Feeding tubes and vegetative state

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholictiger

Guest
simple question for you

is it possible for someone to be in a vegetative state and only be living on food and water.

I know that the church teaches that we must never prevent someone from receiving proper nutrition and hydration no matter their medical condition.

and if someone is in a vegetative state and just living off of food and water how do you address the issue of someone saying I don’t want him or her living in this state I want to remove the feeding tube and let this person die.

how would a pro life doctor address this issue and what would the churches stance be on this issue

again if it isn’t possible for someone to live in a vegetative state and only live on food and water then this discussion isn’t necessary.
 
Yes, people can be in a vegetative state and kept alive with a feeding tube and hydration. It is my understanding that the Church teaches we cannot and should not withdraw food and drink, but we can reject the use of heroic measures to keep someone alive such as CPR or artificial ventilation. I’m unsure about whether we can refuse antibiotics or other medication. I’m sure someone else will know.

God bless
 
catholictiger said:
simple question for you

is it possible for someone to be in a vegetative state and only be living on food and water.

I know that the church teaches that we must never prevent someone from receiving proper nutrition and hydration no matter their medical condition.

and if someone is in a vegetative state and just living off of food and water how do you address the issue of someone saying I don’t want him or her living in this state I want to remove the feeding tube and let this person die.

how would a pro life doctor address this issue and what would the churches stance be on this issue

again if it isn’t possible for someone to live in a vegetative state and only live on food and water then this discussion isn’t necessary.
Click to expand...
If a person is in a vegetative state and only living on feeding tubes and hydration, then it would be immoral to remove their source of nutrition. It is starving a human being to death and it is against Catholic teaching. It should be against the law, but sadly, secular society does not value all human life equally. Those in a vegetative state are deemed unworthy of God’s gift of life.

Yes, it is possible. But remember, “vegetative state” is really a misnomer. No one should be compared to a vegetable. Do you mean like patients who are in a coma? Yes, it is possible to be in a coma and only be surviving on hydration and feeding tubes. Terry Schiavo was a case that comes to mind, but she wasn’t in a coma. She was awake and aware of her surroundings, even though she couldn’t communicate in a normal fashion.

It is not for us to decide when a human being is worthy of life. Once we start making such decisions, who among us is safe? Then you can start arguing that those who only have 3 limbs shouldn’t be allowed to suffer, so we should be able to eliminate them. Or those who need glasses shouldn’t have to suffer from having to wear corrective lenses for their entire life, so we should eliminate them (without their permission, I might add). No one ever knows the capability of another to carry their cross in life. Terry Schiavo and those like her might be very happy to offer up their sufferings for the souls in purgatory. I think the one who is “suffering” is the family member who doesn’t want to be burdened with the responsibility of caring for them!
 
In a sense, the very definition of being in a vegetative state is only having the capacity to receive nutrition and hydration. The vegetative powers are just that. They are the powers to receive and assimilate nutrition and hydration by the body.

The issue is simple conceptually but difficult in application because of all the powerful emotions that death and dying bring up in us. Specifically, we see in our loved one our own future and it terrifies us. This is all very understandable, but we must always strive to do what is right – not necessarily what we think or feel is right.

Now, another aspect that should be considered is the issue of basing our decisions on foresight. This is often left out of the conversation. Just because someone is in a Vegetative state or even a perpetual Vegetative state does not mean that we know with certainty what will happen in that persons future. Just because something is likely does not mean that it is absolutely going to happen. It is unwise to make such grave decisions on outcomes that are simply foreseen.
 
Most nursing homes are not permitted to use feeding tubes or drips and so very sick aged patients are fed and given water till they can no longert swallow any more or simply spit the food out or choke in the food/water. Hospital beds are hard to get especially for long term arrangements for artificial feeding of dying patients…
 
roveau said:
Most nursing homes are not permitted to use feeding tubes or drips and so very sick aged patients are fed and given water till they can no longert swallow any more or simply spit the food out or choke in the food/water. Hospital beds are hard to get especially for long term arrangements for artificial feeding of dying patients…
Click to expand...
Yes, this is an issue. This is a reason why a person would be moved from a Nursing Facility to a Hospital or to a Hospice unit. Such a transfer should be done if needed. There is a problem, however, especially if the patient is on Medicaid because there is a chance that they could lose their bed at the Facility. So, if the patient no longer requires the advanced services of a hospital then it may be hard to get back into the same Facility or even into a new one. I knew about a case where the person being cared for in a Facility had to move to another state after they came out of hospital treatment because there were no more Medicaid beds in any of the Facilities in the state of residence.
 
roveau said:
Most nursing homes are not permitted to use feeding tubes or drips and so very sick aged patients are fed and given water till they can no longert swallow any more or simply spit the food out or choke in the food/water. Hospital beds are hard to get especially for long term arrangements for artificial feeding of dying patients…
Click to expand...
The reason why they do not insert feeding tubes in dying patients is because patients who have already transitioned over and are in the active stages of dying are not able to process food and water. Their kidneys and other organs start shutting down one by one. At that point, trying to force feedings and fluids is harmful and painful. They just fill up with fluid and bloat and have a more difficult time breathing. Feeding tubes should only be used when they benefit the patient and the patient can actually process the food being delivered.
 
