THE MORAL ASPECT OF CRANIOTOMY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 21, 12 June 1902, Page 19

THE MORAL ASPECT OF CRANIOTOMY.

Thej following letter by ' A Catholic Priest,' which appeared in Monday's issue of the Otago Daily 1 mu-ts, m .he above subieot, is well worth careful perusal by our readers :—: — ' With your permission I should like to reply to your sableader of Saturday on the subject of craniotomy on a living child. At the outset, I thank you for the acknowledgment, ' that the subject, though delicate, has been treated with marked good taste.* This is as it should be, as the object is not to overcome an adversary in controversy : it is of higher nature— it is to arrive at an understanding of what the moral law teaches and expects ub to follow in such a case. Your statement, ' that the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter is rrpugnant and shocking to a large number— probably an overwhelming majority of the people in this district ' is no argument for or against the lawfulness of the act. Truth is not unfrtquently shocking and rrpugnant to a large number of people. Especially ia this so when there is question of moral and divine truth. Yet the fact that it shocks a large number makes it no less true. We have an infinite number of examples of how the multitude were shocked at. Christ's Teaching, yet His teaching was no less true. But doe 3 the teaching of the Church in this respect shock a good many— ' the overwhelming majority ' ? Your writer cays it does. lam inclined to the opinion that the great majority of the thinking public feel quite the contrary, and are glad to find that the Church has the moral courage to uphold the moral and divine law in this respect. I respectfully differ with your writer in the case, and state at the same time that I am in a f.iir pebition to know how the general public feel on tho matti r. Your statement or suggestion • that craniotomy on a living child is lawful ' because the Criminal Code does not punish a doctor when he performs it in good faith is altogether beside the question. The Criminal Code is surely not the standard of our moral actions. The Criminal Code is not one and the same thing as the Divine moral code. Were this so an act which is considered lawful at one time would be unlawful at another time ; also, an act which is permitted by the Criminal Code, or not punished by it in one country, is not permitted but severely punished in a different country at the same time. We could not have a better example of this than the cuse we are dibcussing. lam informed that at the pres-nt time, according to the American Criminal Code, at least three doctors must pronounce in favor of craniotomy before the doctor who performs it is safe from prosecution, whereas in this country one doctor can perform it even without consultation. I myself have known of more than one case in which this happened, therefore we see that what is criminal in America is not ciiminal here, and were the Criminal Code tet up as the guide to the morality of an &<-.t we would be reduced to the absurdity of having to believe That the Great Lawgiver laid down one moral standard for New Zealanders, and another, and as we have seen, an altogether more strict, moral standard for Americans. I may point out that the Criminal Code of this country creates its own ' human being.' and then lays down the liw r. gardicg that ' human being.' According to it ' the child is a human being." only when it has completely proceeded in a living htnte from tho body of it? mother.' According to our law, then, a child only becomes and in to be ngarded as a ' human being' when ii is born, but not before. It is evident that this definition of a 1 human bung ' (;ts many other definitions in the Criminal Code) ia inado lor the occasion with little or no relation to the intrinsio truih. However, I may argue that did the Legislature admit, what ir> wrtaiiJy a fact admitted by all Christian hcientiste, that the child in a humau being, not merely when it proceeds in a living fcUie in m its mother's boily, but long before there is any question of birth, it would have acknowledged its rights f.s a human being fii-t amongst which is the right to live, and therefore would have mace it cqu-illy criminal to interfere with its liie before as after its biHh. The Criminal Codf, therefore, instead of being against mo in ia reality with me in my contention that it is unlawful to c estroy ly any means or for any reason the life of an unborn human being. It i& the union of the soul and body that makes

the 'human person,' therefore the 'human being' not the proceeding from the body of the mother. I am not billed upon to say when this union takes place. Everyone who has learned the A H b ot th'isuan psychokgy will admit that it is long before there is ques'i'.n of the child breathing. _ Sir, I have written for readers who nre supposed to be governed in their actions by the divine moral law. not for tluve (if there be any) who take the Criminal Code as the guide of their moial action" for readers a'so who look with horror on the doctrine which teaches' that thp enl lU stifi -s the means.' that ■ unlawful means may be used to attain a much-desired end.' 1 have b -en taught in the good olrl Hchool which says. 'Non licet facere malum ut veniat bonum (' It is not lawful to do an evil thing that good may come from it ). 1h- refore I maintain that on i-oniid, moral grounds and right reason, apart from criminal codes, apart from 'human sentiment, public or private, and abstracting ul together from what my Church teaches on this matter, it is

A Morally Unlawful Act.

intrinsically unlawful in itself, to directly and intentionaUv kill by craniotouiy or by any other operation an unborn child "for any reason whatever, even to s.tve the life of the mother. 1 maintain also, that we h tve never been appointed, and therefore are not the supreme judges of the value of a human life, and in the mind of the Creator it may be the mother's duty to die in a very extreme c-.s , jus; as it is a soldiers duty to die pro patna At least, we are not the judgesbut this we do know : thet in our moral actions we are, and must be, guided by irrevocable, unalterable laws. Therefore though well aware that the Criminal Code allows n, I certainly and strongly join issue with your sub-leader when it s.ys " the operation of craniotomy, if regarded as ne -essary for th«" preservation of the mother's life, is justifiable, and should therefore be performed " It may be according to the human law and human sentiment but thore is a higher law than either of these, and that higher law sayihou shalt not kill." I say, further, that on Mich a line of reasoning every not done to prevent birth would be just fi, ,\ ( Jm . ( , you admit that it is lawful to kill the child t, sue its mothez'-, Ue you cannot argue that it is not al H .> lawtul to kill a child to save a mothers chan.cter, for h. r caaratter is oft n dearer than life Why, Sir, the time would come when a mot hoi. the in blest and most self-sacrificing beinjr of God s creation, would be such a (Minority as to be deemed worthy of a place in a national museum The time would come. also, when we should justify ourselves in putting to death the old and h n. m, enpeuialU iho-cwho have to depend entirely on others You *cc. it is a very r'an^emun thu,<r to interfere with the divine moral liw by Ic^.m.iu X its mihience o7 by pulling it down altogether and erecting in its «tead a law ot huu.an sentiment or exp diency, as you endeavour to do in this ca«e '