Archie Battersbee

 I have not been able to follow the events of the Archie Battersbee case as they unfolded. I have also been very aware that the case might have involved specific circumstances, not known to the general public, that would affect a judgement of the outcome of the legal case.

A reliable source of comment is the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, who have three posts on their website about the case (linked here in reverse time order): Press Release on the Passing Away of Archie Battersbee ; A Comment on the Latest High Court Judgement on Archie Battersbee; Press Statement on Archie Battersbee – “Very Likely Dead” is not Dead Enough. I think it is worth reading carefully all three of their posts.

There are some aspects of the case that as highlighted by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre that have a wider significance. One is the role of parents as the responsible agents of the best interests of their children.

The Centre has commented frequently that English law habitually fails to recognise the responsibilities and rights of the parents in cases relating to the medical treatment and care of children. This is shown in the present case by the appointment of a guardian to represent the interests of Archie, as though the parents are less well-qualified to represent his interests. Decision-making should not be taken from the parents unless and until they have been shown to be unreasonable and a threat to their child. They remain the people who know their child best.

 Another aspect reflects how a widespread societal perception can be too readily applied by judicial decision, whether or not it is reflected in the specific instance.

If Archie has no hope of recovery, then it seems prima facie reasonable for the hospital to seek to withdraw intensive care (if ordinary treatment and basic care are still provided). The practical conclusion of this judgement may well be defensible. However, the speculation that such withdrawal is what Archie “might have wanted”, and the claim that remaining on intensive care “compromises Archie’s dignity”, involve projections of views or feelings onto him in a way that is both unwarranted and ethically deeply problematic.

It is possible to see here how a widespread societal acceptance of a view about the circumstances of dying can affect, by way of legal decision, the care of those who do not share that view. 

Love and Death

Occasionally I spend time with people who are coming to the end of their lives, and try to communicate to their relatives the irreplaceable nature of that time, not just for the person who is dying, but for them as well. I don't think I do it very well.
Love and Death.

Death is not a blessing

This post is prompted by the discussion of suicide here and here. It also has a glance at the discussion of the use of black vestments for requiem Masses - see here and here. Clearly it is about a sensitive subject, which will have affected many who read this. I offer it as a reflection - please feel free to leave any responses in the comments box (mark "not for publication" if you do not want me to post it). Comments from those who have more experience of pastoral care of the sick and of their relatives than I have will be particularly welcome.

When someone dies after an illness, particularly an illness that has involved a time of pain or distress for the patient, one often hears it said that their death is a blessing, perhaps a "blessing in disguise".

With the proviso that is indicated below, I don't think we can say that "death is a blessing". It always remains a negation of that human good that is life, and a negation of the impulse of life to continue living. In some situations this is very obvious - a death that is the result of violence directed against the person or of a traumatic accident. In other situations it is not so obvious - the end of a chronic illness, for example. However, I would suggest that death is always an "evil" in the technical sense as a negation of the good of life.

I think that the relatives or friends of a deceased person have an intuition of this - it is expressed in their grief. Grief can perhaps be seen as the way in which the human person comes to terms with this reality of death. The pastoral care of the grieving person should respect the underlying intuition about death as an "evil" (technical sense, remember, not the moral sense) and not try to pretend or give the impression that it is "good". I think, too, that this is an aspect of the traditional use of black vestments for a requiem Mass.

So, for pastoral reasons, in most situations, I would not want to say to anyone that I thought a death was a blessing or a relief (though it may well be the latter). I would not want to give the impression that I thought the death was a good - and therefore unworthy of grief. I also would not feel qualified to make a judgement about the good or evil of a particular death; instead, I think our attitude needs to be one, not of coming to a judgement, but of accepting the reality that, in a certain sense, is given to us in the circumstances of that particular death, precisely as it is given to us.

Unless the circumstances allowed me to talk about death as being overcome by the Cross of Christ, as a result of which death can become an entry into eternal life: "life is changed, not ended". This - and its baptismal implication - is what makes a case for the use of white vestments for a funeral Mass. We might in such a discussion accept that, in the providence of God, a period of continued suffering has been avoided - but this is a kind of "double effect" which should still allow us to recognise the nature of death as "evil" (technical sense, again, not moral). It is difficult to see how such an understanding could be shared with a grieving person who has no religious belief, though I expect that it is possible.

I suspect that those who have just experienced a death have an intuition of all this, and so we do not help them by giving an impression that we think the death was in some way a "good thing" (technical sense ..).

As well as the immediate pastoral situation, there is a consideration based on the political discussion of a suicide and euthanasia. If we are going to make a judgement after a death that it was a blessing, why should we not make that judgment before the death? We are more consistent if we always recognise death as "evil" (technical sense) and have an attitude of acceptance rather than judgment of a particular situation.

I would like to add a proviso to this consideration. Catholic teaching does not oblige medical professionals or relatives to work to maintain human life at all costs; it allows that life should be allowed to come to its own (natural) end, either as a result of infirmity resulting from age or as a result of an illness or trauma taking its natural course. I think, at the bottom line, I would still want to say that death in this sort of situation remains, in a technical sense, an evil. However, I can see that it is easier in this sort of situation to see death as in some way a technical "good". Again, though, our attitude towards it is not one of making a judgement as to the good or evil of a particular situation, but rather one of accepting the reality that we receive in that a situation.