F
fix
Guest
That some item is new does not mean it is extraordinary. Are ambulances extraordinary? Antibiotics? The measuring stick is not that some item was never available before.
- Status
T
Timbothefiveth
Guest
A miracle is not the only hope left when we have feeding tubes.
M
momor
Guest
Whether something is extraordinary depends on the individual circumstance. An ambulance or antibiotics are ordinary care for most people. I think they can be considered extraordinary for people near death from terminal cancer. Not only that they can be inhumane if they cause additional suffering either physically or mentally.
M
momor
Guest
I’m not sure how you define a miracle. If a huge part of an elderly, frail person’s brain is dead due to a massive stroke and they have remained fully comatose for weeks afterward I would consider their recovery to be entirely dependent on a miracle.
F
fix
Guest
Yes, hydration may be inhumane if it is not assimilated by the body. But, that is not the issue here, right? The issue here is that food and water are ordinary means, no matter the vehicle used, as long as the body is using them.
A
abraham
Guest
Thankfully, I’ve never had experience in this area, but it sounds like momor has a good compromise position that can be consistent with the USCCB teaching that food & drink must not be denied. Whether that food & drink can be given in the natural way or through artificial means really depends on the resources available to the caregivers. If the feeding tube can be applied at home, then it may be ordinary means, but if constant hospitalization is required, then it may be beyond the financial means of most ordinary folks.
R
recondelta
Guest
S
Stylites
Guest
The ‘good’ conscience must be a fully informed conscience. Gut feelings an informed conscience don’t make.
.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
If by brain death you mean brain stem death (brain death is just death), then the person would be kept alive by extraordinary means, not by a PEG.
S
St_Francis
Guest
The point of this is that there is a difference between letting someone die and killing them by starving/dehydrating them to death.
You seem to be willing to let someone else commit a mortal sin against you for your own comfort.
K
kalt
Guest
It seems that some people don’t want to admit that being in this state is a state of dying. They admit that emphysema, cancer, heart or kidney disease, or anencephaly are fatal conditions, but refuse to understand that the brain damage associated with this kind of condition (vegetative state) is also fatal. These people are being kept alive artificially. In many (maybe most) cases, the people are in this condition (are only alive at all) because of previous medical intervention that kept them alive after a life-threatening event. So, these people would have been allowed a natural death of the heart attack, stroke, or injury, but since doctors were able to keep them alive by intervening before it was “too late”, these people are kept alive longer by inserting feeding tubes.
The Church talks about fairness, but where is the fairness in this situation? If you’re lucky, you will die of an “approved” condition. If not, and you’re unlucky enough to have been treated for an “approved” condition in a Catholic hospital, you will be kept alive until some other “approved” fatal condition strikes.
If a natural death was good enough for PJPII, it’s good enough for all Catholics.
K
kalt
Guest
It’s not about comfort. I think there’s ample evidence that a person in a vegetative state isn’t suffering. In fact,the statement I read said that the tube may be removed if it causes suffering.
This is about allowing a natural death. The brain injury is a fatal condition. These people are being kept alive artificially.
FWIW, giving a person dying of cancer (or some other painful disease) enough morphine to keep him comfortable, promotes death. The drug depresses the systems. A person would live longer without that much morphine in his system. Of course the goal of giving morphine isn’t to promote death, but that is what happens. And likewise, removing a feeding tube isn’t about trying to kill someone. It’s about allowing the person to die naturally. If there is any discomfort from the dying process, it can be handled as humanely as the dicomfort of dying from cancer is.
K
kalt
Guest
Oxygen is also “basic for life”. I don’t see the Church demanding that everyone be kept alive on ventilators.
K
kalt
Guest
K
kalt
Guest
This topic really has me thinking about the denying food to others topic.
The fact is that Americans are fat. Obesity is a major health problem here–the risk of stroke and heart attack that can cause the brain damage seen in a vegetative state is increased in those who are overweight.
While Americans are eating themselves to death, others are starving. Do Americans see this, know that denying food to others is wrong, and change their ways? Americans have a heap of food in their houses that they gorge themselves on while watching news stories about starving children. Now that’s entertainment.
