Thursday, July 2, 2020

‘An affront to human dignity’: Ethicists react to death of Michael Hickson

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 1, 2020 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- Ethicists and disability rights activists have expressed grave concerns over reports of the recent death of Michael Hickson, a black man with quadriplegia and a brain injury who was denied medical treatment due to his disabilities.
Hickson, 46, died on June 11, six days after a doctor at St. David’s South Austin Medical Center told Hickson’s wife, Melissa, that he did not think that Michael had a quality of life due to his disabilities and would therefore not receive medical treatment, he was subsequently transferred to hospice care. Melissa recorded the conversation, and the video was posted on YouTube.
Michael was admitted to the medical center after he contracted COVID-19 and pneumonia at the nursing home where he lived.
Dr. John Di Camillo, and ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center told CNA that denying care based solely on a disability or presumptions about a patient’s quality of life is an “affront to the dignity of the human person and a tragedy of medical ethics.”
“A patient or surrogate decision-maker has the moral option to decline treatments that are extraordinarily burdensome or minimally beneficial,” Di Camillo said, “and clinicians have the duty to convey facts, expectations, and recommendations, but a refusal of care based on quality of life alone simply should not happen.”
Dr. Harold Braswell, an bioethicist at St. Louis University, told CNA that while he cannot be sure what the doctor in the video was thinking, “given the objections of the family […] and a general tendency among health care professionals to underestimate quality of life among disabled people, it’s grounds for concern.”
“Disability rights advocates have almost universally opposed ‘quality of life’ as a criteria for making triage decisions during COVID-19,” said Braswell, and that the preferred metric for triage is “survivability.” “Survivability” refers to the chance that a person will survive the medical interventions.

“But survivability doesn’t seem to be an issue in this case–hence Mrs. Hickson’s surprise that her husband was being put on ‘hospice,’” said Braswell. He called the citation of “quality of life” a “big red flag.”
At least one disability activist views Mr. Hickson’s death as a homicide.
“The murder of Michael Hickson by a hospital system that doesn’t care is a tragic example of how our priorities have shifted,” Steven Spohn, a public speaker and disability activist, told CNA.
“We used to be a nation that cared about Christian values and taking care of one another. Now people who need our support go unheard,” he said.
Spohn told CNA that he believes there are “thousands of cases just like Michael’s” who do not receive media attention.
“I wish that the media would pay attention to the injustice being done to people with disabilities on many fronts,” he said.
Dr. Charles Camosy, a professor of bioethics at Fordham University, also told CNA that he was confused by the relative lack of major media attention given to Hickson’s death, especially in light of the increased attention to racial justice.
“Given what we know about how rightly distrustful African Americans are of contemporary U.S. medicine, especially at the end of life, it is absolutely shocking that this clear issue of racial justice and medicalized violence is not being picked up broadly by major media outlets,” Camosy said first on Twitter and then to CNA.
Since the death of George Floyd, a black man who died on May 25 in the custody of the Minneapolis Police, there have been a series of protests and increased attention given to the mistreatment of ethnic minorities in American society, something Camosy said is “helpfully exposing examples of both personal and structural racism.”
“And yet, at least for now, all we hear are crickets [regarding Hickson’s death] except in the pro-life and disabilitiy communities,” said Camosy.
Camosy acknowledged that while there may be times that require medical rationing, “there is no evidence that this was the case, and the doctor made it clear on the recording that he was aiming at his patient’s death on the basis of his disability.”
In the video, when Melissa asked to clarify that the doctor was referring to Michael’s disabilities when he claimed that her husband “didn’t have much” of a quality of life, the doctor replied “correct.”
In the recorded video, the doctor explained to Melissa that the patients who were treated successfully with the drug he was refusing to administer to Michael were “walking and talking,” unlike her husband.
In a second video Melissa posted to YouTube, she describes how she was not informed of her husband’s death for over 12 hours, and states that she was not allowed to visit him in hospice or have a FaceTime call with him before his death. She called for people to contact her husband’s doctors and medical guardians, who she says failed him in his final days.

“Michael’s widow is pleading for us to hold the people who did this to account, and that we must do,” said Camosy. “Because black lives matter.”

