QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Searching for a Catholic health care reform

Fr. John Ehrich, STL, pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle Parish and an expert in moral theology, took the time to answer some questions about health care reform from a Catholic perspective.

1. Would you say there is in fact a specifically Catholic vision for health care reform?

The place to begin for all Catholics who seek more information regarding the Social Teaching of the Church is the “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” which was published by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. After that, one should read the specific social encyclicals of the Holy Father. The USCCB has also set up a website with some very good resources at www.usccb.org/healthcare/.

The Church speaks of medical care as a basic right for each person in her social teachings. She also instructs that each state’s primary duty is to secure the common good of its citizens. Therefore it is part of the state’s responsibility to ensure that all of its citizens have access to affordable health care.

2. What should be included in any health care reform legislation? Or, conversely, what should be kept out?

Most of us will likely agree that access to affordable health care is a good for society. We also are commanded by God to take care of the needs of the poor, which extends to providing for their basic health care. The thought of children going without basic health care in one of the wealthiest countries in the world is something that the majority of us would, no doubt, seek to change.

Possibly of gravest concern to Catholics regarding health care are the issues of abortion and conscience protection. Tax dollars should not fund abortions or any other killing of innocent life. To allow tax dollars to fund such evil acts would be reprehensible. Also, medical professionals should have the ability to act according to their conscience and not be forced to provide services that they believe are morally evil. This conscience protection should also be extended to Catholic healthcare institutions and providers. We have an important tradition in our society of not forcing people to act against what they believe to be true and good. It would be disturbing to have our government dictate what medical professionals must do.

Furthermore, health care decisions should be made between the patient and their physician, not a government entity. Nor should there be coercive policies that reward physicians who simply cut corners and save the government money. Equally important is for all citizens to be treated with dignity. This includes people with severe disabilities, as well as our senior citizens. All life is precious and has inherent value.

We are all aware of the need for health care reform, especially the need to bring down costs. While a government-run healthcare system, strictly speaking, would not be contrary to Church teaching, it is important for citizens to consider whether the government is able to achieve all of the many goals necessary for true reform.

Like most social issues, the Church speaks out regarding principles and morality while acknowledging that it is the state which is entrusted with securing the common good of its citizens through its specific policies.

3. The Kansas bishops in their statement on reform underscored the common good. Can you explain how the common good relates to health care reform? (Does solidarity come in to play here, or would that have more to do with costs?)

The state is responsible for securing the common good of its citizens and then allowing them to act in freedom. This is played out by ensuring the quality of education, the promulgation and enforcement of laws, assisting in the creation and sustaining of jobs, as well as maintaining a standard of health care that is accessible and affordable. Simply put, it is good for a state’s citizens to be healthy just as it is good for the state to ensure that we have clean water and sanitation.

4. During the last presidential campaign, I often heard an argument that more or less went like this: social programs could effectively reduce the number of abortions better than a pro-life president. The idea being that voting for, in this case, Obama would be OK because his policies would translate in reduced abortions. I haven’t heard that argument exactly when it comes to health care, but how would you respond? Is any health care reform better than nothing? Wouldn’t any reform provide more coverage, thereby helping women choose life, regardless of abortion funding?

It is difficult to say that Obama ran on a platform of reducing abortions when all of his actions prior to his election and after have been quite the opposite. He is responsible for encouraging abortions, making them more accessible and designating federal dollars to be used when he rescinded the Mexico City Policy. He has also opened up federal spending for the destruction of human embryos. His selection of Kathleen Sibelius (a radical pro-abortion, even late-term abortion supporter) as Secretary of Health and Human Services was another clear indication of President Obama’s support of the Culture of Death.

Furthermore, the abortion issue is first a moral one. That is, although there are many reasons that contribute to a woman’s choice to have an abortion, it remains an action so contrary to the nature of motherhood that is does not take the government to tell a woman it is wrong. She already knows it is wrong in her heart. The idea that a government structure is necessary to assist women in making morally good decisions is a strange and somewhat disturbing assertion.

Merely attempting to effect health care reform will not change hearts. Abortion is always immoral and evil. The unborn have a right to life, even if that means they may be born into poverty.

As to the question of whether any reform is better than none? I would disagree. There is always the chance of making things worse than they were originally. Although health care costs in our country are exorbitant and not everyone has access to basic health care, we still have the best quality of care in the world. The question is really how do we allow more people access to that care without mortgaging our future or forcing people to either pay for immoral treatment or force medical professionals to assist in immoral actions. I think many good questions are currently being asked by citizens of their representatives in Washington. Is now the right time to completely reform health care? Can we truly afford it right now? Should we reform incrementally? If we are going to try to fix something as complex as health care, why are we rushing to do it?

Finally, for the government to provide healthcare for all of its citizens, but not its unborn children is a contradiction to say the least. Abortion is not health care; it is the opposite of care.

5. Like most issues, it seems like neither political party fully embraces a Catholic vision for health care reform. For example, Archbishop [Donald] Wuerl of Washington recently issued a column suggesting immigrants, even undocumented immigrants, should be covered because they too have human dignity. The archbishop, though, put respect for the unborn first. What are acceptable compromises in health care debate?

Although many of us would agree that coverage for all citizens would be good, the question of covering non-citizens is a different matter. I think we would probably agree that if a person has a severe medical emergency they should be assisted no matter their citizenry. A person here illegally would be treated in this case and, no matter what happens with health care reform, will continue to be treated for medical emergencies.

The question is really whether taxpayers should pay for people who have arrived here illegally? At this point we are combining two complex and highly controversial subjects. It would be difficult to argue against the notion that both health care and US immigration policy need to be reformed. It seems prudential to first fix them independently and then determine how to deal with the health care issue relevant to illegal immigrants. For instance, if immigration policy was reformed and there was a way to tax workers who were not citizens, then there would be a possibility that a health care component could be worked out for them.

Feedback | Print This Page | Back to Top