Ethics and Faith

***WARNING- THIS POST ASKS A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS VERY FEW***

I knew that the practice of law would at times put my duty as a lawyer and my duty as a Catholic at odds. I ran into one of those situations today.

I had a client come in to get some estate planning done- Will, Power of Attorney and a Personal Directive. After speaking with the client, I have no concern about capacity. The client is clearly able to make the decisions necessary for estate planning. However, this client also has some severe disabilities- none that are mentally impairing, just some severe physical disabilities. The disabilities are part of the reason the client wants to get the estate planning done. (I should make clear- this is the first estate planning I've worked on, and I was sitting in with my principal observing- not actually doing the questioning)

So far, so good- I have no issues with any of that.

What does bother me is my firm's personal directive. The wording of it specifically. The directive says essentially that no extraordinary methods should be used to save the client and if the client is in an irreversible coma or persistent vegetative state, their lives should not be prolonged.

My problem with this wording is that a) it is too open to interpretation- in this world, extraordinary means can mean food and water and irreversible comas and persistent vegetative states are not something that medical professionals agree on and b) I think such wording violates the culture of life ethic.

My other problem is that this wording is presented by the lawyers in my firm as being "normal" and "what everyone uses." When interviewing clients, my principal asks "do you want the plug to be pulled or not?" If the client says pull it (which all that I've seen so far do) my principal says that this is the wording you should use. To me, this is not doing the job we as lawyers should be doing for our clients. Everyone is not an expert in end of life issues (I'm certainly not, but I like to think I'm more aware than a lot of other people) and I'm sure this isn't something my principal has thought much about, but I don't think this explanation or the wording is good for our clients. I don't think they understand the ramifications of what they are signing and I don't know that it is consistent with their actual wishes.

When people are choosing the terms for their wills, we are very careful to make sure we ask lots of questions so we get their intentions captured properly in the will. To me this one size fits all personal directive is us as lawyers failing to take proper instructions from our client.

Don't get me wrong- I know there are a lot of people out there who may want the plug pulled. I just want to make sure that they know what they are saying when they say that. I want to give them options; I don't want them to be forced into the cookie-cutter precedent some lawyer got at a Law Society conference, and I feel that is what is happening here.

Back to my client today- I don't know that the client truly understood what the client was signing. (For that matter, I don't know that my principal knows the ramifications either) And I am concerned, especially because of the client's disability, that the medical profession will not stop to seriously consider the client's wishes if the time comes.

As a Catholic, it hurt me to watch someone sign a document that condemns them to the culture of death. Yet, as a lawyer it’s my job to make sure the client’s wishes are followed. I guess my real concern is- when the day comes (and it is coming soon) that I take instructions and draft the personal directive myself, what do I do if the client wants to make a decision that I disagree with? As a lawyer, I know that I have to abide by the client's wishes, but as a Catholic, can I do that? Am I not then complicit in an act that violates my faith? And if I do so with full knowledge, does that not make it a mortal sin? And if I know that I will do it again if another client wants it, does that mean I can't repent of the sin at confession? Where does that leave my soul?

My clients may not know any better- they after all live in a society consumed by the culture of death. God is merciful, and I know He will have mercy on them. But what about me? I do know better. After all, "to those to whom much is given, much will be expected."

I'm only 1 month into a career that should last over 40 years. How do I protect my client’s dignity, and how do I promote the culture of life when my profession has such a large role in the culture of death?

My intention is to create some other precedents in time that are more life affirming, but what do I do with people who are adamant that they want the plug pulled or to be deprived of nutrition and hydration?

Entitlement

Another sad story demonstrating the culture of death that permeates our world can be found here. A Japanese woman was successfully implanted with a fertilized egg following IVF. However, the clinic made a mistake and implanted her with the egg of another woman. When she found out, she aborted the pregnancy and sued the clinic. By all accounts, she was delighted with the pregnancy, but finding out it was another woman's egg was too much. There is some suggestion that there is a cultural taboo against having another person's child, but that is beside the point.

