• Article Tools
• Print
• RSS

Weighing the Moral Issues in the Health Care Debate

Why faithful Catholics might be opposed to the proposed legislation

by Pia de Solenni 

A recent Politico interview positioned a quote from Richard Doerflinger, an associate director at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a way that suggested that the USCCB would push for the proposed health care legislation were the abortion provisions to be dropped. Doerflinger’s statement was later clarified.

But no wonder the confusion. To hear the chattering classes, one would think that all Catholics have a moral obligation to support the healthcare legislation currently under consideration by Congress, assuming that abortion is not covered under the plan. Nevertheless there are other moral criteria, varying in their ethical weight, that shape the support of the Catholic Church and individual Catholics. Given that Catholics make up about twenty percent of the voting population in this country and that the Church provides up to forty percent of healthcare services in some areas, the Catholic voice has a significant impact.

In addition to the USCCB, numerous individual bishops have articulated the teaching of the Catholic Church and how it relates to this legislation. Last week, Bishop Cordileone (Oakland) gave an excellent TV interview, summarizing the key concerns: respect for human life, conscience protection, accessibility, and affordability.

Respect for human life includes abortion but also refers to euthanasia and any practice that would violate the individual’s right to life from conception to a natural death. Conscience protection laws cover health care providers and workers who might otherwise be forced to engage in practices that violate their consciences. In other words, it protects them from being forced to violate the fundamental respect for human life, including forced to perform or assist with abortions. In a column last week, Bishop Wenski (Orlando) made the case that the legislation is so flawed with regard to abortion and conscience protection that it should not be approved.

Bishop Loverde (Arlington) recently called for a day of prayer and fasting to protect “the life, dignity, health and conscience rights of every human person in any legislation that Congress considers.”
Archbishop Nienstedt (St. Paul – Minneapolis) has also raised the issue of subsidiarity, namely that matters, like decisions about health care, which can be handled at a local level should not needlessly be distanced from the individual and decided at a federal level.

In a strongly worded article last fall, Bishop Conley (Denver - auxiliary) commented on the responsibility of individuals to think through carefully all the implications of the proposed legislation. Specifically concerning the financial considerations, he wrote, “If we commit ourselves to health services, then we need to have the will and the ability to really pay for them. That’s a moral issue, not simply a practical one.”

While the questions regarding the protection of human life and conscience carry the most moral weight, economic questions also play a role and involve principles of justice. It is unjust and unethical to take on financial responsibilities that one cannot sustain, as witnessed by the current financial crisis.

The question of providing affordable health care to everyone also suggests that all will contribute to it unless they are somehow unable to do so. This doesn’t include the option simply not to have health insurance if one doesn’t want to pay the expense of it or if one chooses not to make enough money to afford it. About 10 million people without health insurance have incomes above 300% of the poverty level. These are people who have made a lifestyle choice and have elected to use their money otherwise. Catholic teaching does not maintain that others are responsible for these individual choices.

Cardinal George (Chicago) articulated the Catholic responsibility: “Those who hold that faith, ordinary citizens and legislators, will make these principles their own and act accordingly. (In his capacity as president of the USCCB, he released this statement yesterday.)

This goes beyond partisan politics. It means carefully studying the proposed legislation and all of its implications. While the idea of the legislation may be good and laudable, the devil is in the details. Archbishop Chaput concludes a recent column:

It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community.  In its current content, the Senate version of health-care legislation is not “reform.”  Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it.

While quality accessible health care remains an important goal, anything that compromises core human values would be a sham of authentic health care. It may be time to go back to the drawing board, but that’s better than failing altogether by passing extremely flawed legislation.

Pia de Solenni writes from Seattle, Wash. She can be reached via Facebook and Twitter. (Her website is getting a prolonged makeover and is currently offline.)

---

(The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Headline Bistro or the Knights of Columbus.)