Mahony Assails Ruling in Bouvia Case

Roman Catholic Archbishop Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles has strongly criticized a California Court of Appeal ruling that gave quadriplegic Elizabeth Bouvia the absolute right to refuse force-feeding and unwanted medical attention, calling it “an open invitation” to suicide, euthanasia and even the elimination of persons who do not wish to die.

The court’s reasoning, Mahony said in a statement, “does a profound disservice to society and dramatically weakens society’s commitment to value and protect all human life.”

In a unanimous opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal on April 16 ordered removal of a tube through which doctors at High Desert Hospital in Lancaster had been feeding Bouvia, 28, against her will since Jan. 16. Attorneys for Los Angeles County have since appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

‘Agnostic Skepticism’

Mahony, spiritual leader of 2.6 million Southern California Roman Catholics, criticized the opinion as “an instance of legislation by judicial fiat.” It incorporates “an agnostic skepticism about a God who gives meaning to life even in one’s suffering, and a materialistic view of man as nothing but an animal whose value depends on the condition of his body. Millions of Christians, Jews and dedicated members of many faiths would find such views repugnant,” Mahony said.

The archbishop’s 2,000-word statement, released by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles on Thursday, quoted extensively from the court opinion and was Mahony’s second response to the Bouvia case. His first, issued April 21, said he would give an extended critique when the full court ruling was available.

Mahony drew a distinction between the Bouvia decision and taking actions that do not add “heavily to the burdens which already fill a patient’s life.”

“If taking food artificially, or even naturally, in a patient’s judgment is a source of significant pain, discomfort, risk or even dehumanization added to what he is already experiencing or will experience from his condition, one can defend the patient’s right to say ‘No more!’

“This is a reasonable decision worthy of a human being, and nineteen hundred years of coherently developing Christian moral thinking affirm it. For it is not a decision to end one’s earthly life, but to tolerate that life’s passing away. . . . “

‘Right to Suicide’

The archbishop said that while the court opinion may seem to uphold this position, it contains “ambiguities” and can be read as “an attempt actually to construct legally a ‘right to suicide’--to give society’s blessing to a suicidal effort--and to authorize (and someday oblige?) medical professionals and others to assist in it.

“Once a society decides that the human life of any one innocent individual can lose its value, and therefore that society should legally establish a person’s right to suicide, we question . . . the value of every person’s life,” Mahony said. The history of Nazi Germany, he added, exemplifies the chain of logic that ultimately forces society to decide whose lives do not “measure up properly and therefore may be terminated as burdensome.”

Bouvia first gained national attention in 1983 when she was a patient in a Riverside hospital. Saying she wanted to starve to death, she unsuccessfully asked a Superior Court judge to force the hospital to withhold her nourishment.