Replies

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

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.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

We come to a point where the heart of the discussion is to determine what is "normal" and what is "over-zealous" treatment. This is a discusson that we have been having as a society for decades. As medicine advances, the expectations of the public grow greater. Often greater than our medical community can meet.

It does not matter to me the cost of care nor the extent that the mother is mentally competent, what matters is if there is any hope for this child. This poor child was born with a fatal medical condition. It is sad, is is no ones fault, no one intended for this to happen, no one hoped for this to happen, no one wanted this to happen. But it does. The important thing to remember is that there are some things that we can not do anything about.

This small bundle of wonder lived for 6 months. Longer then most infants with this problem, but 6 months made no difference, 6 more months would not make a difference in the possible survival of this child.

In those 6 months the lungs would continue to grow, more and more pressure on the heart, liver, kidneys, all the internal organs. It would be as if a cancer was spreading, but without there being a hope of slowing it down or removing it.

I do not believe that an infant should be forced to live for a few more months, sedated because of the extreme pain. What good would it bring?