Faith In A Hospital

  • Thread starter Thread starter pumpkinmay4ever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Since “brain death” is pretty well a made up term inconsistent with the medical practices that existed before the time of organ donation, probably not.
 
Lack of brain activity/no brainwaves/no spontaneous respiration/irresponsive to stimuli…but heart is beating because of ventilation and medications, but there would be nothing without either.

When the patient exhibits all of that, what would you call it, then?
 
Last edited:
It’s not if the going is tough-- it’s if the person would have died without the life support, or will die without the life support.

Life support gives extra time. In some cases, it is worth continuing because the patient will fully recover and go on to lead a full life.

In other cases, life support is merely keeping a dying person alive a little longer than they would otherwise have lived.

The cases in between fall along a spectrum, so one has to consider the balance.

What the Church teaches is that extraordinary care, under which life support generally falls, is not required if the resources expended are too much or the results expected are too low.
 
Removing life support is allowing natural death to occur, not accelerating it.
 
Ah so the best approach is to remove life support and let them die naturally?
 
Annie said:
What the Church teaches is that extraordinary care, under which life support generally falls, is not required if the resources expended are too much or the results expected are too low.
Click to expand...
Ah thanks Annie, this part really clarified things for me!
 
I’m glad that helped you. I really studied this issue during the Terri Schiavo case and learned a lot. As always, the Church has the best answers!
 
It depends on the situation – as @Annie described. We are not required to provide extraordinary means of life support. If a person is at the end of their life, we are not required to force their lungs to continue to move when, for example, their brain has already ceased functioning. But that is not the only circumstance – someone who is dying of something like IPF may opt not to extend their life by a few days and can decide not to be ventilated.

Each case is different.
 
pumpkinmay4ever said:
Ah so the best approach is to remove life support and let them die naturally?
Click to expand...
I would talk to a good priest before making such a choice. Please though, leave this person on. They may pull through. I have had many family members who have lives for far longer than expected in similar circumstances.
 
I watched my mother suffer with multiple sclerosis; she gradually lost the use of both legs and both hands, there were times she said she wanted to die. She had been paralysed from the neck down for several years, but still had a sound mind.

One day she went into a coma and was taken to hospital, her breathing was a horrible gurgling sound; the doctors said she had days to live and there was nothing they could do, so we called a priest. None of us had a faith at the time, but we just thought it was what you should do. As the priest prayed my mums gasping for air seemed to change, she seemed to relax and started to breathe more normally. About ten minutes after the priest walked out the door, mum came round and started to speak, she had no recollection of anything that happened in hospital, or that a priest had prayed for her.

She lived another eleven years after the coma; this was a mixed blessing as we had to continue watching my mum suffer with multiple sclerosis. Everything had to be done for her; she had to suffer every kind of indignity and helplessness. Yet she seemed to experience a calmness and peace, despite all her suffering. I could never really understand her calmness. My mum regarded this healing as a blessing, despite her paralysed body, and she said she was not ready to die at the time of the coma.

I really could not understand how she seemed to just accept it, she rarely complained and often seemed more worried and concerned about our problems than her own. She had a faith in God and she sometimes used to say that she is ready to meet Jesus now. I never heard her blame God for her problems. People might have said that it would have been kinder for her to have passed away in hospital. But somehow through my mum’s faith in God, I went from being agnostic to finding a greater faith myself.

I can only say that I will never meet a stronger person than my mum, and she was so kind and caring too. Faith is only faith when it is tested, sometimes it seems that God tests us in extreme ways. We all die, faith and trust in God helps us to look forwards to a greater good life after death.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you on the latter 😉

If it’s not too big a deal for you, I would love to know more about this Terri Schiavo and your learning(s) from your study of the case…
 
pumpkinmay4ever said:
If it’s not too big a deal for you, I would love to know more about this Terri Schiavo and your learning(s) from your study of the case…
Click to expand...
Terry Schiavo was a major news story in the U.S. years ago (she died just a few days before Pope St. John Paul II back in 2005).

You can read about her on Wikipedia. Her case brought a lot of attention to these end-of-life issues, and I will say it was a learning experience for me as well.

In the wake of the whole thing, the USCCB actually sent a dubia (i.e. a “question”) to the Vatican asking for clarification on the issue (though they speak in general, not of the Schiavo case specifically).

You can read the Vatican response and commentary on the response on the Vatican website.

Of course, this is speaking of nutrition and hydration (AKA food and water), not respirators/breathing machines. This was what was at issue in the Schiavo case. They claimed they were “letting her die” when in reality they were starving her to death. This is much different from taking someone who is near death off a respirator.

That’s why it’s important to define what you mean by “life support.” The definition of what you’re talking about when you say “life support” greatly changes the answer to the question.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Joe_5859!

I looked on the website you provided [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._con_cfaith_doc_20070801_risposte-usa_en.html] and found this excerpt to be very helpful:

"Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a “permanent vegetative state”, may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?

Response: No. 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."

Do you think that the Vatican’s response, had the initial question subbed “respirators/breathing machines” instead of “food and water”, would have been the same? After all, both food/water and respirators/breathing machines are artificial means and serve to preserve the patient’s life…

Let’s say in both cases, physicians judged with certainty the patient would not recover consciousness and was in a permanent vegetative state…
 
Joe_5859 said:
Of course, this is speaking of nutrition and hydration (AKA food and water), not respirators/breathing machines.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t the Vatican’s judgement had the case surrounded respirators/breathing machines, been the same? After all, you cannot survive without food and water JUST AS MUCH as you can’t survive without air/oxygen, right?
 
Joe_5859 said:
They claimed they were “letting her die” when in reality they were starving her to death. This is much different from taking someone who is near death off a respirator.
Click to expand...
Isn’t taking someone off a respirator/breathing machine akin to starving them of oxygen? If so, are then the attitudes towards starvation, whether towards air or food/water the same?
 
pumpkinmay4ever said:
Do you think that the Vatican’s response, had the initial question subbed “respirators/breathing machines” instead of “food and water”, would have been the same? After all, both food/water and respirators/breathing machines are artificial means and serve to preserve the patient’s life…

Let’s say in both cases, physicians judged with certainty the patient would not recover consciousness and was in a permanent vegetative state…
Click to expand...
No, the response would not have been the same. I’ll have to give some thought before articulating the difference between the two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top