The New York Times carried a recent opinion piece by Daniel Callahan, president emeritus of the Hastings Center and co-director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy, which noted the possibility of intensifying "present efforts to treat the usual chronic diseases that afflict the elderly, like cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's". It also states, "For some scientists, recent anti-aging research - on gene therapy, body-part replacement by regeneration and nanotechnology for repairing aging cells - has breathed new life into" the dream of overcoming aging. (The full article, together with many comments, is available at link). The article goes on to say:

   
"Even if anti-aging research could give us radically longer lives someday, though, should we even be seeking them? Regardless of what science makes possible, or what individual people want, aging is a public issue with social consequences, and these must be thought through.

    
"Consider how dire the cost projections for Medicare already are. In 2010 more than 40 million Americans were over 65. In 2030 there will be slightly more than 72 million, and in 2050 more than 83 million. The Congressional Budget Office has projected a rise of Medicare expenditures to 5.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2038 from 3.5 percent today, a burden often declared unsustainable. 

"MODERN medicine is very good at keeping elderly people with chronic diseases expensively alive. At 83, I'm a good example. I'm on oxygen at night for emphysema, and three years ago I needed a seven-hour emergency heart operation to save my life. Just 10 percent of the population - mainly the elderly - consumes about 65 percent of health care expenditures, primarily on expensive chronic illnesses and end-of-life costs. Historically, the longer lives that medical advances have given us have run exactly parallel to the increase in chronic illness and the explosion in costs. Can we possibly afford to live even longer - much less radically longer?"   

What does Catholic Social Teaching tell us? Its first principle is the dignity of human life:  

"We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person... All human beings, therefore, are ends to be served by the institutions [including hospitals] that make up the economy... When we deal with each other, we should do so with the sense of awe that arises in the presence of something holy and sacred." We need a "positive attitude of absolute respect for life" leading "to the promotion of life and to progress along the way of a love which gives, receives and serves."  

We must not kill or collude in the killing of an innocent human being. It is a matter of controversy as to whether, or when, extraordinary measures should be taken to preserve a life. Extraordinary measures are usually understood to include "life support" such as intravenous feeding and supplying oxygen. When are they appropriate? The answer would seem to be when they uphold human dignity, when the person may still be able to exercise some measure of human freedom and decision-making.

 

 Brief Links