Catholic Bioethics: Three Recent Studies1

The Thomist 66 (2002): 133-47 CATHOLIC BIOETHICS: THREE RECENT STUDIES1 BASIL COLE, 0.P. Dominican House of Studies Washington, D.C. THERE IS A LAW that goes into effect when buying a new computer: it will be outdated and cheaper to buy six months later. Something similar happens when a theologian writes a book on the subject of medical moral theology: some new moral problem will emerge after the book is sent to the printers. It is also very difficult to explain and defend the Church's teaching on medical moral questions and much easier to create one's own norms while criticizing the Church for being obstinate or behind the cultural times. This article discusses three recent books that attempt to do the former rather than the latter.2 I. Two TEXTBOOKS: ASHLEY AND O'ROURKE AND MAY A) Complementary Approaches Since 1978, Benedict Ashley, O.P., and Kevin O'Rourke, O.P., have published four editions of their Healthcare Ethics: A Theological Analysis. The first edition ran 14 chapters and 506 1 The author of this article wishes to thank Bro. Nicanor Austriaco, 0.P., for his timely criticisms of this manuscript. 1 Benedict M. Ashley, O.P., and Kevin D. O'Rourke, O.P., Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis, 4th ed. (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997), pp. 530 + xiv. William E. May, Catholic Bioethics and the Gift ofLi(e (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 2000), pp. 340; Peter Cataldo and Albert Moraczewski, O.P., eds., Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Ethics Committees (Boston: National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2001). 133 134 BASIL COLE, O.P. pages; the latest revision has 15 chapters and 520 pages. It would be very valuable for the community of scholars and students who have specialized in this field if someone would write an overview of all these editions. It must be noted that the theology and moral conclusions of Ashley and O'Rourke evolved over the years, yet newer and newer medico-moral problems confronted the Church and world just as the latest of their editions came out. It was not their fault, for example, that when this edition was finally printed (1998) it contained nothing on Alan Shewmon's latest scientific doubts about brain death, the human genome project, or ethical questions concerning the separation of Siamese twins; the book was being printed when these issues surfaced. Similarly, when William May's Catholic Bioethics and the Gift ofHuman Life was finally printed, it contained nothing either on the Siamese question or on Pope John Paul's assertion that there is a moral certainty that total brain death can still be used as a criterion for true death. It is presently impossible to write the definitive and complete text in this field because scientific and medical advances or moral problems occur very quickly, and new moral perplexities emerge sometimes it seems on a monthly basis. Still, both books, each in its own way, are invaluable tools for learning the basic principles of this theological and philosophical science. What may not be found in one text can often be discovered in the other. They are in agreement for the most part on the mainline problems associated with medical ethics but also disagree on several key issues, including the use of artificial hydration and nutrition for permanent-vegetative-state (PVS) cases and the use of methotrexate as a method for coping with tubal pregnancies. These issues have not yet been settled by the Church's magisterium, so lively disagreement is reasonable. On other controversial issues both resolved and unresolved by the magisterium, they manage to agree but from different perspectives. Ashley and O'Rourke come from a long Thomistic natural-law tradition in their analysis of the field of Catholic medical moral theology, but they also attempt to synthesize, coordinate, and criticize a whole gamut of authors who have written in the field CATHOLIC BIOETHICS 135 of medical moral ethics both within and outside the Thomistic and even the Catholic tradition. Their guiding light is called "prudential personalism." Many moral answers to medical problems are not moral absolutes. The virtue of prudence is necessary to solve these problems (e...