Newspaper Page Text
t
PAGE 4 — The Southern Cross, December 11,1969
Published at Waynesboro, Ga.
Business Office 225 Abercorn St. Savannah, Ga. 31401
Most Rev. Geraid L. Frey, D.D. President
Rev. Francis J. Donohue, Editor
John E. Markwalter, Managing Editor
Second Class Postaqe Paid at Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Send Change of Address to P. O. Box 10027, Savannah, Ga. 31402
Published weekly except the second and last weeks
in June, July and August and the last week in December.
Subscription price $5.00 per year.
The American Legion Ad
For the sake of Charity, we’ll content
ourselves with characterizing the action
of an American Legion Post in Columbus
in publishing a four-column
advertisement condemning the news
media for their handling of the Song My
massacre as merely ill-advised and
ill-conceived.
150 of the post’s 1,625 membership
spent $373.00 of the post’s funds to air
their opinion that newspapers and
television are trying to “tear down
America and its armed forces.
Sponsors of the advertisement have
chosen to overlook the fact that it was
not the news media, but the highest
echelons of the United States Army
which disclosed the apparently
indiscriminate killing of a large number
of civilians at Song My and levelled
charges against an army officer and a
sergeant in connection with the killings.
The news media can certainly be
faulted for eliciting from alleged
witnesses of the Song My affair,
statements prejudicial to at least one of
the accused men. But such, in our
opinion, unfair journalism is not peculiar
to the case at hand. It happens every
day. Who has not read news reports
containing statements such as “witnesses
at the accident scene said Brown’s car
veered over the center line and crashed
head-on into the Jones’ auto,” or
“neighbors reported hearing a loud
argument in the Smith house shortly
before the shotgun blast which felled
Mrs. Smith was fired. Mr. Smith, they
said, often came home under the
influence of alcohol”?
The charge, then, that such
prejudicial journalism, when employed
in the Song My affair, is designed to
discredit the nation and its armed forces
is patently false. The news media are no
more interested in railroading the men
accused of , unnecessary killing at Song
My than they are in seeing that Mr.
Brown or Mr. Jones goes to jail. They’re
guilty of unfair journalism, all right, but
that’s a far cry from the charge hurled
by the American Legionnaires in
Columbus.
The real ‘beef’ of the sponsors of the
advertisement seems to be with the
Army for ever bringing charges in the
Song My affair in the first place. The
post’s adjutant, one of the Legion board
of officers who signed the ad, sought to
justify war-time atrocities (when
committed by Americans) by saying that
when he fought in the South Pacific
“orders came from the top saying no
prisoners were to be taken. We did what
we were told.” We remember some
others who entered that plea at the war
crimes trials of Nazis and Japanese
following World War II.
It is our earnest hope that such a
concept of pragmatic morality, or
situation ethics, is not shared by the
1,475 American Legion members who
did not authorize or sign the
advertisement.
The Holocaust
Editor Edwyn A. Smith of the
Journal of Ecumenical Studies
comments in a recent issue of The
Christian Century on the Christian
meaning of the holocaust of the Jews
during Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich.
There was painful compromise and
side-stepping among some Christian
spokesmen when Nazism was still in its
infancy, he recalls. Specifically, he cites
a vague response, to Hitler’s racist
policies, delivered by the Erlangen
faculty in 1939. But, he adds, the racist
mentality was so deeply rooted in
German Christian consciousness that not
even explicit rebuttals of Nazi
anti-Semitism by Christianity’s leaders
succeeded in making the majority of
Christians sufficiently aware that then-
faith precluded even the least toleration
of anti-Semitic ideas.
Now, in the light of experiences like
Auschwitz, the editor grants, “we can
understand that where the memory of
the ' Church’s common life with Jews
fails, Christianity risks standing aside
from or openly abetting atrocities... To
Christians it should be plain that the
holocaust warns them never again to
permit racism and nationalism to stand
between them and what their faith and
history require of them.”
Will this warning be taken seriously,
however? Can we honestly say that it
has when we recall the plight of the
American Negro on the current scene?
Are Christians in this nation today
permitting racism or prejudice to stand
between them and what their faith and
history demand of them?
(Catholic Transcript-Hartford)
TEAR GAS AND DEFOLIANTS
The Backdrop...
