Euthanasia

[bones_IV]

I got into an argument about the euthanasia issue. Well, my mother honestly told me this, and I could believe she said this! This to me was a direct blasphemy of God! She told me that if she didn’t have the mental capacity, that her wish would be not to continue her life. I was shocked, angered and didn’t know how to react. I told her she was putting her wishes over that of God’s. That didn’t seem to matter to her. Then my sister, we were talking about the Schiavo case, she is medical student and told me that Michael Schiavo wasn’t a murderer. I know that’s not right. She even told me it was ‘what terri schiavo wanted’. I was deeply wounded by that statement. Atheism has eaten away at my family.

 

[Eileen_T]

I know what you mean. Most of the time, the Catholics who tell me it was the right thing for Terri Schiavo to have been dehydrated haven’t really studied the case in depth, just accepted the media spin.

Catholics who think assisted suicide or euthanasia can be acceptable don’t know or care what the Church teaches. I think it comes from the watering down of doctrine that we have experienced in the past few decades.

Have you a copy of the DECLARATION ON EUTHANASIA ? You can print it our here life.org.nz/euthanasiareligiouskeyissuescatholicchurchteaching.htm Use the printer friendly button at the bottom of the page.

**It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity. **

 

[bones_IV]

How does one explain this though?

Page 5

“If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with the patient’s consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not without a certain risk. By accepting them, the patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity.”

“It is also permitted, with the patient’s consent, to interrupt these means, where the results fall short of expectations. But for such a decision to made, account will have to be taken of the reasonable wishes of the patient and the patient’s family, as also of the advice of the doctors who are specially competent in the matter. The latter may in particular judge that the investment in instruments and personnel is disproportionate to the results foreseen; they may also judge that the techniques applied impose on the patient strain or suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he or she may gain from such techniques.”

“It is also permissible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer. Therefore one cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical prodecure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community.”

“When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.”

what if only their heart was working the machine kept it going then what? What if they loose their mental capacity to make judgments? I understand that the Church defines that all major organs of the body have to be operating. Namely the brian, lungs and brian. Tell me if I’m wrong.

 

[Eileen_T]

bones_IV:

How does one explain this though?

Page 5

“If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with the patient’s consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not without a certain risk. By accepting them, the patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity.”

We can legitimately have recourse to experimental treatments if nothing else has worked.

“It is also permitted, with the patient’s consent, to interrupt these means, where the results fall short of expectations. But for such a decision to made, account will have to be taken of the reasonable wishes of the patient and the patient’s family, as also of the advice of the doctors who are specially competent in the matter. The latter may in particular judge that the investment in instruments and personnel is disproportionate to the results foreseen; they may also judge that the techniques applied impose on the patient strain or suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he or she may gain from such techniques.”

“It is also permissible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer. Therefore one cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical prodecure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community.”

“When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.”

We have the right to refuse extraordinary measures and treatments that would just prolong the dying process. Food and water are the ordinary means of survival even when given via a tube and called nutrition and hydration. We have the right to refuse burdensome treatment, especially if such treatment is i) expensive; or ii) causing distress. We can even refuse to take medication for something such as pneumonia in such circumstances.

what if only their heart was working the machine kept it going then what? What if they loose their mental capacity to make judgments? I understand that the Church defines that all major organs of the body have to be operating. Namely the brian, lungs and brian. Tell me if I’m wrong.

It is morally acceptable to switch off a machine that is keeping a person alive artificially, if there is no chance of recovery.

If they lose their mental capacity to make judgments, a family member can make the decision, which is what Michael Schiavo did. He claimed, without conclusive evidence, that Terri would have wanted to die, he did not take any account of the wishes of Terri’s family, or her religious beliefs and the teachings of her Church on the matter, and he used doctors who supported his wishes and rejected having Terri examined by other specialists.

The Church recognises that death has occurred when someone is no longer breathing, has no circulation, and the heart is no longer beating.

When it comes to a determination of ‘brain death,’ everything becomes ambiguous. There is no global consensus on the diagnostic criteria" and there are still “unresolved issues worldwide”.

Dr. Paul Byrne, president of the Catholic Medical Association, said, “Brain death” is not death. Brain death is not based on data that would be considered valid for any other scientific purpose."

See more here life.org.nz/euthanasiakeyissuesbraindeath.htm

 

[bones_IV]

Eileen T:

We can legitimately have recourse to experimental treatments if nothing else has worked.We have the right to refuse extraordinary measures and treatments that would just prolong the dying process. Food and water are the ordinary means of survival even when given via a tube and called nutrition and hydration. We have the right to refuse burdensome treatment, especially if such treatment is i) expensive; or ii) causing distress. We can even refuse to take medication for something such as pneumonia in such circumstances.It is morally acceptable to switch off a machine that is keeping a person alive artificially, if there is no chance of recovery.

If they lose their mental capacity to make judgments, a family member can make the decision, which is what Michael Schiavo did. He claimed, without conclusive evidence, that Terri would have wanted to die, he did not take any account of the wishes of Terri’s family, or her religious beliefs and the teachings of her Church on the matter, and he used doctors who supported his wishes and rejected having Terri examined by other specialists.

The Church recognises that death has occurred when someone is no longer breathing, has no circulation, and the heart is no longer beating.

When it comes to a determination of ‘brain death,’ everything becomes ambiguous. There is no global consensus on the diagnostic criteria" and there are still “unresolved issues worldwide”.

Dr. Paul Byrne, president of the Catholic Medical Association, said, “Brain death” is not death. Brain death is not based on data that would be considered valid for any other scientific purpose."

See more here life.org.nz/euthanasiakeyissuesbraindeath.htm

So, if someone loses their mental capacity a family member can make that decision, if that person wished to die if they lose their capacity to make moral judgments? Don’t mean to sound stupid but it comes of as sounding contradictory. Terry Schiavo was alive right?

 

[JimG]

If a person if physically or mentally incapacitated, there is no recourse except for a family member or some other person to make decisions for them. I think it is a mistake though, to try to make those decisions ahead of time, since no one can predict the medical circumstances or their own mental state ahead of time.

I may think now that I would not wish to live in an incapacitated state. I may change my mind and have a will to live when the event actually occurs, but be unable to express my wishes.

But if I’ve already put it in writing that I wouldn’t wish to live, they may decide to let me die even though if I were able to speak I would ask for treatment, and even though my condition may not be terminal.

Say I’m in a bad accident, and hooked up to a variety of machines. I’ve signed a living will saying that no extraordinary measures should be taken. Based on that, the doctors and relatives decide to unhook me from everything and let me die. If I’d had no living will, I might survive and fully recover.