CDF speaks on Nutrition and Hydration

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe_5859
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Food and water must be provided as long as it can be metabolized.
 
IMHO the Bishops of the USA and Canada got taken to task for their stand on the issue of food and water.

Pray for our Bishops.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
I’ll bet some ethicist will find nuances in that statement that will allow him to do what he wants. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
When all the formulas (we tried five or six kinds) that they tried to give my mother through tubes made her ill, I would not let them continue to give her this stuff any longer. We removed the tube and I took leave from my job and I fed her spoon by spoon till she was able to be fed by others. My family thought I was trying to kill my mother. But feeding her pureed food by spoon was how I kept her alive. I would do it again if it ever became necessary. But sometimes the feeding tubes and the formulas that the insurance companies will pay for just don’t work.
 
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_vegetative_state

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican reiterated Friday that it considers the removal of feeding tubes from people in vegetative states to be an immoral act. The Vatican issued the statement in response to questions from bishops in the United States in July 2005 — just months after the case of an American woman, Terri Schiavo, made world headlines. She died March 31, 2005, in a Florida hospice after her parents unsuccessfully battled a court order to have her feeding tube removed. She died 13 days after the tube was removed.

“A patient in a ‘permanent vegetative state’ is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means,” the Vatican said in a statement. At the time, the Vatican condemned Schiavo’s death as “arbitrarily hastened” and called the removal of her feeding tube a violation of the principles of Christianity and civilization. Friday’s statement said the Vatican was asked whether the administration of food and water to a patient in a vegetative state was morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or administered without causing significant physical discomfort. The answer was yes.

The statement said exceptional cases, such as the inability of a patient to cope with feeding or food shortages in poverty-stricken or remote areas, “take nothing away from the general ethical criterion.” The Vatican noted that Pope John Paul II told a 2004 medical conference on ethical dilemmas that providing food and water to people in vegetative states should be considered natural, ordinary and proportional care. Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the U.S. bishops Committee for Doctrine, said the American bishops hoped the Vatican’s explanations would provide guidance to pastors, ethicists, doctors, nurses and families involved in the issue.
OK, I can see this getting very problematic, here are some questions I thought of:
  1. What if someone were to argue that since things like test tube babies are many times decried as being “unnatural births”, doesn’t that mean then that feeding tubes are simply prolonging life longer than it should be and violates the idea of “natural death?”
  2. What about in cases where, let’s say for example, there are parts of the brain that are liquid or parts where the memory cells are totally destroyed. Would we not, at least in those cases, just be keeping just a shell alive since it would be 100% impossible to reverse the damage?
  3. And what about who pays for it? If a family pays for the up keeping of a brain dead family member I understand, but should the public be taxed for this? Should the 2nd commandment be violated in order to keep someone alive? And what about the fact that as we live longer and longer, we will see tons more cases like this, which would mean that in the future we could potentially have an economic collapse because expensive life-sustaining equipment is being used on tens to hundreds of millions of people?
  4. Lastly lets consider a theoretical situation: What if these feeding tubes and life support stations got so advanced that they could keep that person alive indefinitely. Does that mean we must keep a person alive forever, knowing that they don’t even have a choice in that matter? And if not, then the question is under what circumstances or time frame do we pull the plug and who does it?
 
The Vatican is not suggesting that someone who is already dying a natural death must be kept alive at all costs for no good reason. What they ARE saying is that someone whose system is not naturally shutting down and who isn’t even what might be considered “brain dead” can’t be starved to death just because they can not function normally or might be comatose. Such a person still deserves norrmal sustanance of food and water, as long as they are able to process it and should not be denied this, therefore.

In this light, the arguments which you offer aren’t of such significant potential concern.
 
Timothy_486 said:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_vegetative_state

OK, I can see this getting very problematic, here are some questions I thought of:
  1. What if someone were to argue that since things like test tube babies are many times decried as being “unnatural births”, doesn’t that mean then that feeding tubes are simply prolonging life longer than it should be and violates the idea of “natural death?”
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. The Catholic Church teaches two wrongs never make a right and you know this.
  1. What about in cases where, let’s say for example, there are parts of the brain that are liquid or parts where the memory cells are totally destroyed. Would we not, at least in those cases, just be keeping just a shell alive since it would be 100% impossible to reverse the damage?
This person is dying of a disease. But that “shell” as you call it is still processing the food and water it is being given. No where in the directive does it say that the process should be reversible. Food and water is normative care. As we do not know what God’s reason is for the situation, we can’t decide the outcome. The body will stop processing the food and water and die when it is time. It is not ours to say.
  1. And what about who pays for it? If a family pays for the up keeping of a brain dead family member I understand, but should the public be taxed for this? Should the 2nd commandment be violated in order to keep someone alive? And what about the fact that as we live longer and longer, we will see tons more cases like this, which would mean that in the future we could potentially have an economic collapse because expensive life-sustaining equipment is being used on tens to hundreds of millions of people?
Money. All of our “money” comes from the Blessings of God. But, if your fully read the OP’s information. You will see that there is reference to situations such as you bring up.
  1. Lastly lets consider a theoretical situation: What if these feeding tubes and life support stations got so advanced that they could keep that person alive indefinitely. Does that mean we must keep a person alive forever, knowing that they don’t even have a choice in that matter? And if not, then the question is under what circumstances or time frame do we pull the plug and who does it?
Again you are mixing two very different things. Life support stations are not basic food and water. Remove life support and the disease kills the person. Remove food and water and you STARVE or DEHYDRATE the person to death. The one action is the bodies reaction to the disease. The other is deliberate murder.
Click to expand...
 
chicago said:
The Vatican is not suggesting that someone who is already dying a natural death must be kept alive at all costs for no good reason. What they ARE saying is that someone whose system is not naturally shutting down and who isn’t even what might be considered “brain dead” can’t be starved to death just because they can not function normally or might be comatose. Such a person still deserves norrmal sustanance of food and water, as long as they are able to process it and should not be denied this, therefore.