By John J. Daly, Jr.
It is likely that President Nixon’s banning of
chemical and biological warfare will turn out to
be but the first of two decisions about the
immorality of the use of poisonous agents.
In checking reaction to Mr. Nixon’s
announcement, one gets the feeling that he has
opened a door through which opponents of the
use of tear gas and defolinats in Vietnam will
now rush, demanding that the United States
take a position on
the morality of
these weapons.
Tear gases and
chemical com
pounds which
destroy vegetation
were avoided in
Mr. Nixon’s pledge
that this nation will never engage in germ
warfare, will destroy its stockpike of
bacteriological weapons and will limit its
research in this field to defensive measures.
“These steps should go a long way towards
outlawing weapons whose use has been
repugnant to the conscience of mankind,” Mr.
Nixon said in the White House statement.
“Mankind already carries in its own hands too
many of the seeds of its own destruction.”
It is in the Senate debate on ratification that
the second moral issue-the use of tear gases and
defoliants- will come up. It appears the official
U.S. position is that the Geneva accord does
not ban them, a position similar to that taken
by the Soviet Union and Australia, for example.
The argument is that these weapons are humane
and not incapacitating.
However, there are some members of
Congress, and many outside the legislative
body, who disagree strongly. They argue that
the use of both gas and defoliants in Vietnam
by the military has made them into
incapacitating agents.
One of the most vocal is George Bunn, who
was general counsel for the U.S. Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency from 1961 to 1968.
He recently told a House Foreign Affairs
subcommittee that tear gas which produces
severe burning sensations in the eyes, lungs and
exposed skin has been used to flush out enemy
soldiers who are then shot by Americans.
Contrasting what he said was military
practice with the professed policy of the United
States that the use of tear gas is a humanitatian
gesture, Bunn said:
“Reports from Vietnam reveal that large
numbers of tear gas grenades have been
dropped on Vietcong strongholds from
helicopters which were followed by B-52s
dropping high explosive or antipersonnel
fragmentation bombs. The purpose of such an
attack would appear to be to flush out those
hiding in tunnels, to incapacitate them with gas
and then to wound or kill them with bombs.”
(This tactic was barred in World War II and
Korea.)
As for defoliation, the United States has
destroyed vegetation in 4.5 million acres,
including an estimated 500,000 acres of
cropland. Bunn claims the military has used
chemicals to kill rice crops in Vietcong- held
areas.
The Administration is aware of the challenge
posed by critics such as Bunn to present gas and
defoliant practices. Whether it is prepared to
sacrifice these weapons in Vietnam to ratify the
Geneva accord-with the wholesome effect this
will have on disarmament moves-is not known.
But a White House official, who declined use of
his name by newsmen, had said that the United
States is reviewing its position.
Tfcxt 7*
Sc
1^e*uKc*tcect?
“We had always
determined death as an
instant in time. We now
realize that it is a process,” he
said.
“We also became aware
that different organs in the
body die at different times
and rates, and even parts of
the same organ die at
different rates,” he said.
OUR PARISH
SAINT
APouon i a
STuOY
CLUB
The title of tonight's lecture is ‘How to find your
true identity’.”
Heart Transplants Raise
Moral & Legal Problems
(This is the first of two articles
dealing with the moral, medical
and legal problems connected
with heart transplants.)
BY JUDY EDINGER
(NC NEWS SERVICE)
Since the first heart
transplant by Dr. Christian
Barnard on Dec. 3, 1967,
many moral, medical and
legal questions have been
raised in relation to what the
medical profession considers
progress.
While some of the
problems have been solved,
there remains one
unanswered question: When
does death occur? Many
other answers revolve around
this one which is a major
concern in all three
fields-moral, medical and
legal.
Theologians and moralists
debate the interpretation of
“extraordinary means” in
prolonging life. Physicians
consider new ways of
defining death. Meanwhile,
traditional law remains
unchanged on the assumption
that presence of a heartbeat
and breathing determines life.
A Uniform Anatomical
Gift Act has been
proposed-and adopted by a
few states-to unify states’
laws regarding organ
transplantation; but it does
not settle the problem of
when death occurs. It states:
four speakers at an all-day
seminar for Catholic
chaplains in the New York
metropolitan area in October.
