What with writing down what I consider reasonable health care if I am unable to communicate, running a fever that finally fizzled this week — and being aware of our current pope’s state of health — maladies and medicine have been more on my mind than usual.
Basically, I’ve been a bit preoccupied. And to top it all off, this household experienced a very welcome visit from number-two daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter. So this post will be somewhat rambling: or discursive, which sounds classier.
I’ll start with what should be a no-brainer. Human life matters. A lot.
“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.“
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258) [emphasis mine]
Working On My Health Care Directive
Backing up a bit, when a draft copy of paperwork involved in making family property/estate/whatever arrangements for at least the next generation came, it included a Health Care Directive for me to fill out.
I already have one on file with the local hospital. When I get this new one filled out and signed, along with whatever else is needed to make it official, there’s the task of getting the local hospital to accept and file the new one: and that’s another topic.
The emotional stress of deciding on responses to 22 items didn’t surprise me, since they all involved me thinking about very unpleasant possibilities. Besides that, many of them encouraged me to verify that what I remember about ‘Catholic’ views of health care is accurate.
I trust my own judgement or memory, to a point; but my memory could be — creative. So I like to verify what I remember, making sure I’m not missing details: particularly involving life-or-death situations.
Enough preamble. Some items, like naming my health care agent and a backup, were straightforward: and didn’t involve the ethical minefield between — I’d better stop there. There isn’t time and I don’t have the energy to adequately discuss why I think I have a need for caution.
Instead, I’ll show a few of the items on the Health Care Directive, after “…I have these views about my health care in these situations” items, along with my responses.
The Health Care Directive prompts are in bold.
If I were dying and unable to decide or speak for myself, I would want:
Ordinary care, including but not limited to: air/oxygen, food/nutrition and hydration; when needed, painkillers.In all circumstances, my doctors should try to keep me comfortable and reduce my pain. This is how I feel about pain relief if it would affect my alertness or if it could shorten my life:
If I am terminally ill, pain relief that may impact how long I live would be acceptable if the goal is to reduce pain. Otherwise, I do not want medicine that would shorten my life.Whenever I am unable to decide for myself, I designate my health care agent as proxy to make decisions about mental health treatment, including electroconvulsive therapy and administration of neuroleptic medications as defined in Minnesota Statues section 245D.02, subdivision 27. I would like to express the following instructions regarding intrusive mental health treatment:
I hope my health care agent would consider intrusive mental health treatment only in the most extreme or life-threatening circumstances.
Remembering ‘the Good Old Days’
I looked up what “intrusive mental health treatment” means in this context, and what electroconvulsive therapy and neuroleptic medications do to patients.
The main up side to electroconvulsive therapy, running an electrical current through my brain, would be that I’d become more manageable.
A down side is that I might have trouble remembering who I am and what I’ve been doing.
I can see why neuroleptic medications have gotten traction. They’re therapeutic: aside from some folks experiencing degraded balance, type 2 diabetes and other troubles, like having trouble thinking. But the patients are more manageable.
It’s not all bad news, however.
Looking up Minnesota Statues section 245D.02, subdivision 27 led me to 253B.03 RIGHTS OF PATIENTS. I’ll get back to that, very briefly.
245D.02 included what struck me as, in part, an effort to address situations where there simply isn’t time to fill out forms, get signatures, request authorization, rinse and repeat.
Looks like “RIGHTS OF PATIENTS” will be changing, thanks to Minnesota’s 2026 Regular Session. I haven’t studied what those changes are supposed to be, but I’d be surprised if they’ll bring back ‘the good old days’, when someone won the 1949 Nobel Prize for Physiology or medicine for “discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses”.
I remember the ‘good old days’ that followed, and that’s yet another topic.1
“Precious Resources”, Experiments, and Ethics
I can easily imagine a “very religious” person denouncing drugs, surgical operations, and pretty much anything “scientific”: along with “demon rum” and whatever else that pillar of society doesn’t like.
I’m a Catholic, so that’s not an option.
But I’m a Catholic and take my faith seriously, which includes practicing temperance: or trying to. That’s temperance, Catholic style.
“The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
“The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.”
(Catechism, 2290-2291) [emphasis mine]
‘It’s For Science!’?
Word may be getting around that not all Christians see science as Satanic, but maybe some folks — Christian and otherwise — haven’t gotten the memo yet.
Anyway, here’s part of what the Church says about science and medicine:
“Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health.
“Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man’s dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.
“It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.“
(Catechism, 2292-2294) [emphasis mine]
I’ve talked about what “moral” in this context.
Morality, as the term is used here, isn’t limited to the zipper issues that make for the occasional racy news items. And that’s yet again another topic. I generally use words like “ethics”, which aren’t quite as tightly-focused in my dialect of English.
Basically, saying ‘it’s for science!’ doesn’t make ethics irrelevant.
Which reminds me. Using human beings as experimental subjects isn’t always a bad idea: but “the dignity of human persons” applies.
Finally, medical procedures like organ transplants can be a good idea. Provided they don’t involve breaking a living person down for parts.
“Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects’ potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.
“Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.”
(Catechism, 2295-2296) [emphasis mine]
Life and Health: a Catholic and Former Lab Rat’s Perspective
It’s late Friday, time for me to wrap this up with links to what I’ve said before about life and health — from my perspective as a Catholic and former lab rat:
- “My Health Care Directive: Being Specific” (September 26, 2026)
- “You Don’t Have to be Crazy to be Catholic…” (May 9, 2026 )
- “Attack on Lawmakers: Politics, Life, and Making Sense Anyway” (June 21, 2025)
- “Edited Twins, Genetic Engineering and Bioethics” (March 11, 2023)
- “Temperance, Catholic Style” (July 10, 2016)
BLACK LINE HERE
1 Psychiatric treatments and my state’s rules:
- Wikipedia
- 2025 Minnesota Statutes
- 245D.02 DEFINITIONS.
- 253B.03 RIGHTS OF PATIENTS. (“This section has been affected by law enacted during the 2026 Regular Session….”)
- Antipsychotic Medications
Cleveland Clinic - autobiographical memory
APA Dictionary of Psychology, American Psychological Association - Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT)
Fact Sheets, Yale Medicine - PubMed Central / National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health
- “Cognitive side-effects of electroconvulsive therapy: what are they, how to monitor them and what to tell patients” , Richard J Porter, Bernhard T Baune, Grace Morris, Amber Hamilton, Darryl Bassett, Philip Boyce, Malcolm J Hopwood, Roger Mulder, Gordon Parker, Ajeet B Singh, Tim Outhred, Pritha Das, Gin S Malhi; BJPsych Open | Cambridge Core (April 17, 2020)
- “Lifetime antipsychotic medication and cognitive performance in schizophrenia at age 43 years in a general population birth cohort” , Anja P Husa, Jani Moilanen, Graham K Murray, Riikka Marttila, Marianne Haapea, Irina Rannikko, Jennifer H Barnett, Peter B Jones i, Matti Isohanni, Anne M Remes, Hannu Koponen, Jouko Miettunen, Erika Jääskeläinen; Psychiatry Research (January 2017)
Discover more from A Catholic Citizen in America
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
