Honoring Questionable Parental Wishes In Old Age

[bilop]

These issues are about control. As we age, we become less able and the horror is we will end up suffering and have no way to stop it.

Your parents may have chosen your brother because he is the one who understands it is their choice to make, not a church’s choice. It’s not a moral dilemma, it’s obeying the last wishes of the people who are living in the bodies.

Severe unrelieved suffering is almost never necessary. It is almost always a failure of medicine.

It is perfectly licit to give suffering and terminal patients high doses of pain killers, even potentially life threatening doses, as long as the goal is not to kill them. Saying “we’ll give them enough morphine to stop the pain, but there’s a 20% chance it will kill them” is allowed and moral.

I would not obey the last wishes of my parents if they were immoral. I would not abet assisted suicide, and would fight like hell against any family member who tried to. Any Dr. approaching my family member with a syringe full of poison may well be committing suicide himself.

God Bless

 

[Actaeon]

What are your reactions to something like this?

Not surprising. Materialist heresies have convinced everyone that the purpose of life is comfort and enjoyment, and that without those life has no meaning. They have deprived the afflicted of their dignity in doing so.

It’s unfortunate, but not necessarily surprising, that your parents have bought into the lie.

Have you ever been put in a similar situation.

Maybe, but if so I’m not sure. My parents and family all know that I do not support Euthenasia for ANY reason… so they may have made other health arrangements, but have not told me so if they have.

What does the church teach about preserving human life in old age?

One must never “play God” and take a life without just cause, not even if that life is their own. However, at the same time the church does not require that “extraordinary means” be taken to preserve life either.

Does it ever depend on the wishes of the individual?

Insofar as what means are to be taken to save the life of the person, or to revive them after injury or malady, it absolutely depends on the wishes of the person (in cooperation with a priest who serves as counsel).

As regards euthenasia or assisted suicide, this is objectively grave matter. It is ALWAYS disordered no matter what the circumstances or the wishes of the individual.

What moral ground do I have to stand on if my parents’ wishes are against church teaching (they are not Catholics, though my step-father was a Catholic for years but left the Church after his divorce of his first wife and marriage to my Mom)?

The question is one of the dignity of human persons. The decision of your parents that they would commit suicide if they got cancer hinges on one fatally flawed world view: that the value of the human person is reduced and/or destroyed by suffering or affliction.

That is wrong. Even cancer patients are beloved of God and have much to offer the world and their families. The value of a human being rests in their relationship with God and with others, not in whether or not they have a growth somewhere in their body. In this paradigm, then, we quickly see that it is selfish to deny their worth and their commission to the world simply because they don’t want to deal with suffering or affliction.

Ultimately, however, their position is untenable. If a life that contains suffering or affliction is so unworthy of being lived, then we should ALL off ourselves right now and be done with it. ALL people suffer and are afflicted at various points. It’s an integral part of human life. But we can’t deny the dignity of all people and ask all to kill themselves, it’s LUDICROUS. The cancer patient, the aids victim, the orphan, the widower… these people are all loved by God and have an ordination to do good in the world.

How should I handle this?

Ask your parents if they would really take a look at a cancer diagnoses and determine that they should take the limited time they have left with you and your brother and throw it away in favor of suicide. Tell them you’re dreadfully hurt by the selfishness of thinking that their desire for total comfort overrides their familial relationship with you to the point that they’d rather die than spend time with you and your brother.

You can also point out that you would understand if they would immediately opt for hospice and not FIGHT to prolongue their lives unnaturally, but that taking their lives is an entirely different, disordered, and selfish matter.

 

[EasterJoy]

I haven’t read the other responses but I wanted to tell you, first, I don’t see that you are in any situation. Your parents are talking about what they have decided, as of now, and your brother has the responsibility. The prayer is: God’s will be done.

Second, I am in my early 60s, my daughter is 40 and I have a DNR in my purse. I’ve made it very clear I am taking the first exit. My daughter has made it very clear she would want for herself every possible life-saving procedure. We are each other’s medical proxies because we respect one another’s wishes. These issues are about control. As we age, we become less able and the horror is we will end up suffering and have no way to stop it.

Your parents may have chosen your brother because he is the one who understands it is their choice to make, not a church’s choice. It’s not a moral dilemma, it’s obeying the last wishes of the people who are living in the bodies.