In this light, the arguments which you offer aren’t of such significant potential concern.
Click to expand...
Actually, the CDF makes no distinction between “persistent” and “permanent” vegetative states when it comes to the obligation to continue feeding and hydrating. Either way, the patient’s “human dignity” must be preserved, because food and water are not “theraputic”, they are basic needs of life.

Peace,
Dante
 
DanteAlighieri said:
Actually, the CDF makes no distinction between “persistent” and “permanent” vegetative states when it comes to the obligation to continue feeding and hydrating. Either way, the patient’s “human dignity” must be preserved, because food and water are not “therapeutic”, they are basic needs of life.

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
The fact is that when a human is in a state of unconsciousness it does not mean they have another underlying deadly ailment. I hate the term “vegetative” it takes the HUMAN out of the equitation. SO: If it is not human any longer then it can be argued that the “vegetable” has no right to “its” life or use of assets.

:banghead: :twocents:
 
If I may pose another hypothetical situation: What if we had a case where a persons entire brain was removed and was completely destroyed, would we still then have to keep the body alive if it was possible?
 
Timothy_486 said:
If I may pose another hypothetical situation: What if we had a case where a persons entire brain was removed and was completely destroyed, would we still then have to keep the body alive if it was possible?
Click to expand...
If a person’t entire brain was removed then they’d be dead.Nutrition and hydration alone would not sustain them.
 
Timothy_486 said:
If I may pose another hypothetical situation: What if we had a case where a persons entire brain was removed and was completely destroyed, would we still then have to keep the body alive if it was possible?
Click to expand...
Babies born without brains are still human and should given care. The lack of a brain causes all the bodly systems to close down and they die. But it is in God’s time and they are not to be starved to death.
 
Timothy_486 said:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_vegetative_state
OK, I can see this getting very problematic, here are some questions I thought of:
  1. What if someone were to argue that since things like test tube babies are many times decried as being “unnatural births”, doesn’t that mean then that feeding tubes are simply prolonging life longer than it should be and violates the idea of “natural death?”
Apples and oranges. The prohibition on “test tube” babies has to do with man trying to be God and create life while perverting the marital process. Once the life is created, however, all normal means are used to keep the baby alive. Natural death does not mean that you cannot or should not use reasonable medical treatment or technology.
  1. What about in cases where, let’s say for example, there are parts of the brain that are liquid or parts where the memory cells are totally destroyed. Would we not, at least in those cases, just be keeping just a shell alive since it would be 100% impossible to reverse the damage?
If the brain were that damaged, simple food and water would not keep the person alive. BTW, everyone has parts of the brain where the memory cells are totally destroyed. By your argument, all middle aged people who start to lose memory should be starved to death!
  1. And what about who pays for it? If a family pays for the up keeping of a brain dead family member I understand, but should the public be taxed for this? Should the 2nd commandment be violated in order to keep someone alive? And what about the fact that as we live longer and longer, we will see tons more cases like this, which would mean that in the future we could potentially have an economic collapse because expensive life-sustaining equipment is being used on tens to hundreds of millions of people?
We are not talking about expensive life-sustaining equipment. We are talking about simple food and hydration. The Church teaching has always been that extraordinary treatment can be legitimately refused by the patient or the family. The Church even allows such machines to be turned off when they are keeping someone alive.
  1. Lastly lets consider a theoretical situation: What if these feeding tubes and life support stations got so advanced that they could keep that person alive indefinitely. Does that mean we must keep a person alive forever, knowing that they don’t even have a choice in that matter? And if not, then the question is under what circumstances or time frame do we pull the plug and who does it?
Food and water are no cure for disease or natural aging. You can have the most sophisticated technology for feeding and hydrating a person but they will still die if they have cancer or heart failure or a serious infection.
Click to expand...
 
What does the Vatican say should happen if the patient has instructed, in writing, that no hydration or food be given in the event of a vegetative state? Are we supposed to defy our parents or try and get them to change their living wills?
 
Thekla said:
What does the Vatican say should happen if the patient has instructed, in writing, that no hydration or food be given in the event of a vegetative state? Are we supposed to defy our parents or try and get them to change their living wills?
Click to expand...
Unless the so called living will is notarized and placed into the medical files of the person then the “good” conscience comes into play. Also these directives should be done yearly and signed anew each year. A person can not “in good conscience” be held to promises made under duress or stress that do not follow the persons moral beliefs.

This does not mean that other members of the family won’t and don’t give you a hard time. It just means that you can be held To promises made under stress.

A word to the wise. Make sure all legal papers for yourself have all the dots and periods. Don’t expect someone to do what you asked without it being in compliance with the laws of the state you are in.
 
Thekla said:
What does the Vatican say should happen if the patient has instructed, in writing, that no hydration or food be given in the event of a vegetative state? Are we supposed to defy our parents or try and get them to change their living wills?
Click to expand...
Yes, defy your parents, and do all you morally can to give them food and water. Compliance with an immoral decision is not an option.
 
Seatuck said:
If a person’t entire brain was removed then they’d be dead.Nutrition and hydration alone would not sustain them.
Click to expand...
The only known case like this is Napoleon’s Colonel – and he lived for many years.😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top