Pope Declares Feeding Tube Removal Immoral

Associated Press ^ | 03/20/04 | The Pope

[phenn]

March 20, 2004, 11:34 AM EST

VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul II said Saturday the removal of feeding tubes from people in vegetative states was immoral, and that no judgment on their quality of life could justify such "euthanasia by omission."

John Paul made the comments to participants of a Vatican conference on the ethical dilemmas of dealing with incapacitated patients, entering into a debate that has sparked court battles in the United States and elsewhere.

The pope said even the medical terminology used to describe people in so-called "persistent vegetative states" was degrading to them. He said no matter how sick a person was, "he is and will always be a man, never becoming a 'vegetable' or 'animal.'"

In a vegetative state, patients are awake but not aware of themselves or their environment. The condition is different from a coma, in which the patient is neither awake nor aware. Both, however, are states in which the patient is devoid of consciousness.

If the vegetative state continues for a month, the patient is said to be in a persistent vegetative state; after a year without improvement, the patient is said to be in a permanent vegetative state.

Providing food and water to such patients should be considered natural, ordinary and proportional care -- not artificial medical intervention, the pope told members of the conference, which was organized by the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and the Pontifical Academy for Life, a Vatican advisory body.

"As such, it is morally obligatory," to continue such care, he said.

Since no one knows when a patient in a vegetative state might awaken, "the evaluation of the probability, founded on scarce hope of recovery after the vegetative state has lasted for more than a year, cannot ethically justify the abandonment or the interruption of minimal care for the patient, including food and water," he said.

Similarly, he said that someone else's evaluation of the patient's quality of life in such a state couldn't justify letting them die of hunger or thirst.

"If this is knowingly and deliberately carried out, this would result in a true euthanasia by omission," he said.

John Paul has consistently voiced opposition to euthanasia, which the Vatican defines as "an action or omission that by its nature and intention" causes death to end pain. It says euthanasia always is a violation of God's law.

The issue over removing feeding tubes has prompted several court cases and legislation in the United States, Australia and elsewhere.

In a highly publicized case in Tampa, Fla., the husband of a severely brain-damaged woman, Terri Schiavo, has battled her parents for years to have his wife's feeding tube removed so she can die. He says she wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive with it.

The issue has involved the state legislature as well as the governor, who was given the authority to have the feeding tube reinserted after the woman's husband had it removed.

In his comments, John Paul said families of such ill people needed more emotional and economic support, so that they can better care for their loved ones. In addition, he said, society should commit more money to find cures for them.

Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

[mrobison]

You go, Pope!

[IMRight]

dying of aspiration pneumonia has got to be a rough way to go.....

Really? As bad as intentional starvation at the hands of your own husband?

[Conservative til I die]

Dignity of all life ping for the Pope.

[iowamomforfreedom]

Bump!

Great news - thanks, phenn.

[AAABEST]

The Pope never mentioned this Teri person.

Gee nice guy. "This Teri (sic) Person" happens to be a living human being, who is ALIVE.

If the natural body can not feed itself, God has designed it to expire naturally. Keeping people alive unaturaly for protracted periods without hope of recovery is torture and a sin.

It's a good thing we have you around to draw the line as to life and death and tell all of these Christians around here what God is thinking.

Please point out to me any scripture that even remotely supports your contention that saving life when you have the means to do so is a "sin".

Don't bother, you won't find it. Saving life is not a "sin".

[supercat]

Keeping people alive unaturaly for protracted periods without hope of recovery is torture and a sin.

Glad you realized the difference between feeding tubes and life support, but I'd like to add another question: if God wants to take someone home, do you really think anyone can stop him?

[phenn]

Please read about death by dehydration.

Now, the points you mention in your post are completely legitimate, but not nearly as likely as your post indicates. In fact, with proper care, they are rarity.

I'm of the mind that it matters not how someone takes lunch, but if they can accept lunch or not. If that makes any sense.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, as with hundreds of thousands of disabled people and elderly people, she can, indeed take lunch. So let her.

This is not extraordinary or heroic application of medical technology. This is simply keeping a body nourished.

[hardhead]

My daughter wouldn't appreciate me saying how MANY years ago it was, but suffice to say, she was born at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio during the peak of the Vietnam conflict. Brooke, in addiiton to being a hospital that took care of the normal medical things, was the Army's burn unit. The day our daughter was born, she needed an immediate blood transfusion. They put out a call for a blood donor of her particular type and one of the Army patients volunteered. His face was gone, his right arm was gone, and there were no fingers on his left hand. He needed help feeding himself. By the standards of the euthanicks, he should have been left to die. I am thankful that the doctors saved him because he saved my daughter. I was talking to another patient at the time and he had no remorse whatsoever! His only concern was trying to find work that he could do and make some sort of contribution to society. He wasn't worried about society's gratitude to him, just that he could find some way to be part of it. How times have changed. 'Give me your sick and disenfranchised and I'll ake care of them with a needle or a scalpel.' We have become the country of death. Ol' satan is winning.