As for the suicide threat: everyone says this. Or almost everyone: if they get cancer they’ll commit suicide. My mother said it. But they almost never do. Because it’s not an event, it’s a process, because spouses don’t pass simultaneously, because people have hope. Because they can live long enough to see the last episode of their favorite TV show.

Accept what they are saying and let it go. Unless one of them is very ill right now, in the 15-20 years that is likely to elapse before any of this matters, all kinds of things can change.

In one sense you are right: The parents have free will, and this decision is theirs for “praise or blame, merit or reproach”, as the Catechism puts it, and only God will judge who is worthy of what. The OP does not have the moral authority or the moral necessity to physically prevent other people from violating moral law, even his or her parents. Yes, this does sound like a situation where the OP can only pray that God will intervene so that the parents will not act as they propose, nor be tempted to put their proposals into practice by being put in that situation. “Lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from evil”, yes.

In another sense, however, you are creating a false impression: That is, that this is never a moral dilemma. A Catholic may never feel free to reject the Church’s teaching that suicide is always an unacceptable choice, even if the culpability of the person who chooses it may differ from one to the next. If that is the impression you meant to give, you are entirely wrong. You are also mistaken in the impression that the duty to respect the free will of others removes the absolute prohibition against cooperating with a person who desires to commit suicide. It does not. A Catholic ought to put the wishes of the person they represent before their own opinions, yes, but they do not morally have the option of violating moral law in an attempt to honor the wishes outlined to them before the person they represent became incapacitated. The moral person must explain this before accepting such authority. IOW, respect for the free will of the other means that we don’t lie in order to keep others from making bad choices.

The Catechism explains the nuances of how these two things work together:

*Suicide

**2280 **Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.
It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.
We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls.
We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.
It is not ours to dispose of.

**2281 **Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life.
It is gravely contrary to the just love of self.
It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations.
Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

**2282 **If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

**2283 *We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

If the OP were asked by his or her parents to cooperate with their wish to be treated in direct opposition with Church teaching, the OP would have to explain that this would be impossible, and give the parents the choice of choosing to consent to medical decisions that are in keeping with Church teaching or else, sadly, to have to go against the advocacy of the OP for a moral choice and choose a different agent to do what they are determined to do. The OP could not lie and say that he or she would take the course of action that the parents propose while secretly planning to do just the opposite. That lie would be a violation against the parents.

Having said that…there is nothing inherently immoral about making a decision that a particular patient is a bad candidate for some resuscitation effort or other. The finer points of that are a bit much to get into, but suffice it to say that DNRs are not “wrong” and that I’m in no position to judge the paper in your purse. Sometimes, such directives are entirely moral, and there is often a lot of latitude to choose without straying into immoral choices.

 

[Cat]

Sixty isn’t old!

I have worked in a hospital for over 30 years, and it’s interesting how health care workers have different perspectives of what “old age” is.

I and my work associates do not consider the 60s or even the 70s old. When we see that someone has a serious infection (I work in microbiology) and they are in their 60s and 70s, inevitably the first thing we say is, “They’re so young.”

We think of the 80s as “the beginning of getting old.”

Once someone is in their 90s, we say, “Yep, they’re gettin’ old. They’ve lived a long life.”

But the 60s–heavens, that’s the beginning of the second life!

I would like to agree with those who say to be careful about decisions made now for “your old age.” When I was a twenty-something, 55 seemed over the hill. Now that I am fifty-five, I can tell you that I often have trouble CLIMBING that hill (due to osteoarthritic knees), but I am definitely not “over the hill.”

Also, I too have a “horror story” of someone who had an “End of Life/No Heroic Measures” agreement who died needlessly. The young woman was only 57, and she had cancer, but it was in remission and she was doing well. Then she caught a bladder infection which advanced to sepsis. Antibiotics would have taken care of the infection, but part of her “agreement” was “no antibiotics.” She was unable to speak up for herself (due to pain meds), and so she died, at age 57. Everyone in our department was horrified, and we all decided that we will definitely not allow ourselves to be railroaded into dying too soon.

I think a LOT of older people don’t make these decisions out of any desire to be “pain-free”–many of them have endured terrible pain during their lives. I think a lot of older people make a decision to allow their life to be ended because they are afraid of being a burden to their families and to society. Many of us who are “younger” have grown up in this “entitlement mentality culture,” in which many many able-bodied people do no useful work but rely entirely on the state and charitable organizations for their basic needs and for their recreation. But many older ones grew up during a time when people were responsible for their own support and did not rely on others for help. It is difficult for these people to see themselves accepting any kind of prolonged help from others or from the government (Medicare).