Rence said:
The reason why they do not insert feeding tubes in dying patients is because patients who have already transitioned over and are in the active stages of dying are not able to process food and water. Their kidneys and other organs start shutting down one by one. At that point, trying to force feedings and fluids is harmful and painful. They just fill up with fluid and bloat and have a more difficult time breathing. Feeding tubes should only be used when they benefit the patient and the patient can actually process the food being delivered.
Click to expand...
Benefit is a poor word choice. It assumes that the person under care is going to “get better.” Rather, the only qualification that is necessary for nutrition and hydration (provided orally or otherwise) is that the body can process the nutrition and/or hydration. If the body of the patient cannot process the nutrition and/or hydration then it seems permissible to withhold one and/or the other. This is only because the nutrition and/or hydration, at this point, is not achieving their proper end.

Also, let’s not confuse a Nursing Home or a Long Term Care Facility with Hospice. Hospice is the specific care unit that deals with the final stages of dying. The other two might have to deal with the final stages of death but not necessarily. One can be in a Facility for years whereas Hospice Care is very short term.
 
mosher said:
Benefit is a poor word choice. It assumes that the person under care is going to “get better.” Rather, the only qualification that is necessary for nutrition and hydration (provided orally or otherwise) is that the body can process the nutrition and/or hydration. If the body of the patient cannot process the nutrition and/or hydration then it seems permissible to withhold one and/or the other. This is only because the nutrition and/or hydration, at this point, is not achieving their proper end.
Click to expand...
This is what I meant so say by “benefit”. “Benefit” where I work doesn’t imply that they will “get better”. Ativan and Morphine appear to help a dying person breath better, that’s its intended “benefit”, even for hospice patients, who we know are in the active stages of dying.
mosher said:
Also, let’s not confuse a Nursing Home or a Long Term Care Facility with Hospice. Hospice is the specific care unit that deals with the final stages of dying. The other two might have to deal with the final stages of death but not necessarily. One can be in a Facility for years whereas Hospice Care is very short term.
Click to expand...
Also consider that, unfortunately, not everyone dying in a nursing home or LTC facility will be turned over to Hospice. Many families have difficulty letting go, and even though the patient is dying, haven’t been transferred to hospice where they belong, and those patients suffer more because of it.
 
roveau said:
Most nursing homes are not permitted to use feeding tubes or drips and so very sick aged patients are fed and given water till they can no longert swallow any more or simply spit the food out or choke in the food/water. Hospital beds are hard to get especially for long term arrangements for artificial feeding of dying patients…
Click to expand...
Also, I’d like to point out, that I’m not sure where you’re located, but I work in the rehab unit of a nursing home, and when I walk through the nursing home only parts, they’re FULL of feeding tubes. Just saying…
 
Rence said:
This is what I meant so say by “benefit”. “Benefit” where I work doesn’t imply that they will “get better”. Ativan and Morphine appear to help a dying person breath better, that’s its intended “benefit”, even for hospice patients, who we know are in the active stages of dying.

Also consider that, unfortunately, not everyone dying in a nursing home or LTC facility will be turned over to Hospice. Many families have difficulty letting go, and even though the patient is dying, haven’t been transferred to hospice where they belong, and those patients suffer more because of it.
Click to expand...
Good to know. The term ‘benefit’ is so riddled with proportionist and consequentionalist language that it is hard to determine what a person means at first.

True also about the death of a patient in a NH or LTC facility. I would suggest, however, that part of the problem is that we have our loved ones die in institutionalized settings these days. I am beginning to believe that a person ought to die at home. I was present for the death of one of our priests here at the Priory. We called in a Hospice nurse to assit but our Brother was allowed to die with, us, his family present.
 
mosher said:
Good to know. The term ‘benefit’ is so riddled with proportionist and consequentionalist language that it is hard to determine what a person means at first.

