Life support

[Psalms91]

What is the church's stance on life support? I guess to narrow it down, I was specifically curious about the termination of it. Don't get all worried about me, I am not in a situation where I have to make that decision. I was just in a conversation with a friend of mine and somehow the topic came up so we were wondering the church's exact stance on it. Sorry if this topic has been brought up before, I just havent seen it. Thanks

Lee

 

[bostonlass]

bumping 'cause I'm curious as well.

 

[Psalms91]

bumping my own thread . I guess it wasnt too dumb of a question after all.

 

[Davidnic]

If I am correct you do not have to use excessive means.

Something that breathes for you and maintains all of your functions is excessive but a feeding tube that delivers food is not excessive. Now in the short term with excellent hope of recovery a device that breaths for you and maintains your functions is not excessive since it is a tranistory treatment and not the sole means of suppport.

So it would not be acceptable to remove support, even if the person would die without it, if the hope of recovery is high. Since the support is therapeutic and will lead to full or at least mostly full restoration of bodily functions. But if it is the end of life and the organs have failed and can not function on their own, it is then excessive to have the machine acting in total replacement of the organs.

Since the tube is only introducing the nourishment that your body can still process it is not excessive.

This is how I understand it at least.

from EWTN expert answers, this link talks about the subject.

 

[Psalms91]

Thank you! I was thinking that it would be something like that but I wasn't 100% on it.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

A feeding tube is a more complicated procedure than a respirator...so I don't understand how the respirator (which, like a feeding tube provides nourishment, in the form of oxygen for the respirator) is excessive while the feeding tube is not.

 

[Davidnic]

A feeding tube is a more complicated procedure than a respirator...so I don't understand how the respirator (which, like a feeding tube provides nourishment, in the form of oxygen for the respirator) is excessive while the feeding tube is not.

I would say that it is not the complexity of the device or procedure, but the nature of the support based on the individual case.

I picked a respirator because it is common and can be excessive in some cases and not in others. The tricky thing, if I understand it correctly, is the area where people try to determine "chances of recovery".

But each case would be a matter when a priest should be consulted and evaluated on the individual situation.

I think the feeding tube thing is that a person can starve but if you remove a respirator after the lungs have failed it is the failure of the organs that causes the death. But the deprivation of food from an outside source if the nourishment can still be used by the body is viewed as an inherantly sinful act.

I believe that there are cases where a feeding tube can be removed. In the case of total organ failure where the person would die from the state of their body long before they starve, a feeding tube can be removed.

 

[Carrye]

This sort of thing really requires a hypothetical situation. There are too many "what ifs" otherwise.

Does someone have a situation?

 

[Psalms91]

This sort of thing really requires a hypothetical situation. There are too many "what ifs" otherwise.

Does someone have a situation?

Yea I know it does, but I was just throwing it out there. I dont really have a specific situation in mind for it. I was just kinda looking for a general answer. Thanks to all

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I would say that it is not the complexity of the device or procedure, but the nature of the support based on the individual case.

I picked a respirator because it is common and can be excessive in some cases and not in others. The tricky thing, if I understand it correctly, is the area where people try to determine "chances of recovery".

But each case would be a matter when a priest should be consulted and evaluated on the individual situation.

I think the feeding tube thing is that a person can starve but if you remove a respirator after the lungs have failed it is the failure of the organs that causes the death. But the deprivation of food from an outside source if the nourishment can still be used by the body is viewed as an inherantly sinful act.

I believe that there are cases where a feeding tube can be removed. In the case of total organ failure where the person would die from the state of their body long before they starve, a feeding tube can be removed.

It seems like twisted logic to me. Organs fail because of a lack or oxygen. What do you think starvation does? Your body has no energy and your organs fail. A feeding tube and a respirator both provide essential nutrients to the body in an artificial way, and a lack of said nutrients will lead to organ failure and death.

 

[QuantaCura]

I think the phrase is "extraordinary means." Food and water are not extraordinary means. A respirator doesn't just provide air, I think it also makes the lungs work. A feeding tube doesn't make the stomach and intestines function. If the stomach and intestines have ceased functioning, a feeding tube will be pointless. But the whole point of a respirator is when the lungs no longer have the ability to function sufficiently on their own.