The woman wanted to become pregnant.

She did.

She was happy about it.

She found out it was another women's and was upset.

She aborted.

That's the bottom line. There is a problem with society when a woman who is desperate to have a child aborts it because the child is not genetically hers. It points to an entitlement mentality and it points out that people view children not as a responsibility, but a right. It also points out that children are simply objects to be created and disposed of at a whim.

Let's change the scenario slightly. If the woman had purchased a dog, and later found out it wasn't the purebred she expected and put it down, people would be outraged at her action. Because it was just a child, no one bats an eye.

Even without going to that comparison, this incident points out some of the dangers of IVF. People lose respect for life when it is created and destroyed on a whim in a petrie dish. In this case, only on child was aborted. Often, women are implanted with 4 or 5 embryos. If they all implant, "seletive reductions" (aka abortions) are performed and the woman has one or two children. How does she explain that to her children later on in life- you had 3 other brothers and sisters, but I aborted them. By sheer luck you weren't the child that the abortionist dismembered and sucked out. But don't worry, I lvoe you very much.

There have been many stories about IVF in the news lately- the 8 children born to a single mom and the twins born to a 60 year old woman and people are talking about needing legal restrictions on IVF. They are partially correct. We need legal restrictions against IVF- it shouldn't be permitted in any case, ever. IVF kills children every day. The sooner we all realize that, the better for everyone, especially the children.

The Destruction of our Future

Scary, scary stuff today. At the close of the March for Life last week, columnist Don Feder gave a presentation on the coming "Demographic Winter." To read the full text of his talk, go here. While some people like to talk about the overpopulation of the world, Mr. Feder paints the opposite picture. As a result of abortion, contraception and the general culture of death, the West is in the process of collective suicide.

2.1 That's the important number. In 1979, the number was 6. Today, it is 2.9. What is 2.1 you ask? It's the replacement birthrate- the number of children an average woman needs to have to ensure the population stays the same size. Globally, the average number of children women have is 2.9. That's dangerously close to falling below the replacement birthrate level of 2.1- only 30 years ago, the average woman had 6. In the so-called "advanced" societies of the world, the birthrate has fallen well below 2.1. In Russia, the number is 1.17; Italy and Spain are at 1.5. Canada is at 1.53. That's scary. As Mr. Feder put it, with below replacement level birthrates our "Schools will be turned into nursing homes. Playgrounds will become graveyards."

And, as he also pointed out, euthanasia will become a way of life. How can it not? If we have fewer and fewer young people, we have fewer and fewer taxpayers to support the pension systems. What better way to save money that to kill the elderly? (I'm joking of course)

In many ways, what we are doing right now is the same thing the Black Death did in Europe in the 14^th century. We are depopulating the world at an extreme rate. We've built a society that depends on people, and yet we are not reproducing the people needed to fill those positions. When the Black Death killed off 1/3 of the population of Europe, it set in play massive social changes that unleashed great upheaval on the world and in many ways set development back for generations.

Yet, when the Black Death abated, more children were born to replace those who were killed. Here, we are not having children, so there are no children for them to have to replace those who die. In Russia today, more pregnancies end in abortion than end in birth. More people die every year in Russia than are born. At the very basic level, eventually, everyone will take on more and more work. There is a maximum output that anyone can produce, and eventually things will fall by the wayside in an attempt to just keep the basics functioning. Can you imagine a world where we no longer have technology advancing, where we no longer have cars or computers because there is no one left to build them? Humans have basic needs- food, water and shelter. If the population keeps dropping, we will eventually have to stop working in luxury areas and focus simply on production of food for survival. What happens to us then?

Scary, scary thoughts indeed.