I question why they should feel like burdens and allow their lives to be ended while so many able-bodied young people aren’t concerned in the least that they are “burdens” to others who provide all their needs and many of their wants.

Many elderly people have EARNED the right to be taken care of and provided for during their illnesses–they shouldn’t feel like “burdens.” But that’s JMO.

 

[maryjk]

Sixty isn’t old!

I have worked in a hospital for over 30 years, and it’s interesting how health care workers have different perspectives of what “old age” is.

I and my work associates do not consider the 60s or even the 70s old. When we see that someone has a serious infection (I work in microbiology) and they are in their 60s and 70s, inevitably the first thing we say is, “They’re so young.”

We think of the 80s as “the beginning of getting old.”

Once someone is in their 90s, we say, “Yep, they’re gettin’ old. They’ve lived a long life.”

But the 60s–heavens, that’s the beginning of the second life!

It may be nice to think of 60 as only the beginning of a second life, but it isn’t. Sorry people don’t live to be 120.

If someone is in their 80’s or 90’s, they aren’t getting old. They ARE old.

Yes, we want people to live a nice long healthy life, but we need to let our families know our wishes. Don’t wait until you are in your 80’s to start talking about it. By then, chances are, it is too late.

I’m glad my parents didn’t wait. That way I knew what to tell the doctors when they got so very sick.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

Sixty isn’t old!

I have worked in a hospital for over 30 years, and it’s interesting how health care workers have different perspectives of what “old age” is.

I and my work associates do not consider the 60s or even the 70s old. When we see that someone has a serious infection (I work in microbiology) and they are in their 60s and 70s, inevitably the first thing we say is, “They’re so young.”

We think of the 80s as “the beginning of getting old.”

Once someone is in their 90s, we say, “Yep, they’re gettin’ old. They’ve lived a long life.”

But the 60s–heavens, that’s the beginning of the second life.

It may be nice to think of 60 as only the beginning of a second life, but it isn’t. Sorry people don’t live to be 120.

If someone is in their 80’s or 90’s, they aren’t getting old. They ARE old.

Yes, we want people to live a nice long healthy life, but we need to let our families know our wishes. Don’t wait until you are in your 80’s to start talking about it. By then, chances are, it is too late.

I’m glad my parents didn’t wait. That way I knew what to tell the doctors when they got so very sick.

I think you’re both right - 60 isn’t old, most 60 years olds have a great deal of living left to do and they’re certainly not too old to enjoy it either. 60 really can be the start of a new and exciting phase of life. I agree with Cat that health care workers think of a 60 year old as still quite young. I’m in my early fifties and I don’t consider myself old. My boss is in her sixties and I wouldn’t in a million years describe her as ‘getting old’.

On the other hand it’s probably not a good idea to wait until you’re 80 to start thinking about health care wishes. It’s not a good idea to wait until you’re 60 or even 50 either - things happen at every stage of life, it’s just that generally the older you get the more likely it is that you won’t ‘bounce back’ from illnesses and injury like you did when you were younger, and certain illnesses and conditions become more common as you age.

 

[Veronica97]

Thanks for the replies. There is some good advice in there. Perhaps I should clarify a few things:

It sounds like my parents have already designated my brother as the one to carry out their deathbed decisions. Presumably they have done this because they think he shares their views more closely.

On the one hand, I realize that they have the right to do this. On the other, I feel passed over as the eldest son who traditionally would be the one designated to care for the family. Apparently they feel that, because of my belief in God, I am not going to faithfully carry out their wishes.

The odd thing about this conversation was that it almost seemed like they wanted me to contradict them, to persuade them the other way. In fact, they told me where the document is located and went out of their way to say that the safe is unlocked.

I’m not one for drama–but I do want to know what the Church teaches on these issues so that I can be praying for everyone involved, whatever their decisions are.

It was this weekend that I realized I am the priest for my family. I am the one to pray for them and watch over them spiritually.