I realize that this is a bit off-topic - it’s really an aside. But the contrast is so disgusting and obvious. I eat even when I’m not hungry. I’m not overweight, but I do eat more than I really need to. So I’m counting myself among the guilty.
Do we agree that reaching for yet more food over our bloated stomachs while others are starving is sinful? Have you ever eaten something because it tasted good, even when you didn’t need it?
We’re called to feed our neighbors - all of them, not just the brain damaged.
If we accept this rule on feeding tubes **and/or **agreethat denying another food is a mortal sin, we should take an honest look at what we eat, how much we spend on food, and how much throw away.
If a person who is starving could be sat down next to us at our next meal, would we want to see ourselves? To see ourselves eating too much (or too expensive food) while someone starves next to us? Is it the distance from the starving what saves us from seeing what we are, what we’re really doing?
I don’t think that Catholics can legitimately discuss the sin of denying food to people while they themselves are eating too much. We may never be able to provide enough for all, but should we be able to so easily live with ourselves as a people who refuse to give up the extra food we eat to feed those who have none?
Our challenge - Renew our commitment to feeding our non-braindamaged “neighbors”. Donate more to whatever food program you think is the best.
The fact is that Americans are fat. Obesity is a major health problem here–the risk of stroke and heart attack that can cause the brain damage seen in a vegetative state is increased in those who are overweight.
While Americans are eating themselves to death, others are starving. Do Americans see this, know that denying food to others is wrong, and change their ways? Americans have a heap of food in their houses that they gorge themselves on while watching news stories about starving children. Now that’s entertainment.
I realize that this is a bit off-topic - it’s really an aside. But the contrast is so disgusting and obvious. I eat even when I’m not hungry. I’m not overweight, but I do eat more than I really need to. So I’m counting myself among the guilty.
Do we agree that reaching for yet more food over our bloated stomachs while others are starving is sinful? Have you ever eaten something because it tasted good, even when you didn’t need it?
We’re called to feed our neighbors - all of them, not just the brain damaged.
If we accept this rule on feeding tubes **and/or **agreethat denying another food is a mortal sin, we should take an honest look at what we eat, how much we spend on food, and how much throw away.
If a person who is starving could be sat down next to us at our next meal, would we want to see ourselves? To see ourselves eating too much (or too expensive food) while someone starves next to us? Is it the distance from the starving what saves us from seeing what we are, what we’re really doing?
I don’t think that Catholics can legitimately discuss the sin of denying food to people while they themselves are eating too much. We may never be able to provide enough for all, but should we be able to so easily live with ourselves as a people who refuse to give up the extra food we eat to feed those who have none?
Our challenge - Renew our commitment to feeding our non-braindamaged “neighbors”. Donate more to whatever food program you think is the best.
L
Loboto-Me
Guest
It’s about dying with dignity, even in suffering. When someone is comatose, who’s to say that they aren’t influencing someone else through their suffering. Who’s to say that they are not helping with the salvation of someone else, therefore still working out their own salvation?
Would I really want to be cut off from nutrition even if it “looks” like I’m not conscious of the outside world? No because I may still be trying to work out my own salvation underneath it all. We don’t know what’s going on behind that person, it may be their last chance to choose God.
Would I really want to be cut off from nutrition even if it “looks” like I’m not conscious of the outside world? No because I may still be trying to work out my own salvation underneath it all. We don’t know what’s going on behind that person, it may be their last chance to choose God.
S
seekerz
Guest
Feeding tubes do not prevent people from dying, they just prevent starvation from being the cause of death.
S
seekerz
Guest
You are wrong about morphine. It does depress the person’s ability to breathe but that is a reversible effect and death is not a natural consequence of taking morphine, unless large doses are given. It’s not like the longer you keep a person on morphine the closer you take them to death. So the comparison does not apply.
Also, if a person’s brain is ‘in a fatal condition’ then they will die when the brain stops functioning. Food/water does not keep a fatally injured brain alive.
M
momor
Guest
An excellent meditation for Lent. Thanks.
- Status