Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 5—The Georgia Bulletin, August 23,1984
Sheila Mallon
Choose Life
Last December, at the height of the controversy
surrounding the case of “Baby Jane Doe of Port Jefferson,
New York,” Durwood McAllister of the Atlanta
newspapers penned a column. It dealt in the main with
the anguish of Baby Jane Doe’s parents and spoke angrily
of the interference of “right to life zealots” in the case.
On May 26 of this year an editorial appeared in the
Atlanta papers which roundly condemned government
attempts to obtain for study the records in the case of
Baby Jane Doe.
Then on July 15 the Atlanta Constitution hailed new
guidelines adopted recently by six Senators. The
guidelines represent a compromise between conservative
and liberal senators and will serve to protect handicapped
infants. The editorial stated that “if the guidelines had
been in force a few months back, the administration
would not have had to interfere in the case of Baby Jane
Doe.” The writer went on to say that these guidelines
were needed and should indeed be passed.
Of course, we are happy that the Atlanta papers now
feel that these guidelines should be passed. That is a
milestone of some sort -- the Atlanta papers agreeing with
the right-to-life folks who have pushed unceasingly to get
these rules through Congress.
They were passed, we might add, in spite of columns
and editorials in the Atlanta papers as well as others in the
media. These were all most critical of the intervention of
the government in the case and the “interference” by
those who support the right to life.
Controversy of this sort seems inevitably to rise when
physicians and the media stray outside their fields of
expertise -- medicine and the reporting of the news -- and
when they make value judgements about the worth of a
child’s life that has nothing to do with the baby’s medical
condition.
The facts were greatly distorted in the Baby Jane Doe
case. According to Paige Cunningham, general counsel for
the Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund. “All
available evidence tells us that Baby Jane, had she been
given ordinary non-discriminatory care for her condition,
would have been of normal intelligence and able to walk.”
What we heard from the press, almost universally, was
that Baby Jane, who was bom October 11, 1983 with
spina bifida and related fluid on the brain, would be
severely retarded, bedridden, and in constant pain, with a
life expectancy of only 20 years.
These conclusions were drawn from the testimony of
one physician in lower court hearings of October 19-20
and were contradicted within the same hearings by the
physician’s superior, the only other doctor testifying.
Dr. George Newman, the baby’s doctor, told the court
that the baby’s head at birth was abnormally small, which
gave her “virtually a 100 percent chance of being
retarded.” Newman is a neurologist at Stony Brook
hospital where the child was a patient. But Dr. Albert
Butler, chief of neurological surgery at the hospital,
testified that the baby’s 31 centimeter head circumference
was “within normal measurements for a baby of that
size.” This was seldom reported by the press or if it was it
was not picked up by the local papers.
Dr. David McClone, chief of pediatric neurosurgery at
Chicago’s Children’s Memorial Hospital, strongly disagreed
with Dr. Newman’s bleak diagnosis. Dr. McClone is an
expert in the treatment of children with spina bifida. He
said that the court transcript describing Baby Jane’s
condition leads him to predict that “the child in our
hands would have a normal intelligence and would be a
community ambulator ... (walking) probably with some
bracing.”
Dr. McClone, who has treated over 1,000 children with
spina bifida, said that the circumference of Baby Jane
Doe’s head was perfectly compatible with normal
intellectual development. In fact, says McClone, these are
among the “very brightest” of individuals with spina
bifida. “It’s the child with the extremely large head who is
at risk for having decreased intellectual development.”
The press accounts stated repeatedly that if kept alive
with surgery (which was needed to close her spine) she
would be bedridden. However, Dr. Newman’s own written
prognosis was for “probable” walking with bracing.
Dr. McClone agrees with this prognosis and states that
if “agressively treated at birth, children like her are not
usually confined to wheelchairs.”
Although the press reported that Baby Jane’s life
expectancy would be only 20 years, no physician,
including Dr. Newman, ever said that 20 years was the
outside limit of her expectancy.
The media further asserted that Baby Jane would be in
constant pain. This was also never said. The assertion was
based evidently on Dr. Newman’s testimony, that, like
other children, “she is capable of experiencing pain.”
Medical evidence and experience, in fact, show that
children with this handicap do not experience
significantly more pain than normal children, according to
Dr. McClone.
There are cases where treatment might be withheld
from a child with spina bifida, Dr. McClone said. “I don’t
think that decision is difficult. I think the child makes the
decision for you. If the child ... is not dying, you treat
the child.” McClone pointed out that the physician has a
moral obligation to act in the best interest of the patient,
who is the child, not the parents.
At last report after recovering from meningitis and
pneumonia, Baby Jane’s spine had healed without surgery.
Her parents have allowed surgery to drain fluid from her
brain and she was taken home at the beginning of April.
We can only pray that the long delay in treating her,
ailments did not cause further damage. We need also to
pray for her parents who were beset with such terribly
painful decisions and conflicting information.
