The New Zealand TABLET THURSDAY. MAY 29, 1902. THE MORAL ASPECT OF CRANIOTOMY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 22, 29 May 1902, Page 17

The New Zealand TABLET

THURSDAY. MAY 29, 1902. THE MORAL ASPECT OF CRANIOTOMY.

' To promote the cause of Religion and Justice by the >cay& of Truth and Peace.' 1 Li-.o XIII. to the NZ T\ln hi.

t ffy

«. X a letter which appeared in the public Pies regarding- the much -discussed medical e<is° the following sentence occurs-. — 'J miuh add that this instrument, which I ha\c ne\er used during the cour.-e of twenty years' practice, ib employed in destroying, the life of the child in order to render birth possible, or, if the child is dead,

possible, to reduce the size of the head.' From the fore^oin^ sentence it is evident that the operation of craniotomy is still practised by some medical men, who consider it a morally lawful operation. But is it morally lawful ? In other words is it morally lawful for a doctor to kill by craniotomy, or by any other form of opeiution, a living child in order

to render birth possible, and sive the life of the mother ; or is it lawful for the f ther or mother to counsel or consent to have such an operation performed ? From what has been said, and more so from what has been left unsaid, in the local discussion which has arisen on the subject, we are led to bcliev" that the general public consider io quite lawful to kill the child to save the mother. We have no hesitation in saying tlvit, herein they are mistaken. The operation of craniotomy is never lawful, and, therefore, the doctor who performs it and the father who counsels iL and the mother who consents to it an; sruilty of grievous moral wrong, are guiky of an act wnich the Catholic Church has ever looked on as murder pure and simple. The reason of this is obvious. The unborn child from the moment of conception has got a human soul, and is a human being. This proposition is proved by both medical and sacred science. The unborn child, therefore, as truly as the born child, possesses all the rights of a human being, which rights are inalienable, and must not be interfered with, on the contrary, in strict justice they must be respected by other human beings. The first and chief right of every human being is the right to live — to live in this world for that term of years which God, who gave the life, has assigned to it.

Let us see how the right of every human being to live is established and protected by God's positive law. Having finished the work of Creation God gave man dominion over all the brute creation ; they were made for man, therefore man may lawfully use them for his benefit and pleasure, and when the brute has ministered to man's use it has attained its end. Man was created for an altogether different end, He was created to the image and likeness of God, for the honor and service of God, and not of other men. In this respect all men are equal, and have equal rights. They have the same essence, the same nature, the same destiny. Hence, when the Creator speaks of the life and destiny of man He uses language different to that which He uses when speaking of the brute creation : ' Whosoever,' He says, ' shall shed a man's blood, his blood shall be shed, for man is made to the image of God' (Gen. ix., {)). 'At the hand of every man will 1 require the life of man.' And the great precept, ' Thou shalt not kill' is as deeply engraven on the human heart as it once was on the table of stone. The person, therefore, who deprives another human being of life, takes away from him what is his inalienable natural right, he also grievously violates God's right ; and let us make no mistake these rights belong to, they are the property of the unborn child as certainly as they are of the full-grown man. The reason given by God against t, iking away the life of man proves this, ' For man is made to the image of God ' applies to the unborn child as truly as it does to the father or mother of that infant, or to the doctor who counsels that the life of this innocent human being, who has never injured any man, should be sacrificed on the al ar of expediency. We are fully aware that specious arguments are made use of to justily the doctor m taking the life of the child when from some reason or other the mother's life is in grave danger. It is said that there are exceptions to the general commandment, ' J hou shalt not kill.' One of these exceptions is, That it is lawful to eleprive a man of life in necessary self-defence, That is, were a man to make an afack upon the life of another, which attack could not be jep. lied without causing death to the aggressor, it would be lawful for the man attacked to kill such a person in selfdefence. This proposition is true when no other means short of deith are at hand whereby the attack can be repelled. Li such a case the person who makes the attack loses any right which he has to his own life. It is he alao who violates God's right to a human life, and it is he who will have to answer to God for it. But can this argument be justly extended to the case in point ? Can it be said that the unborn babe is an unjust aggressor on the life of the mother; and, therefore, can it be said that it is lawful for ii doctor to take away the life of this human being, and for the parents to consent to have it taken away in order tint the life ol the mother may be saved thereby ?

We shall answer this question in the words of the Archbishop of Melbourne, in a most useful and important pamphlet written by him recently on this and kindred sub-

