Roman Catholics who have seen the movie: How do you square the use of the respirator with paragraph 2278 of the Catechism, 2nd edition which reads:
"2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment.Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected."
I never saw the movie, but since no one else has responded, I'll take a shot at it. If I understand correctly, it is true that the Church allows the use of a respirator to be discontinued as it is an extraordinary measure to keep a person alive. This is different from the Terri Schiavo case in Florida, where she is not being kept alive by extraordinary means (food and water is not extraordinary). Now, as to the film, someone who has seen it can correct me if I have read wrongly about the film, but I read that the euthanized character did not die from removing the respirator (which would just be allowing nature to take its course, letting her die, and being allowable within Church teaching), but by being injected with drugs/poison (which would be taking direct measures to actively cause the death of the character). I realize this is just a movie, but in real life, according to Catholic teaching, such actions as described above would be considered objectively sinful.