It looks as though the regulations governing treatment
of the handicapped child stand an excellent chance of
passing the Senate. They will then be returned to the
House where a stricter set of regulations was
overwhelmingly passed earlier.
Unfortunately, many of our Congressmen voted against
these regulations. Those voting for the regulations were
Gingrich of the sixth district and Ray of the third. Those
who voted against and need to hear from their
constituents were Thomas of the first, Hatcher of the
second, Levitas of the fourth, Fowler of the fifth, Darden
of the seventh, Rowland of the eighth, Jenkins of the
ninth and Barnard of the tenth.
Father John Catoir
The Mystery
Of Suffering
Recently, on a priest’s retreat I gave in the New York
Archdiocese, we were talking about suffering. Priests see a
lot of suffering. We agreed that suffering is debilitating
and frightening, but one priest said from the depths of his
heart that he prayed every day for a death which would
involve him in a long period of suffering. He explained
that his father’s death had moved him deeply. His dad
suffered for 15 months but accepted his plight with quiet,
uncomplaining dignity. He knew he was sharing in some
way in the passion of Jesus Christ.
This middle-aged pastor told us his dad not only
showed great courage, but actually felt proud to be
chosen to bear this pain with Christ for the salvation of
many. The priest said he learned more theology from his
dad during those months than he ever learned from books.
Becoming reconciled to one’s plight is not difficult for
those with real faith. They know that Jesus didn’t come
to do away with suffering; He came because of it, to fill it
with His presence. Christians are not given a privileged
sanctuary from the pain of life. But real Christians know
how to put pain in perspective and that makes a world of
difference in the way they experience it.
Pain itself can be an intolerable bore or a crucifying
agony, but no matter what the circumstance, for a person
of faith, sharing in the mystery of Christ’s redemption still
remains a privilege. St. Paul said we make up what is
lacking in Christ’s passion; we are co-sufferers with Him in
the Divine plan of salvation. Time and again in our lives
we are called by God not only to bear the cross, but to do
it gladly because of the knowledge of His love. Millions of
believers before us have died with dignity because of their
faith in Jesus. By accepting their disorders these good
people were able to rise above them.
I know this is all theory. I can write about it, but it
remains to be seen if I’ll have the courage to live it when
my time comes. So I pray now for the grace of final
perseverance and a happy death. I haven’t had the courage
to pray for a death that would be preceded by a long
period of suffering. Frankly, the prospect scares me. But I
trust in God and I cling to my belief that suffering is a
special privilege when it is consciously united to the
suffering of Jesus Christ.
21 ST SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (A)
Isaiah TJtlQ-7'l
Father James A. Black
Romans 11:33-36
Matthew 16:13-20
August 26,1984
The Word This Weekend
BACKGROUND:
In the first reading for
next Sunday, the prophet
threatened the Southern
Kingdom of Judah with
destruction. Because of
their unfaithfulness, even
the court officials would
be put out of office.
Eventually, a new Davidic
king would rule with
authority.
The reading from Paul’s
letter to the Romans
reminds us clearly that
God’s ways were different
from those of humanity.
God was not obliged to
follow our rules or
customs.
The gospel reading from
Matthew is an important
one because of the
question that is asked.
Jesus asked his disciples,
“Who do you say that I
am?” They had to come
up with an answer.
Incidentally, some people
claimed that Jesus was
Elijah because of a
widespread Old Testament
belief that Elijah would
return.
REFLECTION:
“And you,” he said to
them, “who do YOU say
that I am?” Undoubtedly,
this is one of the most
important questions in the
gospel, for it is the one
that requires an answer of
personal faith.
Additionally, it must be
answered by each
individual person when
that person is confronted
with it.
We could answer with
the words of the catechism
formula, “You are God,
the Second Person of the
Blessed Trinity.” But Jesus
didn’t ask who the
catechism said he was. He
asked each of us.
He wanted to know
what WE had to say -
what OUR response would
be.
It’s a particularly
troublesome question
because it cannot be
answered with words
alone. If we answer it as
Peter did, then we have to
be willing to live a life that
proves we believe what we
say.
The question is most
difficult because it can
only be a nswered
satisfactorily with our life.
21$t SUNDA Y OF THE YEAR
AUGUST 26, 1984
Today the outstanding passage is that of Peter’s
confession and Jesus’ reply. For Catholics this has
always been a foundation text for our acceptance oi
papal authority. Peter’s confession is made in faith.
The keys of the kingdom given to Peter signify
doctrinal and disciplinary authority in the Church.
The Church is where Christ is. Hence the Church
needs Peter to preserve untainted the way, the
truth and the life. What a deep joy it should be to
k us that we have Peter in the person of John Paul D
as the head of the Church today.
®n Mis <3tocfi c7 will 6uild my @Rurcfi
LJL—11 ± 9