Speakers dealt with the
moral, medical and legal
aspects of organ transplants,
beginning with a slide
presentation by Dr. R.S.
Carlson, assistant chief of
surgery, New York Hospital,
who provided medical
background information for
further discussion.
Ford discussed the legal
problems. He called for a
joint effort by doctors and
lawyers “to produce laws to
prescribe the conditions of
human experimentation which
will advance the science and
yet protect the dignity and
life of the individual human
being.”
Another speaker, Dr. J.A.
Fabro, chairman of the
Connecticut State Medical
Society’s Judicial committee,
said the basic problem
confronting chaplains is the
new definition of death-what
determines when a
prospective donor is dead.
Dr. Fabro, who has made a
special study of the problem,
declared that the “old
definition of death,” the
cessation of heartbeat and
respiration, is insufficient. He
urged agreement among
doctors to define death as the
moment brain activity ceases.
When the brain is deprived
of oxygen from four to six
minutes, the cortex, the outer
layer that gives a person his
personality, sensation and
thinking/dies within four to
six minutes. The centers at
the base of the brain
regulating respiration and
vital functions die in 12 to 15
minutes when deprived of
oxygen. The heart dies in a
matter hours.
Explaining the principle of
stimulating a heart which has
stopped beating, Father
McKeever noted that unless
the heart begins to function
within the critical four to six
minutes, the patient becomes
“a biological vegetable.”
But, he added: “Even with
all known available means we
cannot put death of the brain
as an instant in time as we
have done in the past.”
Ford, discussing the need
for redefining death, said: “It
seems clear that the
“The time of death shall
be determined by a physician
who attends the donor at his
death, or, if none, the
physician who certifies the
death.”
But doctors still are
undecided~or at least not all
agree-about the definition of
death. Many are of the
opinion that brain death
should be the criterion, rather
than absence of heartbeat and
respiration. But the surgeon
who proceeds with a
transplant on the basis of
such a definition may face a
charge of homicide according
to present laws.
The Uniform Anatomical *
Gift Act was drawn up in
1968 by the National
Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws to
help solve some of the
conflicts which may arise
when transplant donor and
donee are located in different
states whose laws do not
conincide.
According to Thomas J.
Ford, Rockville Centre, N.Y.,
attorney, the commissioners,
at the time of their study did
not feel “that a proper
medical consensus existed to
formulate a legal definition of
the time of death. Medical
science is presently making a
valiant attempt to resolve
their own conflicts on this
problem.”
Ford, a member of the
consulting panel on
transplants at Mercy Hospital,
Rockville Centre, was one of
Father Paul E. McKeever,
past president of the Catholic
Theological Society of
America, focused his talk on
the lack of consensus among
doctors as to the moment of
death. Noting that there is
nothing inherently immoral
about transplants, Father
McKeever foresees acceptance
of a more “liberal” definition
of the moment of death.
He said a reexamination of
the definition of death is
-> basic to the moral, legal and
medical problems, explaining
that when the time interval
between death of the donor
and implantation of an organ
into a recipient is shorter,
success of the transplant will
be greater.
“It is obvious that a
surgeon cannot remove an
organ from a donor until he is
dead,” Father McKeever
stated He emphasized that
the conventional definition of
death is the absence of both
heartbeat and respiration.
“But the center regulating
respiration in the brain and
the center regulating the
heartbeat in the heart, though
interdependent, do not stop
at the same time. Each is
automatic and self sustaining,
regulating its own rate and
rhythm,” he said.
‘ ‘ The determination of
death is not simple when it
comes to determining the
exact time a surgeon may
remove an organ for
transplantation,” Father
McKeever added.
availability of machinery to
support cardiac and
respiratory function and the
conflicting responsibilities of
surgeons, coroners and
medical examiners require a
new definition of death.”
He listed the criteria which
have been suggested: no
reflexes, no spontaneous
breathing, no muscular
activity or response; a flat
EEG (electronencephalogram,
an instrument which
measures brain waves); and
the same results when tested
24 or 28 hours later.
Ford added that these
factors “appear to be gaining
support as the basis for a
definition of death.”
But total agreement is still
lacking.
