A little discussion

[Argh]

So I was watching South Park with a friend last night (its 12:46am now) and the new episode took a massive swipe at the “right to die debate” concerning Terri Shiavo and all those in similar situations.

The episode isnt important, as offenisve as it is, but that’s the point of South Park…to be offensive.

Anyways, my friend didnt understand why people dependent on artificial life support (resperators, feeding tubes, etc) shouldnt be “allowed” to die if they wish. She wasnt trying to knock Catholicism, but simply wanted to know why we feel the way we do about it.

I tried to explain the best I could and said that first all life, especially human life, is sacred - being God’s creation. And therefore we are called to cherish life in all of its forms. The discussion then shifted to whether it is God’s will that people on such forms of life support are meant to die. I responded that God gave us the intelligence and ability to invent and create medecine to heal us and sustain us, such as a dialysis machine without which people suffering from kidney failure would certainly die without recieving a transplant. She found that very agreeable. Next was whether or not a person in a “persistant vegetative state” was actually alive/a real human. She asked whether or not someone in a vegetative state or who was *completely *brain dead was actually alive. I responded that I wasnt 100% sure on the latter, but argued that since Catholicism holds that an emryo at the moment of conception is a human being even without a brain.

Now here’s my actual question. We got back to talking about artificial life support and slipped into the realm of science fiction for a hypothetical scenario. Suppose in the future (probly not too far off, actually) that we have the ability to artificially sustain a human brain indefinately. Think a brain in a jar with blood being artificially circulated through it with some system to exchange gases, nutrients and waste. Has that gone too far? You may think I’m going a little to far into it, but I beg to differ. We already have the ability to create an artifical heart and kidney (a dialysis machine), and machines that can interpret the electro-chemical signals in the brain (artifical limbs that can move and sense heat). We can even teach a bunch of mouse brain cells to fly a simulated plane in a software program.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

There is no obligation to use “extraordinary means” to keep someone alive when there is no reasonable expectation that their condition will improve. Your example of the brain would be going to extraordinary trouble just to keep a lonely brain alive that could never survive without the extraordinary care. So there would be no obligation to preserve that “life.”

The problem with the Terri Schiavo case is that the Pope has informed us that food and water are not extraordinary means of keeping someone alive. Since that’s all she needs to live (her body works fine, she just needs to eat like everyone else), there is no justification for starving her to death. It remains to be seen whether that teaching on what constitutes “extraordinary means” will persevere through subsequent popes, but for now, it’s the guideline under which we operate.

 

[Argh]

That makes sense.

“Extraordinary means” does seem rather dangerously subjective though, doesnt it?

 

[Disciple_of_God]

Here is a link to a website that has the Catechism of the Catholic church online. My wife and I had the same question that you are asking. I was listening to the Catholic radio this morning and they discussed this same question. “When is keeping someone alive going too far”. The apologist on the radio said almost exactly what Andreas Hofer stated. They also gave a referance to the Chatechism of the Catholic Church which is paragraph 2278.

Please see the link if you are interested. scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#I