Even “vegetables” are human

[Cal_Catholic]

When artificial feeding and hydration are “ordinary,” “proportionate,” and “morally obligatory”

Full article…

 

[seekerz]

Interesting article. More discussions on euthanasia are necessary because misconceptions about end-of-life care abound. The living wills that some people sign are truly indicative of their lack of understanding of these issues. The oft expressed “I don’t want to live on machines” sentiment also shuts off meaningful discussion. Actually, other than IV fluid pumps (even their use is optional), there are no machines absolutely required to keep a human being fed and hydrated.

 

[Newbie2]

My first thought that the title uses the dehumanizing term “vegetable”…but it got my interest.

There are many similarities of people in vegetative states and unborn babies, if one thinks about it in a moral sense. Differences too, yes, but I couldn’t help seeing the similarities.

 

[Misty5054]

Interesting article. More discussions on euthanasia are necessary because misconceptions about end-of-life care abound. The living wills that some people sign are truly indicative of their lack of understanding of these issues. The oft expressed “I don’t want to live on machines” sentiment also shuts off meaningful discussion. Actually, other than IV fluid pumps (even their use is optional), there are no machines absolutely required to keep a human being fed and hydrated.

Is what you’re saying is: if there is no possiability of recovery they should let machines keep them alive? I know I would not want a machine to keep my body alive if my brain is completely gone.

 

[Misty5054]

Sorry I the edit button on my last post isn’t showing. What I meant is. If we are brain dead are we suppose to let machines keep us alive? I really am confused with this one.

 

[rpp]

It is my understanding of Catholic end-of-life issues states that a person does not need to accept extraordinary treatment. Additionally, once extraordinary treatment has begun, a person can choose to terminate it.

Extraordinary treat never includes food and water unless administering them creates more problems. Extraordinary treatment can include respirators, heart-lung machines, major surgery, etc. If I understand it, it is basically anything that is invasive. While I may be wrong, (please correct me if I am) I think a person can also morally decline treatment, even something simple like a blood transfusion or antibiotics, if their condition is serious.

But nutrition and hydration cannot be withheld unless providing them causes more problems (someone with a serious stomach or intestinal problem I suppose).

 

[seekerz]

Is what you’re saying is: if there is no possiability of recovery they should let machines keep them alive? I know I would not want a machine to keep my body alive if my brain is completely gone.

I’m not saying that a person should agree to be kept on a machine if they are brain dead. Actually, once brain death is confirmed, doctors usually recommend removing all life support and as far as I’m aware the Church has no problem with that.

Where things become difficult is when the brain is damaged and the person is not capable of most higher functions, but is not brain dead. They may be off machines completely like Terry Schiavo was (a feeding tube is a simple device, not a machine).

In my mind, feeding someone through a tube is comparable to using a bottle to feed a baby, the only difference is that a simple procedure (not even considered real surgery) is required to place the tube.

With people in the situation I’m describing, the tendency by some caregivers is to say: there’s no point in continuing feeding because the degree of brain damage is such that the person cannot interact with his/her world and there is no hope of recovery. No hope of recovery here would mean, not that death is imminent, but that the higher brain functions cannot be regained.

Whatever the degree of function, if the brain is not dead, if the person is breathing without a machine and if the process of providing them nutrition does not require extraordinary measures, I see not reason why they shouldn’t be fed.

My comment about many people not wanting to be kept alive on machines, is simply that too many people make this declaration with only a superficial understanding of these issues. Some extraordinary means do not even require a person to be placed on life support machines (e.g. certain drugs). On the other hand, sometimes a brief period of life support (measured in hours) is all that is required to get someone well again - technically that may be considered extraordinary measures, but with today’s medical advances it barely qualifies.