 

[Febe]

Is this an example that You can use?
http://www.christianforums.com/t2952430-texas-hospital-plans-to-kill-an-alert-awake-woman.html
Or else, I might have misunderstod... I don´t always get the shades(?) right in English...

 

[Magisterium]

What is the church's stance on life support? I guess to narrow it down, I was specifically curious about the termination of it. Don't get all worried about me, I am not in a situation where I have to make that decision. I was just in a conversation with a friend of mine and somehow the topic came up so we were wondering the church's exact stance on it. Sorry if this topic has been brought up before, I just havent seen it. Thanks

Lee

When discerning what means of life support are to be used, there is an underlying question which must be answered. That question is whether or not the animation of life has left the body. We run into problems when we simply try to rule out or rule in certain procedures for certain lengths of time. The fact is, every case is unique and must be discerned individually.

That discernment must be based upon the understanding that life itself is an invaluable gift from God from the time of conception to natural death. As a result, it must be nurtured and preserved by all reasonable means for as long as it is possessed. Additionally, life's value is not quantifiable. That is to say, that a human life's worth is not increased or diminished by any condition whatsoever. Life is not made more valuable by enhanced abilities nor is it made less valuable by the loss of abilities.

As long as the animation of life remains in the body, it must be preserved by all reasonably available means. By the term "animation of life" I am referring to the intangible but observable presence of life. Some indicators include but are not limited to the beating of the heart, breathing, and/or other autonomous bodily functions. Consciousness in any state whatever is an absolute indicator of life.

As we know, there are many cases when some type of trauma or illness can cause all observable indicators of life to cease for a period of time. In these cases, we rely on the expertise of the physician to make an estimation based upon his or her experience and expertise.

Heroic or extraordinary means of of preserving life refer to those procedures or methods which require unusual or excessive resources and/or efforts. Typically, such means are those which do violence to the body and are not sustainable. Some examples might include resussitation techniques which shatter ribs and cause internal trauma particularly when administered to the elderly who's bodies are not likely to recover from the damage. Another example might be a sufficiently high dose of medication that severely and unrecoverably destroys some vital part of the body (such as the brain, kidneys, or liver).

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I think the phrase is "extraordinary means." Food and water are not extraordinary means. A respirator doesn't just provide air, I think it also makes the lungs work. A feeding tube doesn't make the stomach and intestines function. If the stomach and intestines have ceased functioning, a feeding tube will be pointless. But the whole point of a respirator is when the lungs no longer have the ability to function sufficiently on their own.

The lungs, heart, and system of blood vessels work together to transport oxygen and nutrition to the body's cells. A respirator takes the place of a muscle, the diaphram. A feeding tube takes the place of a muscle or series of muscles in the esopogus that makes you swallow. As a feeding tube does not make the stomach and intestines work, a respirator does not make the lungs work (their job is to absorb oxygen, the respirator just puts air in them) and does not make your blood vessels work.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I think the phrase is "extraordinary means." Food and water are not extraordinary means. A respirator doesn't just provide air, I think it also makes the lungs work. A feeding tube doesn't make the stomach and intestines function. If the stomach and intestines have ceased functioning, a feeding tube will be pointless. But the whole point of a respirator is when the lungs no longer have the ability to function sufficiently on their own.

The claim that food and water are automatically not extraodinary means is counter-intuitive to me.

The ability to chew and swallow seem to me to be integral to being a living being. The fact the your elementary canal will, on reflex, digest food and absorb water does not suggust that you have any kind of discernable humanity left.

Now, its one thing if not beng able to chew and swallow is the only thing wrong with you verus having a number of other systems non-funcitional as well. I see that.

But once you have a feeding tube in, you are automatically assumed to be a viable living being even if you can't breath on your own, communicate, move or otherwise show medically that you have life.

To me it seems all we are doing is putting fuel into a mindless, souless malfunctioning machine that can't be repaired, won't heal and can't be properly maintained.

What's the point ? I really don't know.

Lots of people on the forum when discussing cloning will say "just becuase we can do something doesn't mean we should" .

Sometimes I agree with that.