“The advances in medical
science that now give a
doctor the power to modify
the time of death for his
patient also mandate that he
act. When he acts in the true
and conscientious pursuit of
his science and his field, he
should be protected by the
law,” Ford asserted.
Father McKeever also
referred to another facet of the
problem, that of maintaining
respiration and heartbeat
after brain death. By means
of mechanical appartus, the
rest of the body and organs
are sustained for days, weeks
or possibly months, he
explained.
“So that actually during
this time the body could be
(continued on page 5)
Tracts For The Times
Blood-Chilling
Documents
REV. MARVIN R. O’CONNELL
“The New York Review” in its
December 4 issue published a couple of
blood-chilling documents. They are two
questionaires, dated September 15,
1969, one to be filled out by all
employees of the Czech ministry of
education, and the other, more general
in form, to be completed by the
presidents and deans of all the
universities in Czechoslovakia, They are
designed to ferret out
information about what stance
the intellectual community
took in the wake of the soviet
invasion of August, 1968, and
also to make sure that any
flicker of anti-party sentiment
will be so entirely stamped out
as to never flare up again.
Ironically, the minister of
education is himself a professor and, in a
proud European tradition, explicitly
signs himself so in the letters
accompanying the questionaires, which
mock the very idea of dedication to
truth for truth’s sake.
Only a reading of the full texts-which
came to light only when they were
brought from Prague to Paris-can
provide an adequate picuture of the
horror they represent. Let, me,
however, quote a few excerpts in order
to give something of their flavor. Thus in
the questionable addressed to ministry
employees appear the following queries.
“If you are a member of the communist
Party have you displayed throughout the
years 1968 and 1969 a consistent party
attitude; have you defended the
internationalist program of the party: have
you not allowed yourself to be broken
by the attack of rightist and antisocialist
forces?” “In which anti-party and
anti-Soviet actions have you participated
against the true adherents of
Marxism-Leninism and socialist
internationalism? .. .Are you today
sincerely convinced of the
righteousness of the policy of the
Party? . . .On what points do you not
agree with the present policy of the
Party?”
And beside this invitation to neurotic
self-denunciation is conveniently placed
an opportunity to denounce one’s
colleagues, either for incompetence or
for more serious frailties: “Which leading
workers (in the ministry) have been
discredited by their antisocialist and
anti-Soviet deeds and attitudes, that they
must not assume responsible functions?”
Just in case any one answering the
questions should think to deceive Big
Brother, he is brought up short by this
entry; “Are you fully aware that
eventually the untruth and
incompleteness of your own evaluation
will unambiguously testify against
you .. .and that you will be evaluated by
coworkers and contradictions in data
will be investigated?”
The information demanded from the
university presidents and deans relates
directly to the student uprisings which,
it will be remembered, played a
prominent part in the disturbances in
Prague and elsewhere during the Soviet
invasion. Thie minister wants to know
which faculty members supported the
unruly students, whether they initiated
organized resistance, whether they
declared themselves sympathetic to such
resistance. And further, who were the
good Party men: “Who among the
faculty during 1968 and 1969 were
molested or were targets of
discrimination simply because they
respected the current acceptable attitude
of the Party?” The presidents and deans
are also directed to “evaluate the
behavior of all members of the chair of
social scientists and mention if the'
person acted during 1968 and 1969 in
the interest of the accepted Party
policy” and to enumerate “students who
by their declaration in the mass media
and in other activities worked as
initiators and organizers of
interventions” contrary to Party
interests, or “who took part in
anti-socialist and anti-Soviet
demonstrations. ”
All this makes sad reading when one
thinks of the long tradition among
Czechs and Slovaks of respect for
intellecutal freedom which dates back at
least to the early fifteenth century when
John Huss was rector of the University
of Prague. Yet this morbid tyranny may
blow some good if it awakens some of
the academic nihilists in this
country-students and faculty alike--who
are ready to destroy what they call the
“facist” and “imperialist” structure of
higher education, who are ready to use
obstruction and violence in the name of
an abstract socialist education to which,
mercifully, they have never been
exposed. Better read than dead? Maybe.
But in a very profound sense Czech
intellectuals are dead in what the
University of Chicago’s Hans
Morgenthau describes as “this theme of
moral emasculation and spiritual
destruction.”