Hard Choice for a Comfortable Death: Sedation

[2Rollin_Stoned]

Hard Choice for a Comfortable Death: Sedation

This is probably an issue that everyone will encounter at some point. What is the church’s teaching on it?

 

[Schluns]

Copied from the Catecism. Pay particular attention to 2278 & 2279.
Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 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.

2278 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.

2279 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.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

New York Times is a sick, twisted group of communist press reporters.

This is terrible!

I would not trust this, especially under the state run health care system, a.k.a. Obamacare. It has nothing to do with health. Death is death, and although pain is allowed to be alleviated, putting someone in the state of coma permanently is inherently evil.

Their time of final loss of consciousness is decided for them and they may have no time to repent.

This is Euthanasia, pure and simple.

The Catholic Catechism says the following:

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 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.

**2299 The dying should be given attention and care to help them live their last moments in dignity and peace. They will be helped by the prayer of their relatives, who must see to it that the sick receive at the proper time the sacraments that prepare them to meet the living God. **

This practice has nothing to do with love of the person who is dying. It is one thing to give someone painkiller for pain and sedatives for people with dimentia who will harm themselves otherwise, but sedatives in order to permanently keep a person in a state of coma is evil.

 

[Newbie2]

Remember, Obamacare = Give Grandma a “Pain Pill”. His words.

Actually, “oversedation” is way more common than we’d like to believe. Doctors and hospitals don’t advertise it, but there’s a lot of “Now don’t let Grandma take any more than two of these pain pills at a time. It could be fatal. She would slip into unconsciousness and then her breathing and heart would stop once she’s asleep” Wink, wink, nod, nod.

This is not to impune a majority of doctors or even say that their intent is to have the family kill Grandma, but just be aware it is more common that we’d like to believe.

The Church position is that if accidental death occurs when trying to make a dying person comfortable or if by sedating or attempting to alleviate their pain it hastens their death unintentionally, there is no moral objection.

The ideal would be to completely alleviate their discomfort yet allow for a natural death. Acheiving this balance is sometimes very difficult, and every patient is different.

Fortunately, in my line of work (Veterinary), we are morally allowed to actively and humanely euthanize our patients when the time comes. Humans, however, posess a human dignity and nature that animals lack; euthanasia in humans is, pardon the pun, an entirely different animal.

 

[ckliff]

Our family has faced these issues as recently as yesterday. Fortunately, I have no qualms in conscience over how our situation was handled. Indeed, I don’t know how it could have been more “Catholic” morally, unless all the relatives around the bedside were of the same Faith.

I can say that those final hours were very difficult for everyone. I am thankful I had the rosary to rely on. My suggestion is to talk to your family before you face this and to pray very hard to make an informed, moral choice.

Peace. -Cliff

 

[mark_a]

"The takers get the honey. Givers sing the blues.’
Robin Trower

That live album is in my presonal top five.

 

[StCsDavid]

It seems that under this scenario, the doctors are withholding nutrition and hydration. So the person is quietly starving to death. I could be wrong. Perhaps they are giving hydration and nutrition via an IV. It’s a difficult choice, but I think Catholic teaching is pretty clear on the matter as others have pointed out.

 

[RobNY]

When the conference was over, Mrs. Oltzik still seemed to be ruminating. As many relatives do, she had hesitated over whether her husband should be given nutrition and water through tubes, now that he could not feed himself.

Withholding ordinary means (food and water) is always wrong.

-Rob

 

[manualman]

Withholding ordinary means (food and water) is always wrong.

-Rob

Be careful with absolute statements like this. There ARE circumstances when death is imminent and organ systems are beginning to shut down when it MORE appropriate to remove food and hydration than to keep it going. The point here is not to cause death by said removal, but to alleviate suffering that would have been incurred during the dying process already under way.

The difference is crucial to understand BEFORE you are in a hospital under severe emotional strain. The major principle to understand here is that euthanasia is NOT mercy. Alleviate their pain and suffering as best you can, even if it slightly hastens death or adds to risk of death. But do not take actions INTENDED to cause death with “alleviating suffering” as the rationalization underneath.

 

[RobNY]

Be careful with absolute statements like this. There ARE circumstances when death is imminent and organ systems are beginning to shut down when it MORE appropriate to remove food and hydration than to keep it going. The point here is not to cause death by said removal, but to alleviate suffering that would have been incurred during the dying process already under way.

The difference is crucial to understand BEFORE you are in a hospital under severe emotional strain. The major principle to understand here is that euthanasia is NOT mercy. Alleviate their pain and suffering as best you can, even if it slightly hastens death or adds to risk of death. But do not take actions INTENDED to cause death with “alleviating suffering” as the rationalization underneath.

Perhaps I should be a little bit more circumspect: but we need to understand that death by dehydration and starvation is evil. I think we agree here.

-Rob

 

[Schluns]

Withholding ordinary means (food and water) is always wrong.

-Rob

There are end of life instances where giving food and water would cause more pain and suffering than if withheld. Such as in the case of gastrointestinal shutdown and fluid overload.

However, in a case such as Terry Schivo’s, or in the case of locked in syndrome, withholding nutrition, is evil.

 

[RobNY]

There are end of life instances where giving food and water would cause more pain and suffering than if withheld. Such as in the case of gastrointestinal shutdown and fluid overload.

However, in a case such as Terry Schivo’s, or in the case of locked in syndrome, withholding nutrition, is evil.

It would seem that in a case where the body itself is rejecting nutrition, that to insist on pushing food into the body would only result in poorer nutrition. I.e., one does not eat foods when one has a stomach bug, because if one does, and throws up, one is worse off than before. Is this the sort of reasoning?

 

[Schluns]

It would seem that in a case where the body itself is rejecting nutrition, that to insist on pushing food into the body would only result in poorer nutrition. I.e., one does not eat foods when one has a stomach bug, because if one does, and throws up, one is worse off than before. Is this the sort of reasoning?

Similar, when a person has reached the end of life due to a multi-organ failure, so similar to a stomach bug, the stomach does not digest properly, causing the person GI discomfort, possible vomiting and possible aspiration of food/fluids into the lungs. Then if they have low albumin/protein the body will 3rd space fluids, i.e. shunt fluids into fatty tissues causing edema/swelling, causing fluid overload, during this process fluid will enter the lungs making it difficult to breath.

In this situation, hospice doctors tend to recommend to the family that IV fluids be turned off until the person passes away; which in my experience is not very long. This is truly an end of life issue.