True also about the death of a patient in a NH or LTC facility. I would suggest, however, that part of the problem is that we have our loved ones die in institutionalized settings these days. I am beginning to believe that a person ought to die at home. I was present for the death of one of our priests here at the Priory. We called in a Hospice nurse to assit but our Brother was allowed to die with, us, his family present.
Click to expand...
I kinda agree with you that it’s better for family to die at home. But you have to understand that some people don’t have the “stomach?” for taking care of really sick people, and they may not have the resources (time, money and enough people to help). In the past, we didn’t have a choice. Now we do. People are scared, for some reason, to have people die at home. Some families are too small to have enough hands to help out. And some insurances won’t cover the cost of in-house caregivers. Hospice can be done at home, or in facilities outside the home.

But I agree with you that it’s better (at least for my family) at home. When my grandfather was dying of lung cancer, we took care of him at home. He died at home. I can’t imagine hospitalizing a family member when I can take care of them myself. But I also feel very very very blessed that we have the resources to do so. That could change any time though. 😦
 
Rence said:
(snip…)
Also consider that, unfortunately, not everyone dying in a nursing home or LTC facility will be turned over to Hospice. Many families have difficulty letting go, and even though the patient is dying, haven’t been transferred to hospice where they belong, and those patients suffer more because of it.
Click to expand...
People living in aged care facilities are rarely sent to hospices in this country when they are in the terminal stages. It may be part of the ‘ageing in place’ policy which many facilities have adopted, that is, one can stay in the same room/rooms whether they progress from ‘low care’ to ‘dementia care’ and then to ‘high care’. Some large facilities have sections dedicated to hospice, but in most places the stay where they are familiar to die. It is also good for their friends and relatives who over the years have developed a relationship with the staff and residents of a facility, a support for them and the dying resident alike.

Of course, if there is hope of recovery, any resident suffering from an acute illness is sent straight to the local hospital and their facility rooms reserved for them for when they return. If need be they may be assisted by feeding tunes and drips there.
 
Rence said:
(snip…)
Also consider that, unfortunately, not everyone dying in a nursing home or LTC facility will be turned over to Hospice. Many families have difficulty letting go, and even though the patient is dying, haven’t been transferred to hospice where they belong, and those patients suffer more because of it.
Click to expand...
People living in aged care facilities are rarely sent to hospices in this country when they are in the terminal stages. It may be part of the ‘ageing in place’ policy which many facilities have adopted, that is, one can stay in the same room/rooms whether they progress from ‘low care’ to ‘dementia care’ and then to ‘high care’. Some large facilities have sections dedicated to hospice, but in most places the stay where they are familiar to die. It is also good for their friends and relatives who over the years have developed a relationship with the staff and residents of a facility, a support for them and the dying resident alike.

Of course, if there is hope of recovery, any resident suffering from an acute illness is sent straight to the local hospital and their facility rooms reserved for them for when they return. If need be they may be assisted by feeding tubes and drips there.
 
Rence said:
Also, I’d like to point out, that I’m not sure where you’re located, but I work in the rehab unit of a nursing home, and when I walk through the nursing home only parts, they’re FULL of feeding tubes. Just saying…
Click to expand...
Sorry, this is in Australia or more specifically, New South Wales, where by law these are not to be employed in aged care facilities.
 
Rence said:
I kinda agree with you that it’s better for family to die at home. But you have to understand that some people don’t have the “stomach?” for taking care of really sick people, and they may not have the resources (time, money and enough people to help). In the past, we didn’t have a choice. Now we do. People are scared, for some reason, to have people die at home. Some families are too small to have enough hands to help out. And some insurances won’t cover the cost of in-house caregivers. Hospice can be done at home, or in facilities outside the home.

But I agree with you that it’s better (at least for my family) at home. When my grandfather was dying of lung cancer, we took care of him at home. He died at home. I can’t imagine hospitalizing a family member when I can take care of them myself. But I also feel very very very blessed that we have the resources to do so. That could change any time though. 😦
Click to expand...
I’m always in favor of taking the best from both worlds. The problem with small families, etc., has become a point of reflection for me. I’m starting to believe that the beginnings of life and the end of life are more intimately connected that what I have previously thought. It seems that as ones side breaks down then so too the other side; and, both are tied into the success or failure of the human family. I don’t know how to fully articulate what I mean yet but I’m working on it.

What made me think about this was your comment about families being smaller so there were less resources to care for the aged. This seems to be a problem directly related to the contraceptive mentality of our age. Also, the fear of caring for the dying and the sick is also tied in with notions of selfishness and fear which are the key vices of the contraceptive mentality (which is the root of the abortion culture). There is much more that is coming together in my mind but, perhaps, you see where I am going with this.
roveau said:
Sorry, this is in Australia or more specifically, New South Wales, where by law these are not to be employed in aged care facilities.
Click to expand...
That is too bad. Sometimes it is the little laws and regulations which go unnoticed that are more anti-life than the large ones.
 
catholictiger said:
simple question for you

is it possible for someone to be in a vegetative state and only be living on food and water.

