Weighing the Moral Issues in the Health Care Debate

Last updated on: March 16, 2010 at 12:49 pm by Pia de Solenni

Weighing the Moral Issues in the Health Care Debate 2010-03-16T12:49:33-07:00 Pia de Solenni

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Why faithful Catholics might be opposed to the proposed legislation

A recent Politico interview positioned a quote from Richard Doerflinger, an associate director at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a way that suggested that the USCCB would push for the proposed health care legislation were the abortion provisions to be dropped. Doerflinger’s statement was later clarified.

But no wonder the confusion. To hear the chattering classes, one would think that all Catholics have a moral obligation to support the healthcare legislation currently under consideration by Congress, assuming that abortion is not covered under the plan. Nevertheless there are other moral criteria, varying in their ethical weight, that shape the support of the Catholic Church and individual Catholics. Given that Catholics make up about twenty percent of the voting population in this country and that the Church provides up to forty percent of healthcare services in some areas, the Catholic voice has a significant impact.

In addition to the USCCB, numerous individual bishops have articulated the teaching of the Catholic Church and how it relates to this legislation. Last week, Bishop Cordileone (Oakland) gave an excellent TV interview, summarizing the key concerns: respect for human life, conscience protection, accessibility, and affordability.

Respect for human life includes abortion but also refers to euthanasia and any practice that would violate the individual’s right to life from conception to a natural death. Conscience protection laws cover health care providers and workers who might otherwise be forced to engage in practices that violate their consciences. In other words, it protects them from being forced to violate the fundamental respect for human life, including forced to perform or assist with abortions. In a column last week, Bishop Wenski (Orlando) made the case that the legislation is so flawed with regard to abortion and conscience protection that it should not be approved.

Bishop Loverde (Arlington) recently called for a day of prayer and fasting to protect “the life, dignity, health and conscience rights of every human person in any legislation that Congress considers.”

Archbishop Nienstedt (St. Paul – Minneapolis) has also raised the issue of subsidiarity, namely that matters, like decisions about health care, which can be handled at a local level should not needlessly be distanced from the individual and decided at a federal level.

In a strongly worded article last fall, Bishop Conley (Denver – auxiliary) commented on the responsibility of individuals to think through carefully all the implications of the proposed legislation. Specifically concerning the financial considerations, he wrote, “If we commit ourselves to health services, then we need to have the will and the ability to really pay for them. That’s a moral issue, not simply a practical one.”

While the questions regarding the protection of human life and conscience carry the most moral weight, economic questions also play a role and involve principles of justice. It is unjust and unethical to take on financial responsibilities that one cannot sustain, as witnessed by the current financial crisis.

The question of providing affordable health care to everyone also suggests that all will contribute to it unless they are somehow unable to do so. This doesn’t include the option simply not to have health insurance if one doesn’t want to pay the expense of it or if one chooses not to make enough money to afford it. About 10 million people without health insurance have incomes above 300% of the poverty level. These are people who have made a lifestyle choice and have elected to use their money otherwise. Catholic teaching does not maintain that others are responsible for these individual choices.

Cardinal George (Chicago) articulated the Catholic responsibility: “Those who hold that faith, ordinary citizens and legislators, will make these principles their own and act accordingly. (In his capacity as president of the USCCB, he released this statement yesterday.)

This goes beyond partisan politics. It means carefully studying the proposed legislation and all of its implications. While the idea of the legislation may be good and laudable, the devil is in the details. Archbishop Chaput concludes a recent column:

It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community. In its current content, the Senate version of health-care legislation is not “reform.” Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it.

While quality accessible health care remains an important goal, anything that compromises core human values would be a sham of authentic health care. It may be time to go back to the drawing board, but that’s better than failing altogether by passing extremely flawed legislation.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 4, 2009

Back soon...

Next Post

April 6, 2010 Penance for the Scandal

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Articles Thinking Out Loud Uncategorized

Select a Month August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 March 2016 February 2016 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 September 2013 August 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 August 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 July 2007 October 1008

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who had a vision of a great sheet filled with unclean animals?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Stephen Peter Paul John