Faith In A Hospital

  • Thread starter Thread starter pumpkinmay4ever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
After all, both food/water and respirators/breathing machines are artificial means and serve to preserve the patient’s life…
You can have no spontaneous breathing, no spontaneous heartbeat, little to no organ function, no brain stem activity - and we can keep you “alive” via drugs called pressors that regulate heart rate and contraction and with a ventilator forcing oxygen into the lungs.

That’s not preserving life if essentially the patient is dead, which was what happened in my father’s case.

A permanent vegetative state is not brain death. A permanent vegetative state means the person has brain activity, “appears” responsive (they may or may not be), and the body continues to function unaided.
 
Last edited:
So to clarify our findings; when determining whether or not to “pull the plug”, the two most important things to do are to confer with a doctor on whether or not the patient will actually recover with the artificial help, and of course to also always pray for a miracle?
 
And to what extent do we pray and hope for a miracle? And to what extent should we respect the dignity of the human life? (Feel free to use examples…)
 
My dad had his directive which freed us, the family, from “making the decision.” He even wrote us a note that he wanted to go live with Jesus - isn’t that beautiful?
 
If someone is in a respirator, then something happened which would probably have killed them were it not for the respirator. If they need to remain on the respirator to stay alive, then if they are taken off the respirator, they will die from whatever put them on the respirator.

Were a person to survive a potentially fatal problem, and be left unable to eat or drink, if they were then to die, they would be dying, not of the orginal fatal problem, but of starvation or dehydration.

Now, if someone were to have an accident in a country where there was so little medical care available, and was unable to eat or drink, then those caring for the person would not incur sin by not feeding or giving water to the person. However, in the US, this is unlikely to be the situation.
 
How are you defining life support. The Church is clear on how to deal with end of life issues.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides some general teaching in this area:
Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged. (CCC 2276-2279).
 
No, it is perfectly moral to say “no” to any extraordinary means. It is also moral to want extraordinary means. Have you read the NCBC guide that has been posted many times?
 
No, it is perfectly moral to say “no” to any extraordinary means. It is also moral to want extraordinary means.
I would imagine having extraordinary means to be kept alive is expensive. But extraordinary means are not available to twenty thousand children who die every day from grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation.
 
Exactly. If someone has the means, the desire and the opportunity, they may choose extraordinary means. It is not immoral for them to do so. My husband has excellent medical coverage and he wants all of the extraordinary means. That is his decision

On the other hand, we may morally say “NO” to extraordinary measures. I want no extraordinary measures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top