I know that the church teaches that we must never prevent someone from receiving proper nutrition and hydration no matter their medical condition.

and if someone is in a vegetative state and just living off of food and water how do you address the issue of someone saying I don’t want him or her living in this state I want to remove the feeding tube and let this person die.

how would a pro life doctor address this issue and what would the churches stance be on this issue

again if it isn’t possible for someone to live in a vegetative state and only live on food and water then this discussion isn’t necessary.
Click to expand...
Fran65 said:
Yes, people can be in a vegetative state and kept alive with a feeding tube and hydration. It is my understanding that the Church teaches we cannot and should not withdraw food and drink, but we can reject the use of heroic measures to keep someone alive such as CPR or artificial ventilation. I’m unsure about whether we can refuse antibiotics or other medication. I’m sure someone else will know.

God bless
Click to expand...
“other medication” is a broad catagory. Add to that the possibility that for an otherwise healthy individual, something like a superficial staph infection that an antibiotic would cure doesn’t necessarily present the same degree of risk to a bedridden comatose individual i.e. the same condition might be life threatening for the person in the vegetative state if they do not receive antbiotics, while the upright, mobile person might not suffer as badly with the same, easily treatable infection.

Other meds, say for congestive heart failure, are more difficult to assess. As a very, very broad statement, if the meds can easily control or cure the condition as with anyone else, they should probably be given to a person in a vegetative state.
 
mosher said:
What made me think about this was your comment about families being smaller so there were less resources to care for the aged. This seems to be a problem directly related to the contraceptive mentality of our age. Also, the fear of caring for the dying and the sick is also tied in with notions of selfishness and fear which are the key vices of the contraceptive mentality (which is the root of the abortion culture). There is much more that is coming together in my mind but, perhaps, you see where I am going with this.
Click to expand...
First of all, I just want to say that times and the economy are different now, and it makes it more difficult for people to support more than 1-3 children. We can argue about it until our fingers fall off from typing (not really addressing you, and not really wanting to debate it 😉 ) but the fact is, the ability of a family to financially, emotionally and physically care for multiple children varies from family to family and region to region. And the degree of “sacrificing” will vary from family to family. I’ve seen people list private school as a priority for their children, or the ability to afford music lessons, or dance lessons and others claiming that this shouldn’t be a priority at all. On the flipside I’ve seen people claim that they don’t care if they live in a one-room house as long as they can continue having children, and if that’s what it takes to “afford” more kids, that’s how they’ll live. But everyone has their priorities and their “standards”.

But the fact is, providing a comfortable home for one’s family is part of responsible parenthood.

There were many reasons for having large families in the “old days”, among them was the fact that children in the bibilical times had the odds against them when it came to living past early childhood. Also, the more children they had the more chores could be divided up and more food could be brought to the table. It was more of a burden then to have one or two, than to have ten. Today, some families find it difficult to support just one. That said, from what I see, only the very traditional and conservative Catholics and Jews have very big families, with few exceptions. Most families I know, despite creed, have one to three kids. I don’t even know anyone with more than that.

However, I have seen people in nursing homes with families that I find could be more than capable of taking care of their elderly family member among them. So (especially with today’s seemingly lack of morals and lack of integrity, and “me” attitude) there is no guarantee that just because you have a lot of children, that they will step up and take care of you when you’re older or sick, or both. My mom’s ex-husband has 7 children from a previous marriage, half of whom are in the medical field, and together he has 25 grandchildren, the oldest one reaching his 30s…none will take care of him and he died in a nursing home.

My mom only had my brother and me. I am happily single and I am my mom’s sole and primary caregiver. And I can’t even express in writing or in words how grateful and how blessed I am to be able to care for mom at home. It would devestate me to have to put her in a nursing home. I pray that day never comes. It would kill me and I’m sure it would kill her. When I go to work, I have a girl come in to watch mom. Mom pays the caregiver out of pocket from her SS check, and it’s quite expensive. My brother does not help at all whatsoever. So it’s just me and mom. Yes we have a small family, but my mom has two children.

So again, there’s no guarantee that you will be cared for just because you have a large family…
 
Rence said:
So again, there’s no guarantee that you will be cared for just because you have a large family…
Click to expand...
You are, of course, correct. But, it could be reasonably said that it makes the possibility for care greater. As the old saying goes, “many hands make light work.”

But, yes, there is no guarantee in this life. What I mean by using the term “Contraceptive Mentality” is not simply the inclination to deliberately lessen the size of ones family through the use of contraceptives (or forms of morally licit birth control used illicitly). What I am pointing to is the underlying cause of such a mentality. It seems that those are the underlying vices that must be contended with when it comes to end of life concerns. But, again, to completely expose my thought on this point would take too long. I need to write a book or something …:hmmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top