Dan

I have been in this exact same circumstance. My parents designated me as their Health Care Power of Attorney in their Wills (if there is no surviving spouse). And their wishes were to receive no artificial hydration or nutrition if death is to occur within a short time. I recently found out that I cannot abide by those wishes. Pope John Paul II declared that to withdraw hydration and nutrition is euthanasia and would make the person die of starvation or dehydration instead of from whatever condition they were dying from originally. So I told my mom I cannot be their Health Care power of attorney under these circumstances. I was hoping they would change their minds about artificial hydration and nutrition but they instead have told me they will make my brother Health Care power of attorney (apparently he is okay with this and is not Catholic nor even baptized to my knowledge). My step-father-in-law’s will also makes me alternate health care power of attorney (should MIL die first), and I am in the process of trying to get them to take my name off the Will (although I will have to keep reminding them constantly until they do it.). Bottom line: we cannot change the views or wishes of others, but we can choose to talk to them about our beliefs and tell them why we cannot participate. Then just pray. Prayer can move mountains. We must be very careful of “false compassion”. Of course we do not want to see others suffer–but we should be mindful that God may be using their suffering to bring them closer to Him in their final days/hours and it may be a form of purgatory on earth so that their time in purgatory may be shortened. It’s not a “wordly” view but a Catholic view that we must keep in mind.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

I have been in this exact same circumstance. My parents designated me as their Health Care Power of Attorney in their Wills (if there is no surviving spouse). And their wishes were to receive no artificial hydration or nutrition if death is to occur within a short time. I recently found out that I cannot abide by those wishes. Pope John Paul II declared that to withdraw hydration and nutrition is euthanasia and would make the person die of starvation or dehydration instead of from whatever condition they were dying from originally. So I told my mom I cannot be their Health Care power of attorney under these circumstances. I was hoping they would change their minds about artificial hydration and nutrition but they instead have told me they will make my brother Health Care power of attorney (apparently he is okay with this and is not Catholic nor even baptized to my knowledge). My step-father-in-law’s will also makes me alternate health care power of attorney (should MIL die first), and I am in the process of trying to get them to take my name off the Will (although I will have to keep reminding them constantly until they do it.). Bottom line: we cannot change the views or wishes of others, but we can choose to talk to them about our beliefs and tell them why we cannot participate. Then just pray. Prayer can move mountains. We must be very careful of “false compassion”. Of course we do not want to see others suffer–but we should be mindful that God may be using their suffering to bring them closer to Him in their final days/hours and it may be a form of purgatory on earth so that their time in purgatory may be shortened. It’s not a “wordly” view but a Catholic view that we must keep in mind.

I’m not so sure that the bolded part is correct. I guess it depends what a ‘short time’ means but artificial food and hydration is not necessarily required when a person is dying. There comes a time when the body starts to ‘shut down’ and artificial feeding or even an IV just makes the process more painful and distressing; the body can no longer tolerate or absorb what is given through the feeding tube and it just sits in the stomach, undigested. You can imagine what happens if feeding is continued in this situation. A similar thing can happen with IV fluids, the fluid starts to build up in the tissues rather than being absorbed as it should.

There is a very big difference between starving someone to death and allowing nature to take its course and in many many situations it is moral and ‘normal’ for a person to die without ever having had a feeding tube inserted.

 

[Veronica97]

I’m not so sure that the bolded part is correct. I guess it depends what a ‘short time’ means but artificial food and hydration is not necessarily required when a person is dying. There comes a time when the body starts to ‘shut down’ and artificial feeding or even an IV just makes the process more painful and distressing; the body can no longer tolerate or absorb what is given through the feeding tube and it just sits in the stomach, undigested. You can imagine what happens if feeding is continued in this situation. A similar thing can happen with IV fluids, the fluid starts to build up in the tissues rather than being absorbed as it should.

There is a very big difference between starving someone to death and allowing nature to take its course and in many many situations it is moral and ‘normal’ for a person to die without ever having had a feeding tube inserted.

This is what PJPII issued in a statment during his last months of life. (Not sure if these are his exact words but I’m quoting from “Catholicism for Dummies”). “…the terminally ill must always be given at least hydration (water), nutrition (food), and normal care (clean clothes, bathing, shelter, and so on). All ordinary means to sustain life and treat disease or injury are to be done, while extraordinary means can be withheld. The only exception is a person whose digestive system has shut down. Then the use of a feeding tube would be redundant because the stomach is no longer working and therefore unable to absorb any food or drink. Otherwise, ordinary procedures, like performing an emergency tracheotomy or inserting a feeding tube into the stomach, ought to be done to any and all persons, whether terminally ill or not. If these are not done and the person starves to death or dies of asphyxiation, it is considered euthanasia. Those directly involved may be guilty of the sin of murder or negligent homicide, even if the state never presses charges against them.”