Valley View Centre

I began today feeling like I was back in kindergarten because we were going on a field trip. I'd mocked the trip, and tried to think up a dozen ways to get out if it so I wouldn't have to waste my Friday. But in the end, I could come up with no compelling excuse not to go, so like a good little student I showed up at 7:30 this morning to embark on a trip to Moose Jaw. And I'm glad I did.

While I could say a lot about my Law and Disability class (and I have) it has been a really good class to get me thinking and considering ideas and viewpoints I've never considered before, especially around the area of disability. It, more than any other class I've taken at law school has made me re-evaluate how I view others, and to broaden my understanding of being "pro-life." Our field trip today was to the Valley View Center in Moose Jaw, SK. The VVC is one of the few remaining institutional care homes left in Canada for persons with cognitive disabilities. See the Saskatchewan Government Fact Sheet here.

As we approached the facility, I had no idea what to expect; my prof hadn't told us much about the facility, except to mention that there was controversy over its very existence. Some organizations want nothing more than to see it shut down because they view any form of institutional living as a violation of human rights. The Friends of Valley View want to keep it open, and the reason my prof gave was because it is home to the residents who live there, and moving somewhere else would be traumatizing to them.

We were told at the very start of the visit that the VVC allows very few visitors in because it is the home of the residents, and just as you and I wouldn't want a bunch of strangers to suddenly walk into our home, they wouldn't want it either. That really hit home to me. They broke us up into groups of two or three to see the facility, and I was amazed by it. As the staff member who showed me around pointed out, the VVC is its own little community with every service you could imagine available on site for the benefits of the residents; a doctor's office, dentist, even a barber shop/beauty salon.

What stood out to me as we saw VVC was, first, just how big the place was. Currently there are just under 250 residents, but at its peak the VVC was home to over 1400 people. However, all the residents I met seemed very happy and very content. The people who work at the VVC are very friendly, and obviously care a lot for the residents. As we walked around, we were told of the huge culture shift the VVC has undergone, even in the last few decades. The current model and vision statement is "living life to the fullest," and based on what I saw, the VVC is doing a wonderful job of that. They are trying to make the place a home, not an institution, despite the solid concrete walls everywhere. The homes have been personalized with photos and drawings, and they are currently preparing for Christmas by decorating. It seemed like every second verbal resident I met was asking about when the Christmas Party was- it seems to be the event on the social calendar that everyone is looking forward to.

Leaving the VVC, I don't have a problem with the institution being open. The people who live there are cared for and loved, and the people who work there genuinely seem to enjoy their jobs. And I can certainly see the argument of the Friends of Valley View that it is a home for people, and it's not right to take that from them. But I also understand the other side; our culture has shifted, and we no longer believe that institutionalizing people is the best way to do things. Living in the community is better for all involved. My prof called the current situation a "détente"- neither side is really talking about the other side, and the idea at present seems to be let everyone who lives there be, but no new residents will be accepted. That means in a few decades the centre will close, simply because there are no more residents left.

I found myself thinking about the centre, and people with intellectual disabilities specifically on the ride home. While there is definitely an economic argument to made for institutional living, an economic argument can also be made for group home living as well. But economics isn't everything, and I think that as the culture of death continues to pervade this world, we need to have people with disabilities living and working in the greater community just so we can all learn that they are people as well, people who deserve the full protection of human rights. When we talk about assisted suicide and euthanasia, and also the termination of unborn children with "defects" we are talking about discrimination on the basis of disability. The more that people interact with people with disabilities of all types, the better equipped we will all be to be citizens. People with disabilities are no more different from "normal" people than black people are from white people, or women are from men. Yes, there are differences in our abilities, but we all have something to offer to the world, and we should all be allowed to offer it to the world. No one should be hidden away because they are "different," but at the same time, we have to make accommodations for the differences to enable everyone to live the fullest life they can. Funny, that's also the VVC's vision statement. In a perfect world, the residents of the VVC wouldn't have to live there to get the love and care they do; it's something we would all provide in the greater society as a whole.

Too bad the whole culture of death and viewing people as burdens gets in the way.