jects he bays ; 'It is evident that the unborn child is not a formal aggressor, on its mother's life, for it is incapable of deliberation or malice. Neither is it a material, unjust aggressor, for it has done nothing to cause danger to the mother's life. But action is necessary for aggression. The child's position is determined not by any act of its own, but by the operation of nature, and the danger which arises from that position usually comes not from" the child, but from some defect in the mother herself. Of the two the mother is much more responsible for the dang, r to the child's life than the child is for the danger to the mother's life. Yeb no physician would hold that it would be lawful to sacrifice the mother for the safety of the child.' Therefore the operation of craniotomy cannot be justified on the plea of selfdefence, that the child is an unjust aggressor on the life of the mother. Again, it is said, the mother's life is more valuable than the child's, and therefore should be saved even by the death of the child. This is the doctrine of expediency which teaches that a Christian mother should preserve her life by slaying the child of her womb. It is strongly argued that the child shall die in any case, and therefore the operation of craniotomy only anticipates natural death by an hour or less. Even so ; that is God's province, not man's. Wiio gave the doctor power over life and death — a Divine power t Who told him that he could lawfully shorten life by even one hour ? And if he could lawfully shorten life in the case of an unborn child, why not have the power to do so in the case of adults suffering from incurable and painful diseases ? God is the Auttior of life ; He has given it ; He and He alone can take it away when and how He pleases ; and no human being, be he doctor or father or mother, can lawfully anticipate the work of God nor assume to himself Divine authority over life and death. A doctor would be branded as a murderer were he for any cause wilfully to take away the life of a child after birth. Yet he may take away the life of a human being before or during birth, and still be a welcome visitor in Christian homes. Let us repeat it again : the child before as after birth is a true human being enjoying all the rights and privileges of a human being, first amongst which in the right to live, a right which is inalienable, and which no man can lawfully take from it. ' Whosoever shall shed a man's blood, his blood shall be shed ; for man is made to the image of God.' 'At the hand of man I will require the life of man.' 1 Thou shalt not kill.'

Father Coppens, S.J., lecturer on medical jurisprudence at the Medical College, Omaha, had occasion to treat of this subject in the course of his lectures to the medical students attending that institution. He asks the question : 'Is a physician ever justified in destroying the life of a child before or during birth by craniotomy or by any other means in order to save the life of the mother ? ' He takes the case of a mother about to give birth to a child. All the medical skill possible has been given, consulting physicians have been called in, many operations approved of by science may be performed, but in this case, either from want of skill or from some other cause, they cannot be performed. i Can the doctor,' he asks, ' in such a case break the cranium or in any other way destroy the life of the child to save the life of the mother V 'If three consulting physicians agree thafc this is the only way to save the life of the mother, the operation may be performed according to the American civil law.' But he asks the further question : ' Will the law of nature or nature's God approve of such an act?' And remember, it is with the natural and divine law we have to do, not w'th the civil law. He answers his question : ' All men are equal and have an equal right to life ; God is the supreme and only Master of life and death, and He has laid down the strict prohibition, "Thou shalt not kill." ' Catholics are not left to the erring guidance of fallible reason in this matter. The Catholic Church has added her voice to the voice of nature. In a decision given by the Holy Office in 1884 she says, ' In Catholic schools it cannot be safely taught that the surgical operation known as craniotoniy, or any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the foetus or of the mother, is lawful.' In 189.1, in answer to the question whether, when the mother is in immediate danger of death and thera is no means of saving her life, a physician can in these circumstances cause abortion, the Sacred Congregation answered in the negative. The meaning of which answer is, That a physician could

not in such a case lawfully cause by any means the death of an infant not even to save the life of the mother. Therefore, let us say with all due deliberation and with the full sense of our responsibility, that it is never morally lawful for a doctor to perform, nor for a Catholic father or mother to counsel or permit the operation of craniotomy, or any other form of operation which directly intends and causes the death of a child either before or during birth, not even to save the life of the mother. 'It is never lawful to do an evil act that good may come.' In other words, ' the cud does not justify the means.' This is a moral principle which all physicians believe in theory but which many violate in practice.

But is it so necessary in difficult cases of childbirth that the life of the innocent child shculd be sacrificed ? We hold that it is not. It is neither lawful nor is it even necessary to attain the end desired, — the life of the mother. In proof of this assertion we shall quote the opinions of two emineat medical men. One is an American, Dr. W. H. Parish, who writes as follows in the American Ecclesiastical Review : ' The operation of craniotomy is to-day of relatively infrequent occurrence, and many obstetricians of large experience have never performed it.' He then mentions other operations which may be performed to meet the case and states the results. Ninety-five per cent, of mothers recover when craniotomy is performed and no child. In other operations performed with due skill ninety-five per cent, of the mothers recover and about the same number of children. He continues, * which shall we choose, the Csesarean Section, with one hundred and ninety living beings as the result, or craniotomy, with about ninety-five living beings.' As late as 1893 Dr. James Murphy, of the University of Durham, delivered the presidential address before a section of the British Medical Association. In the course of his address which was precisely on this subject he enumerated several forms of operation to meet the case of difficult birth, and concluded with these very weighty words : ' I say it deliberately, and with whatever authority I possess, and I urge it with all the force I can master, that we are not now justified in destroying a living child, and while there may be same things I look back upon with pleasure in my professional career that which gives me the greatest satisfaction is that 1 have never done a craniotomy on a living child.' Even from a medical point of view according to these words the operation is not now justified. 'We are not justified in destroying a living child' are his words.

There arc other questions for Catholic parents intimately involved in this, the principal one being the Baptism of the infant. Upon which let us make this remark : The unborn child has got a soul, which soul can never see God without Baptism, hence no care is too great which will ensure the Baptism of the infant. And the parents who by any means wilfully takes from the child the possibility of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism shall have to answer to God for it. We have seen that such an operation is never morally lawful and in the present advanced state of medical science is cot now considered necessary. It is therefore to be looked upon as an immoral and unscientific blunder. It is an act which the Church now as always regards as nothing short of murder, and murder which not only causes the temporal death, but is the occasion of the spiritual death of a helpless infant.