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

House discusses ‘brutal, sweeping crackdown’ in Hong Kong

CNA Staff, Jul 1, 2020 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- The new national security law in Hong Kong is an assault on the rights of the people, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday, July 1.
“When Beijing announced its intention to pass the so-called National Security Law, so-called, we were concerned. It was frightening,” said Pelosi at the hearing, titled “The End of One Country, Two Systems?: Implications of Beijing’s National Security Law in Hong Kong” .
“[The law] is nothing short of an all-out effort to negate the rights of the people of Hong Kong in violation of the agreements made under the ‘One Country, Two Systems,’ said the California Democrat.
Pelosi said that Congress had long been concerned about the law’s final form, but the text of the legislation “exceeds even those horrors.”
“The law is a brutal, sweeping crackdown against the people of Hong Kong, intended to destroy the freedoms they were promised,” she said.
When China assumed control of Hong Kong on July 1, 1997, the country pledged to allow Hong Kong the ability to maintain its existing administrative and economic systems, including far broader democratic and civil rights than the mainland, and even preserving its own currency.
The new security law, which was only fully published hours before it went into effect, carries harsh sentences for violators.
Under the new law, a person who is convicted of secession, subversion, terrorism or collusion with foreign forces will receive a minimum of 10 years in prison, with the possibility of a life sentence. The law’s broad definition of terrorism includes arson and vandalizing public transportation “with an intent to intimidate the Hong Kong government or Chinese government for political purposes.”
“The purpose of this law is to frighten, intimidate and suppress the people of Hong Kong who are peacefully demanding the freedoms they have long been owed,” said Pelosi.
“All freedom-loving people must come together to condemn the law, which accelerates Beijing’s years-long assault on Hong Kong’s political and economic freedoms.”
Earlier in her remarks, Pelosi praised the bipartisanship effort of her colleagues to support the people of Hong Kong.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), who also spoke at the hearing, called the law a “sweeping, draconian, anti-democracy policy” and was critical of the Chinese government’s efforts to control the people of Hong Kong, as well as the rest of the country’s various human rights abuses.
“Xi Jinping’s assault on Hong Kong democracy activists is the latest example of the Chinese Communist Party’s cruelty and weakness. The genocide against  Muslim Uyghurs, the pervasive use of torture throughout China, forced abortion and gendercide, and worsening religious persecution underscores the pathetic state of human rights abuse by Xi and his government,” said Smith.
Smith added that it was “likely” that the Chinese Communist Party will imprison human rights activists from Hong Kong who meet with members of Congress, and called for sanctions.

“This perverse violation of free speech and association must be fought with sanction and other tools,” he said.
The congressional hearing took place as protestors took to the streets in Hong Kong. July 1, the anniversary of the handover from Great Britain to China, is traditionally a day of pro-democracy demonstrations in the province.
According to local news, on the first day of the new law’s enforcement, more than 370 people were arrested over the course of the day’s demonstrations, 10 of them under the terms of the new law.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Analysis: As Archbishop Viganò denounces Vatican II, the Vatican is not speaking

