercive mandates on vaccine use

Government agencies and other organizations are responsible for developing strategies for efficient and equitable distribution of vaccines.

The highest priority is the vaccination of those at greatest medical risk and those directly involved in the care of the sick.  Once this has been accomplished, distribution can be directed toward those at lesser risk of serious disease.  Attention should also be given to making vaccines available to smaller independent hospitals and clinics serving in underserved and rural areas where the vaccines to date have been less available.  

Governing authorities must respect an individual’s right to accept or decline a vaccine.

There is no justifiable moral obligation to accept vaccination.  If a vaccine has been developed, tested, or produced with technology that an individual deems morally unacceptable, such as the use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines, vaccine refusal is morally acceptable. An individual’s decision to be vaccinated will also depend upon their personal assessment of the medical risks, a choice that should be respected. The decision not to be vaccinated must be accompanied by a commitment to take necessary precautions to lessen disease transmission.

Finally, the protection of First Amendment rights is imperative.

It is fundamental that the right of individual conscience be preserved. Coerced vaccination would irreparably harm Constitutional rights and the patient-physician relationship. Conscience is an individual belief influenced by many factors such as faith, culture, family, and reason. Each individual makes a conscientious decision in any given situation. Respect for conscience rights is always of primary importance.

The Covid-19 pandemic has challenged our nation for over a year. It has brought to light new challenges regarding disease management as well as threats to individual liberties. While the logistical challenges alone are significant, we must not ignore the ethical concerns regarding vaccine manufacturing, distribution and administration. While the pandemic remains a significant public health crisis, the individual rights of American citizens also remains of paramount importance. The guarantee of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” includes the right to make individual health care decisions while  taking into account our responsibility for the common good.

The organizations supporting this statement can be contacted through their websites:

American College of Pediatricians – acpeds.org

Catholic Medical Associations – cathmed.org

Christian Medical and Dental Association – cmda.org

National Association of Catholic Nurses, U.S.A. – nacn-usa.org

Resolution against Polish abortion law challenged

European Catholic bishops’ protest includes concern about freedom of conscience

Sean Murphy*

The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) representing European conference of Catholic bishops across Europe has criticized a European Parliament resolution against Poland’s abortion law passed in November, 2020.  The COMECE letter, addressed to the President of the European Parliament, included an expression of concern about the resolution’s reference to conscientious objection.

COMECE is also alarmed about the fact that the Resolution seems to question the fundamental right to conscientious objection, which is an emanation of freedom of conscience (Article 10.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). This is particularly worrying considering that in the healthcare sector conscientious objectors are in many cases subject to discrimination. In our view, such unjust stigmatization should not be promoted.

It is necessary to consider fundamental rights -like freedom of thought, conscience and religion-in the light of their universality, inviolability, inalienability, indivisibility and interdependence. In regard to the right to conscientious objection, the European Union Charter entails the need to respect national constitutional traditions and the development of national legislation on the issue.

The letter was signed by Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg; Bishop Mariano Crociata of Latina, Italy; Bishop Franz Josef Overbeck of Essen, Germany; Bishop Noel Treanor of Down and Connor, Northern Ireland; and Bishop Jan Vokal of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.

Catholic Employers Have Opportunity for Protection From HHS Abortion and Transgender Mandates

The Catholic Benefits Association’s legal victories allow present and future nonprofit and for-profit members to provide employee benefits in line with their well-formed Catholic consciences.

National Catholic Register

Peter Jesserer Smith

Catholic employers that belong to the Catholic Benefits Association, from dioceses to nonprofit and for-profit small businesses, can secure employee benefits free from government mandates that violate their religious beliefs, thanks to a recent legal decision in federal court. 

“We have a very unique and comprehensive ruling,” Douglas Wilson, CEO of the Catholic Benefits Association, told the Register. “Anybody who becomes a member of CBA now will be protected,” he said.

The CBA case is part of a set of ongoing legal actions in North Dakota and Texas against the Department of Health and Human Services’ mandate, implemented in 2016 and revised in 2020, that required doctors to perform gender-transition surgeries or refer patients for them — despite objections they would have to the procedure — and would require insurance coverage for gender-transition surgeries. . . [Full text]