Religion & Law

comment on Hardt's article

By Richard Myers

Here are a couple of quick comments on John Hardt's fine article in America (Church Teaching and My Father's Choice). I thought the article was well done. I have some reservations though. I don't think Hardt's approach is at all consistent with the CDF's statement on this issue. I think Hardt's view is similar to the view expressed in the Commonweal editorial we discussed back in December. Here is a link to my brief post on that editorial. In my view, there are a couple of points where Hardt's position diverges from the CDF statement. First, Hardt takes the view that the pvs condition itself is "a fatal pathology." The real "problem" is that these patients won't die soon enough. Second, he seems to subscribe to a dualistic understanding of the person. I think this is reflected in his (dismissive?) reference to "baseline biological existence." Third, I think Hardt makes the common mistake of regarding the life of the patient as "excessively burdensome" rather than focusing on whether the treatment is excessively burdensome. Fourth, despite Hardt's focus on pvs and his statement that the pvs diagnosis "affects only a miniscule number of patients," I think it is quite clear that his discussion (which turns on the subjective evaluation of the patients's condition) is not limited to pvs patients.  His analysis is not incorrect because of that but we ought to acknowledge that his principle is not confined to a narrow situation.

I'll refer again to Mark Latkovic's clear analysis of the moral issues, and to my (less clear) treatment of these issues in connection with the Terri Schiavo case.

Richard M.

Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on January 24, 2008 (boomark / email).