M
Mattapoisett64
Guest
I’m aware of a situation where an individual is refusing permission for his doctors to amputate a diseased leg. The nature of the leg ailment is not life-threatening, but it is disabling. (He would be much more mobile following an amputation and a prosthetic.)
Anyway, he is taking the position with his doctors that: (a) His Catholic Faith forbids amputations; and, (b) the leg would have to be buried with him and if they remove it now they couldn’t guarantee keeping it for that purpose.
I know we are not required to resort to “extreme measures” regarding medical procedures, and since the leg issue isn’t apparently life-threatening, he may be within his rights on that one. But: 2 questions:
(1) If the leg problem WERE to become life-threating, isn’t there a moral requirement to permit the amputation to preserve his life?
(2) Is there a Canon Law or other requirement for burial of an amputated limb when and where the rest of the body is (eventually) interred? And if so, where does this end? A finger? Toe? diseased internal organ? Hoping not . . . .Thanks.
Anyway, he is taking the position with his doctors that: (a) His Catholic Faith forbids amputations; and, (b) the leg would have to be buried with him and if they remove it now they couldn’t guarantee keeping it for that purpose.
I know we are not required to resort to “extreme measures” regarding medical procedures, and since the leg issue isn’t apparently life-threatening, he may be within his rights on that one. But: 2 questions:
(1) If the leg problem WERE to become life-threating, isn’t there a moral requirement to permit the amputation to preserve his life?
(2) Is there a Canon Law or other requirement for burial of an amputated limb when and where the rest of the body is (eventually) interred? And if so, where does this end? A finger? Toe? diseased internal organ? Hoping not . . . .Thanks.