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

This is what PJPII issued in a statment during his last months of life. (Not sure if these are his exact words but I’m quoting from “Catholicism for Dummies”). “…the terminally ill must always be given at least hydration (water), nutrition (food), and normal care (clean clothes, bathing, shelter, and so on). All ordinary means to sustain life and treat disease or injury are to be done, while extraordinary means can be withheld. The only exception is a person whose digestive system has shut down. Then the use of a feeding tube would be redundant because the stomach is no longer working and therefore unable to absorb any food or drink. Otherwise, ordinary procedures, like performing an emergency tracheotomy or inserting a feeding tube into the stomach, ought to be done to any and all persons, whether terminally ill or not. If these are not done and the person starves to death or dies of asphyxiation, it is considered euthanasia. Those directly involved may be guilty of the sin of murder or negligent homicide, even if the state never presses charges against them.”

Yes I agree with that - what you’ve posted mentions the situation where the stomach cannot absorb food or water and that is something that frequently happens when a person is dying - it’s not rare or unusual and it’s actually part of the dying process, that’s really all I was saying.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I would not obey the last wishes of my parents if they were immoral.

Which is why, if I were your parent, I would never make you my medical proxy. In life, you do not run about after your parents stopping them from immoral acts. The point of the proxy is that the decisions have already been made by the person. It’s their choice. The purpose of the medical proxy is to affirm that these are, indeed, the wishes of the person who is not able to speak for themselves, not make decisions for them or change decisions made by them. Your intention to ignore their wishes eliminates you as a candidate.

 

[Julia_Mae]

In another sense, however, you are creating a false impression: That is, that this is never a moral dilemma…

For the OP there is not, at some point, he’ll be making these decisions for himself. Then he will know if he has a dilemma.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Also, I too have a “horror story” of someone who had an “End of Life/No Heroic Measures” agreement who died needlessly. The young woman was only 57, and she had cancer, but it was in remission and she was doing well. Then she caught a bladder infection which advanced to sepsis. Antibiotics would have taken care of the infection, but part of her “agreement” was “no antibiotics.” She was unable to speak up for herself (due to pain meds), and so she died, at age 57. Everyone in our department was horrified, and we all decided that we will definitely not allow ourselves to be railroaded into dying too soon…

But the issue isn’t whether you were horrified, but whether she was. Death is no tragedy and no one dies “too soon.” God took her when it pleased Him to. She’s fine.

 

[InJesusItrust]

This idea of life not worth living unless it is dignified is not humble. Maybe the cross to bear is a total loss of dignity.

Suffering does not make a person’s life less valuable, because human life is inherently valuable.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Suffering does not make a person’s life less valuable, .

No one said it did. I intend to avoid every bit of suffering I possibly can.

 

[Cat]

But the issue isn’t whether you were horrified, but whether she was. Death is no tragedy and no one dies “too soon.” God took her when it pleased Him to. She’s fine.

Death is not a friend to be welcomed and embraced. Death is our enemy. I Corinthians 15: 26 is just one Scripture that makes this clear.

Yes, yes, it is a tragedy when a 57-year-old woman dies because of a human error. I am well aware that the Lord God will not allow anyone to be taken outside of His Will. But I am also aware that our free will often causes us to make choices that lead to an early death.

I knew my friend, and she definitely did NOT want to die. She had children and grandchildren, and wanted to be here for them. Who knows why she made such a foolish end-of-life agreement. It’s very possible that she wasn’t fully aware of what the agreement actually meant.

Have you ever heard of POLST? Here is a link to a very disturbing article by two physicians: cathmed.org/assets/files/Franklin,%20Brugger,%20POLST,%20E&M,%20Jan.%202012.pdf

 

[EasterJoy]

For the OP there is not, at some point, he’ll be making these decisions for himself. Then he will know if he has a dilemma.

Oh, I see what you mean. I only meant that there is a dilemma for the family, because when the time comes, the practical reality is that they have the decisions. It is almost always a matter of judging what the person really wanted, rather than what they imagined they wanted, and the person with medical power of attorney very often wants to consult with family members who have not been given legal power. (We know this because of how often those who can talk totally change their minds when the time comes. There is always going to be a judgement call.)