[Destro]

I do not take back my stance that keeping human vegitables alive is correct. I would have no moral objection to "pulling the plug/tube" in those cases. If the Pope is for keeping human vegitables alive then I am in disagreement with him (i.e. no mind activity). This is a complex subject and it would be hard to make a point across regardless.

[Destro]

I would have no moral objection to "pulling the plug/tube" in those cases where we have brain death. If the Pope is for keeping human vegitables alive then I am in disagreement with him (i.e. no mind activity). This is a complex subject and it would be hard to make a point across regardless. I am not talking about people whose mind is active (as far as our science can say) but trapped in a vegitative body, because those people need be kept alive and cared for.

[Destro]

Corrected Spelling version: I do not take back my stance that keeping human vegetables alive is correct. I would have no moral objection to "pulling the plug/tube" in those cases. If the Pope is for keeping human vegetables alive then I am in disagreement with him (i.e. no mind activity). This is a complex subject and it would be hard to make a point across regardless.

[phenn]

For my benefit only, please tell me the exact moment a human being ceases to be a human being and becomes a vegetable. Please also cite your neurological credentials and board certifications that allow you to make such a call.

Please also tell me, stricly as a curiosity satisfaction, when it becomes okay to cause someone else's death. I'm not talking about 'keeping alive', rather, I am talking about 'causing death' by intentional omission of basic human need.

When did that become okay?

[Conservative til I die]

I disagree with the Pope. If the natural body can not feed itself, God has designed it to expire naturally.

Oh really? What about the severely retarded? What about babies? Or quadripilegics? All incapable of ingesting food on their own. But, once fed, all capable of processing and digesting food to sustain life.

You seem to be making some sort of special case for people who are perfectly capable of being kept alive, but because they are tube-fed rather than spoon-fed, they somehow have less of a right to live?

And you're supposed to be Orthodox right? I'm a bit surprised by your position, and rather dissappointed.

[Conservative til I die]

I don't believe in doing this by proxy, but the pope is being too much of an absolutist.

You have to be an absolutist. There is no gray area. There is no such thing as a right to certain types of life.

[Conservative til I die]

It's "ok" to unplug a machine that is breathing for you, but even people with a tracheotomy get feeding tubes.

Exactly. There is a difference between actually being dead and having a machine pump your blood and make you breathe, and keep you alive with fluids, and being in a lesser consciousness but still perfectly healthy, and only needing food to be put into your body.

[Conservative til I die]

Sorry, I completely disagree with that. How is giving nutrition and hydration unnatural. You get these on a daily basis...is that torture and sin? I'm sure you don't grow, raise, prepare etc.. everything that your body takes in. That is someone else providing these things for you.

It's an assinine discrimination against people who need to be fed vs being able to feed themselves. Moronic, when you really think on it for a millisecond.

[Destro]

For my benefit only, please tell me the exact moment a human being ceases to be a human being

Life begins at conception. The mind of the mind of the fetus is growing and has potential. When the brain function is dead life is dead. The pagans thought that the heart and other organs was where the soul lay but they are just a collection of electro stimulated muscles and tissues that exist for the benefit of the mind. If we impart "soul" or humanity in body parts is a man with missing legs half a man? The mind is where the soul lies. If the mind is inactive - the soul has departed. My opinion only of course. When does "life" end with you?

[Conservative til I die]

To keep a person alive unnaturally

Digesting food is unnatural? Pretty warped thinking.

with no hope of recovery via the use of machines to keep them alive

Um, who was even talking about this? We're talking about "vegetative" people, who are alive, have brain function, and some level of consciousness. We're not talking about clinically brain dead people.

Unless you consider a rubber feeding tube a "machine."

[Destro]

You did not read further on down: I did not understand fully the Pope's words. I thought he meant artificial elongation of life via machines. Keeping people alive unaturaly for protracted periods without hope of recovery is torture and a sin. I do not take back my stance that keeping human vegetables alive is correct. I would have no moral objection to "pulling the plug/tube" in those cases. If the Pope is for keeping human vegetables alive then I am in disagreement with him (i.e. no mind activity). This is a complex subject and it would be hard to make a point across regardless.