By JD Flynn for CNA
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. (Credit: Edward Pentin / EWTN News)
Denver Newsroom, Jul 1, 2020 / 11:35 am (CNA).- When Archbishop Carlo Viganò made headlines in August 2018, it was for a sweeping open letter that accused Church officials of complicity and cover-up in the scandal surrounding sexual abuser Theodore McCarrick.
The pope’s response to the Viganò letter was direct: “I will not say a single word on this.”
Two years later, Archbishop Viganò is still speaking. But the archbishop has changed his topic, from the McCarrick affair to conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic, the Marian apparition at Fatima, and the Second Vatican Council. The archbishop’s audience has grown large in the last two years; it now includes even the president of the United States. And now his allegations have begun to teeter on a repudiation of the authority of the Church itself.
Still, neither Pope Francis nor the Vatican have said a word about Viganò or his growing pile of missives, even as prominent analysts say the archbishop is at the point of “breaking with the Church,” and may well bring his followers with him. There could be a few reasons for that.
In an interview last month, Viganò offered a set of criticisms against the Second Vatican Council that are not especially original, but are striking because they come, apparently, from the pen of a former papal representative to the U.S.
Viganò claimed that at the Second Vatican Council — an ecumenical council of the Church — “hostile forces” caused “the abdication of the Catholic Church” through a “sensational deception.”
“The errors of the post-conciliar period were contained in nuce in the Conciliar Acts,” the archbishop added, accusing the council, and not just its aftermath, of overt error.
His interview, and his other recent comments on Vatican II, made arguments familiar to anyone who has spent time among adherents to the tenets of the Society of St. Pius X or other traditionalist groups outside the full communion of the Church: That the council’s decrees on religious liberty and interreligious dialogue reject Catholic doctrine. That as a “pastoral council” Vatican II does not bind Catholics. That the council has led to “the infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church.”
Viganò has suggested that the Second Vatican Council catalyzed a massive, but unseen, schism in the Church, ushering in a false Church alongside the true Church.
Those arguments have been addressed and critiqued repeatedly by theologians and historians, including Benedict XVI, and in the mind of the Church’s hierarchy, have been sufficiently refuted.
To be sure, few theologians or bishops would argue that Vatican II’s documents are above reproach- in terms of their style, their language, or their presentation of the faith. And scholars continue to disagree about how to interpret some key texts of the council. But accepting the legitimacy and authority of the Second Vatican Council is a necessary component of maintaining ecclesial communion with the Church herself. Objections to the council’s authority have long been rejected by the Church’s authorities.
Viganò’s recent interviews have largely been understood as a call to reject the entirety of the Second Vatican Council. A pope, he says, must “rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off,” and the Church must “recognize the error and deception into which we have fallen.”
In the very best possible interpretation, Viganò’s claims can be understood as studiously ambiguous— attempting to avoid a direct repudiation of Catholic doctrine while doing precisely that in a more circumspect manner. Catholics have criticized the work of Fr. James Martin, SJ, for the same kind of studied ambiguity, albeit on a different subject, and criticized the Holy See for failing to respond.
Still, given that Viganò has decried the “perverse nature” of the Second Vatican Council, the plain meaning of his argument seems clear, and it seems nearly impossible to lend his claims even the designation of “studied ambiguity.” But whether his writing meets the formal criteria of either heresy or schism is subject only to the judgment of the Holy See.
The Vatican, however, has not spoken.
One possible reason for the silence is that Church leaders, including Pope Francis, might simply not grasp how much influence Viganò has. The archbishop’s reach is impossible to judge completely, but his letters and interviews are the regular fodder for a set of websites and YouTube channels with very large audiences, and after the archbishop was endorsed by President Trump last month, he has become a figure of awe among the web of QAnon conspiracy theorists.
His admirers are not just fringe figures, either. A sitting U.S. diocesan bishop signed onto Viganò’s open letter accusing shadowy authorities of exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to usher in a one-world government, and the U.S. president has invoked an open letter from Viganò as a kind of institutional Catholic endorsement.
Vatican authorities might be hoping Viganò goes away quietly, but that seems increasingly unlikely, especially if the archbishop and his supporters are emboldened by a positive response to his recent turn against the Second Vatican Council, and towards the American political landscape.
It is also unlikely that Viganò will go away quietly if, as some observers have speculated, the archbishop is being supported by a Catholic faction with a clear objective and, through Viganò, a mouthpiece. How Viganò is supporting himself, and where he is now living, are matters only of speculation. But there is a point worth noting about the archbishop’s recent missives.
Viganò is a lawyer who worked as a government official and a diplomat. He is not a theologian. He is, by many accounts, a practical man, more inclined to get things done than to wax philosophic. But his writing has taken an uncharacteristic turn towards the theological arguments of those who have rejected the Second Vatican Council, and it displays surprising familiarity with those arguments. If the Holy See does decide to investigate Viganò’s publications, it might consider the circumstances in which they have been written, and what kind of “assistance,” and from whom, Viganò has received.
The Holy See might also be reflexively disinclined to address Viganò because, for all his peculiarities, he is still an archbishop and a retired high ranking diplomatic figure. In the system of Vatican court etiquette, criticizing him openly would be something of a brutta figura. One aspect of clericalism is a near ironclad unspoken commitment among bishops to avoid publicly criticizing one another, and that may be a factor in discomfort with responding to Viganò’s claims. And the Holy See might be especially disinclined to that kind of open criticism if it sincerely does have concerns for the archbishop’s health, or his personal circumstances.
Finally, there is the uncomfortable fact that Viganò’s more substantive claims — those regarding McCarrick — have not yet been addressed.
A criticism of the archbishop’s theological missives could come across as a very selective responsiveness, especially given that many Catholics, not just the pope’s critics, know that questions regarding Amoris Laetitia have also gone unanswered. Ultimately, though, it seems unlikely that the optics of a selective response are a major factor in the Holy See’s considerations of the Viganò situation, because, quite simply, its communications apparatus does not usually seem to engage public issues with that level of tactical analysis.
Whatever the reason, the voice of Archbishop Viganò has become significant to a broad swath of Catholics, who are now hearing from the archbishop why an ecumenical council should be rejected. Viganò is speaking more frequently, and more boldly. Whether the pope, and the Holy See, will decide that now is the time to respond to say even a “single word,” remains to be seen.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Catholic News Agency  435 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *