Pope Rules Patients in Permanent Vegetative State May Not be Denied Artificial Nutrition and Hy...

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | September 14, 2007 | John-Henry Westen

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Affirm Life.

[sushiman]

” Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving LIFE “

What a life ...

[Iwo Jima]

Of course. How could any thinking person think otherwise.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Life is not yours to end.

[SmoothTalker]

Nor is it yours to keep going once the spirit has left the body. I’m not so sure that it is moral to keep a body alive once the mind and soul are gone. In the old days we would not have had the ability.

People make the choice to let a loved one who is without hope (whether in a vegitative state or not) go to the lord everyday and I see nothing wrong with that. If its a medical certainty that the brain is dead and the patient will never think another thought then why keep the body going? The person inside already left and is with the lord.

[tbw2]

I have no problem with providing nourishment. However, in these cases, is it reasonable to deny radical medical intervention otherwise?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

How do you know when the spirit has left? Do you have extraordinary powers?

[Zetman]

Nor is it yours to keep going once the spirit has left the body. I’m not so sure that it is moral to keep a body alive once the mind and soul are gone.

The Catholic Church, and hence the Christian religion, teach that the soul does not reside exclusively within the organ that we call "the brain". The soul exists within the entire human body. The Church teaches that "the soul has left the body" only when the ENTIRE body dies naturally, on its' own. Furthermore, the Church also teaches that God alone decides when the body dies, not us. We humans are obligated to provide basic needs, like nutrition and hydration, just as if the person was in a coma we knew they would wake up from it within two weeks, and would be fine after that.

A Catholic person who is supposedly "brain dead" can still receive final redemption (for want of a better word, I am not a theologian), even though not conscious, through the sacraments (Last Rites, or as it is known today, Anointing of the Sick). These Sacraments are VERY powerful in the redemptive quality, having been instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. Even a non-Catholic can be Baptized while not conscious (in fact I believe this would be considered a corporal act of mercy, although someone who knows Catholic theology better than me may want to correct me on this point). Therefore, by allowing someone to die by "pulling the plug" before they can receive the final Sacraments may literally cause them to be denied eternal life. Even administering the final Sacraments, but then going ahead and "pulling the plug" anyway, violates the will of God, and therefore cannot be supported by ANY Catholic (as the Pope re-affirmed in this pronouncement).

Since the soul is incorporated into the entire body, not just the brain, in the view of Christianity, to end a life without providing basic sustenance is considered to be murder. However, I believe this does not include "extraordinary measures", like heart/lung machines. We are talking just basic sustenance here (food, water, clothing, etc...). The "basics" must always be provided until life ends naturally. Again, if I have this wrong, I invite someone with a better knowledge of Catholic Theology to GENTLY correct me.

[epow]

However, in these cases, is it reasonable to deny radical medical intervention otherwise?

IMHO yes.

The Pope didn't address that question AFAIK, but if it comes to that point I'm not going to allow my bedridden and senile 96 year old mother to suffer through something like major abdominal or cardiac surgery just to keep her breathing for a few more weeks or months. When the Lord whispers "come home child," in her ear I won't attempt to override His timing with extraordinary medical procedures.

But providing food and water through a feeding tube is not the same thing. I fed my Dad through a tube for almost a year before he died of kidney failure. I will also keep Mom on a feeding tube if it becomes necessary, because I believe that preventing death by starvation and thirst is altogether different morally and spiritually from performing a radical medical procedure just to prolong a vegetative state of life for a few more weeks or months.

These are hard questions for a Christian to answer in light of modern medical science's advances, and I agree with the Pope's pronouncement as far as it went. But I don't see anything in the article addressing the matter of attempting to keep a comatose patient alive by radical artificial means, so I intend to use my own best judgment guided by biblical principles if that situation ever arises with someone who is my responsibility, and it every well may arise in the near future given Mom's precarious physical and mental condition. I can only pray that I will make the right decision in the eyes of God if and when that time comes.

[syriacus]

I’m not so sure that it is moral to keep a body alive once the mind and soul are gone.

How will we prove that the soul is gone, when the body is still warm?

Will "soulistic medicine practioners" hold seances?

[flaglady47]

Just to ask a basic practical question here, who is going to pay for keeping alive a person in a vegetative state, or unable to eat or drink on their own anymore. The relatives? You better hope that the wait is a short one for someone to pass away, or all of your money will be eaten up by nursing home expenses or hospital expenses. Hospitals can’t keep all vegetative patients alive in their hospitals for days, months, or years on end. Nursing homes won’t want that responsibility either unless you are willing to pay for it. Or, be prepared to take your vegetative relative home with you, along with all of the necessary in-home treatment and/or in-home nursing, and pay for that too, as well as attending to your relative every day until the end comes, which again could be days, months, years. Or do you expect that the State or Federal gov’ts should pay to keep your relative alive? Just like a good Dem would end up introducing one day as a bill in Congress.

