CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - dogmatic theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 10th December 2007, 02:16 PM
Truthseeker Truthseeker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 271
Default Siamese Twins

There was a case about five years ago of two siamese twins. Now if the doctors did not intervene both babies would have died. However, through the intervention of the professors one was saved and the other died. Now the thing is that the local Bishop argued it was wrong for the doctors to operate since this would have killed a baby. What do you think ? Who was right the doctors or the Bishop ? The argument of the Bishop I think was that you can't do something bad (killing a baby) in order to obtain something good (saving the other one). Hope am not misunderstanding the Bishop's argument but I think this was his argument.
__________________
For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. (Jh:18:37)

Last edited by Truthseeker : 10th December 2007 at 02:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10th December 2007, 02:28 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthseeker View Post
There was a case about five years ago of two siamese twins. Now if the doctors did not intervene both babies would have died. However, through the intervention of the professors one was saved and the other died. Now the thing is that the local Bishop argued it was wrong for the doctors to operate since this would have killed a baby. What do you think ? Who was right the doctors or the Bishop ? The argument of the Bishop I think was that you can't do something bad (killing a baby) in order to obtain something good (saving the other one). Hope am not misunderstanding the Bishop's argument but I think this was his argument.

It depends on the medical situation. Doctors cannot directly kill one twin to save the other. However, they could indirectly kill one to save the other; this would probably present as an operation which, while it would directly kill neither one, would offer a greater risk of death to one rather than to the other. And there is a risk of death in any such operation to both.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10th December 2007, 02:33 PM
Truthseeker Truthseeker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 271
Default

Well there was only one heart and one of the babies depended on the other to keep on living. Therefore when the babies were separated one automatically died and the other survived since he did not have to feed the other. I am not sure if there was the possibilty of both of them remaining alive in that state but I do not think this was the case.
__________________
For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. (Jh:18:37)
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10th December 2007, 03:10 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthseeker View Post
Well there was only one heart and one of the babies depended on the other to keep on living. Therefore when the babies were separated one automatically died and the other survived since he did not have to feed the other. I am not sure if there was the possibilty of both of them remaining alive in that state but I do not think this was the case.

It may have been moral under the principle of double effect. My purpose in answering specific examples is to teach the principle, not to become the judge over every situation.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10th December 2007, 03:27 PM
js1975 js1975 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 914
Default

This principal is pretty good. One can easily argue that this is common sense to many, but because of the effects of sin it is not common sense at all. Doctors and other such professions would serve God and society well by keeping this principal in their arsenal of decision-making tools.
__________________
2cor 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, most beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 17th December 2007, 09:45 PM
Bomber
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber View Post
Monsignor Guiseppe Roncalli, later John XXIII, saved tens of thousands of Jews during the Second World War by lying.

He came up with an idea to issue fake baptismal certificates for Jews so that they may be spared from the Nazis. He saved between 24,000 and 80,000 people this way.

I know this doesn't prove lying is or is not always immoral, I ma just saying that some seem to make it so nice and neat and easy to point out in hypothetical situations, while in the real world, when real lives are at stake, even the future Pope can have his misgivings about the absolute immorality of lying.

What do you suppose God said to him about this when he died?


Anybody have any thoughts on this?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 17th December 2007, 10:29 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,585
Default

lying in that situation was immoral, but not gravely so.


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 17th December 2007, 10:55 PM
Bomber
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OK Thanks for the reply
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 18th December 2007, 12:36 AM
needDivineMercy needDivineMercy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 152
Default Is murder considered intrisically evil?

Sorry if this point is already covered but I thought I read in a different post that murder is considered intrisically evil but can this be so if God has do so
1) Noah's flood
2) Sodom and Gamura
3) Onin
etc.
Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 18th December 2007, 01:27 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,585
Default

Killing is not intrinsically evil; murder is intrinsically evil.
When God decides to end someone's life, it is killing but it is not murder.
All lives belong to God.

Similarly, the moral definition of stealing includes the understanding that all things belong first to God, and were put here for the good of all. So if someone has great need of goods that another has in excess, he can take them (doing what is stealing under human law) and it is not stealing under the moral law. Because all things belong to God.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.