So, just as long as you are willing to accept the financial responsibility for your choice, then fine. Otherwise, not fine, and the decisions should be left up to each individual family as to what that choice is, and no one else. No big brother, whether it be gov’t or church should be in on this decision. Let the families decide what is best for themselves, whatever that decision is. End of life decisions have always been the choice of the family. It shouldn’t be messed with by anyone. Before today’s modern medicine which allows for hydration and nourishment, people just died. Therefore, hydration and nourishment is indeed an artificial means of prolonging life that didn’t exist before when death would otherwise occur. Oh boy, what a hornet’s nest. Here we go with the Shiavo stuff again, I smell it coming.

[syriacus]

End of life decisions have always been the choice of the family.

Euthanasia is wrong.

[syriacus]

Hospitals can’t keep all vegetative patients alive in their hospitals for days, months, or years on end

I think there will be medical advances if this becomes an issue.

Euthanasia-enthusiasts are pessimists who do little or nothing to help mankind.

[syriacus]

Before today’s modern medicine which allows for hydration and nourishment, people just died.

My elderly mother occasionally has days of weakness. At those times I have to help hold her upright as she drinks her ensure or water through a straw. Would it be all right if I decided I didn't want to assist her in obtaining her nutrition and hydration?

And, now, many lives are saved because people can get their nutrition via a tube, rather than drinking a glass of Ensure like my mother does.

As I wrote above,
people who are concerned about others are resourceful and inventive and help make things better for humanity..

Concerned people look for positive answers and don't settle for finding the quickest way to kill.

Here's info about a woman who looked for ways to help children with feeding tubes.

Message from Bundiebaby Founder and President Jody Williams

I had been a foster parent for medically fragile infants for over nine years. In that time I have cared for more than twenty special needs babies in my home.

One of our babies was old enough to pull out his tubing. The baby's discomfort along with tubing reinsertion several times a day were frustrating. It prompted me to look for clothing options that would assist me with daily living, but I found none.

With experience in fashion design, I started creating outfits that safely and securely stored medical devices and tubing. Working with doctors, nurses, therapists and parents, the designs were refined. Our flagship garment, the Bundie, was born. This new outfit gave me the peace of mind I was looking for while providing quality care for the babies.

[flaglady47]

“Euthanasia is wrong.”

Well, I hate to tell you, but these end of life decisions are being made and have been made for years on end. At some point most people don’t want to see their elderly parents suffer anymore and aren’t willing to put a feeding tube in the stomach of a 95 year old man or woman in order to prolong life when they can’t even eat anymore. Who are you pleasing, yourself or your parent. I think the former and it is selfish and cruel to the parent. But, I know, you don’t think that way because you are so morally superior than the average joe making these decisions for their own families. Why don’t you get off your moral high horse and face reality.

[flaglady47]

“Euthanasia-enthusiasts are pessimists who do little or nothing to help mankind.”

It’s not euthanasia and never was considered so until just a few years ago, when all of you types started coming out of the woodwork to try to guilt trip people all over this country who make decisions at the ends of their relatives lives all the time. You’d like to make decisions which were once the purview of the families themselves into something it never was. They are letting their elderly relatives pass peacefully rather than be subject to needles, intraveneous hydration, feeding tubes, when normally they would have just died naturally, not kept alive like zombies by artificial means. Sorry most ordinary folks don’t measure up to your moralistic purity.

[flaglady47]

Concerned people look for positive answers and don’t settle for finding the quickest way to kill.

Your types just love to use words like “kill” don’t you. Gives you great pleasure and satisfaction to know that you are on such an elevated moral plane over the folks out there whose families have to make the difficult end of life decisions for their loved ones. Don’t get chilly up there on your lofty cloud.

[syriacus]

Your types...Don’t get chilly up there on your lofty cloud.

Thanks for your expressions of concern. But, you needn't worry. I have plenty of company with people I can trust my life to.

Just to ask a basic practical question here, who is going to pay for keeping alive a person in a vegetative state, or unable to eat or drink on their own anymore.

Here's my advice to you....

Don't go on a rugged hike in a remote region with someone who is enthusiastic about getting rid of people whom they view as "dead wood."

If you two find yourself in a difficult situation, it could well be "every man for himself."

[flaglady47]

“Here’s my advice to you....

Don’t go on a rugged hike in a remote region with someone who is enthusiastic about getting rid of people whom they view as “dead wood.”

That’s such a silly, childish, all “feelings” type of reply typical of a Dem. Grow up and deal with the world as it is, including dealing with the actualities of the end of life. But deal with it in your own family rather than meddling with how others handle their own experiences in their families.