I think it is very good for Catholics to consult with their pastors about this before the time comes. The truth is that the temptation for families, religious or not, is often to do far more than morality requires or than the patient ever wanted, because guilt or an unwillingness to let go drives where there is an information vaccuum on the moral nature of the choices. I say this based on what hospital workers tell me about their own end-of-life arrangements, and that includes physicians who are adamantly pro-life. They want people to know what they think, not to guess. There is enough guesswork required as it is, simply by the true nature these choices usually have.

 

[JackyB]

Sixty isn’t old!

I have worked in a hospital for over 30 years, and it’s interesting how health care workers have different perspectives of what “old age” is.

I and my work associates do not consider the 60s or even the 70s old. When we see that someone has a serious infection (I work in microbiology) and they are in their 60s and 70s, inevitably the first thing we say is, “They’re so young.”

We think of the 80s as “the beginning of getting old.”

Once someone is in their 90s, we say, “Yep, they’re gettin’ old. They’ve lived a long life.”

But the 60s–heavens, that’s the beginning of the second life!

I would like to agree with those who say to be careful about decisions made now for “your old age.” When I was a twenty-something, 55 seemed over the hill. Now that I am fifty-five, I can tell you that I often have trouble CLIMBING that hill (due to osteoarthritic knees), but I am definitely not “over the hill.”

Also, I too have a “horror story” of someone who had an “End of Life/No Heroic Measures” agreement who died needlessly. The young woman was only 57, and she had cancer, but it was in remission and she was doing well. Then she caught a bladder infection which advanced to sepsis. Antibiotics would have taken care of the infection, but part of her “agreement” was “no antibiotics.” She was unable to speak up for herself (due to pain meds), and so she died, at age 57. Everyone in our department was horrified, and we all decided that we will definitely not allow ourselves to be railroaded into dying too soon.

I think a LOT of older people don’t make these decisions out of any desire to be “pain-free”–many of them have endured terrible pain during their lives. I think a lot of older people make a decision to allow their life to be ended because they are afraid of being a burden to their families and to society. Many of us who are “younger” have grown up in this “entitlement mentality culture,” in which many many able-bodied people do no useful work but rely entirely on the state and charitable organizations for their basic needs and for their recreation. But many older ones grew up during a time when people were responsible for their own support and did not rely on others for help. It is difficult for these people to see themselves accepting any kind of prolonged help from others or from the government (Medicare).

I question why they should feel like burdens and allow their lives to be ended while so many able-bodied young people aren’t concerned in the least that they are “burdens” to others who provide all their needs and many of their wants.

Many elderly people have EARNED the right to be taken care of and provided for during their illnesses–they shouldn’t feel like “burdens.” But that’s JMO.

I couldn’t have said it any better, I too worked in a hospital helping very sick, often elderly people I learnt so much from them it was a privilege to help them. I agree with you when you mention they did not want to appear a burden to their families, how very very sad.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

Oh, I see what you mean. I only meant that there is a dilemma for the family, because when the time comes, the practical reality is that they have the decisions. It is almost always a matter of judging what the person really wanted, rather than what they imagined they wanted, and the person with medical power of attorney very often wants to consult with family members who have not been given legal power. (We know this because of how often those who can talk totally change their minds when the time comes. There is always going to be a judgement call.)

I think it is very good for Catholics to consult with their pastors about this before the time comes. The truth is that the temptation for families, religious or not, is often to do far more than morality requires or than the patient ever wanted, because guilt or an unwillingness to let go drives where there is an information vaccuum on the moral nature of the choices. I say this based on what hospital workers tell me about their own end-of-life arrangements, and that includes physicians who are adamantly pro-life. They want people to know what they think, not to guess. There is enough guesswork required as it is, simply by the true nature these choices usually have.

I find that the bolded part happens far too often as well. It’s very sad, and why I’m always encouraging people to talk about this issue and make sure their wishes are known, and that the person or persons they give the power to make decisions, actually will carry out those wishes to the best of their ability depending on the circumstances at the time. As you say, there is enough guesswork as it is.

It’s not about making the decision for the patient, it’s about making sure that the wishes of the patient are known and taken into account by the medical staff. I find time after time that when there is confusion or disagreement about ‘what Dad would have wanted’, almost inevitably what is done is much more than most would consider reasonable and VERY much more than the Church requires rather than the other way around, which is what many seem to be afraid of.

Another problem is that most people, when they say ‘do everything you can’ really mean do what’s reasonable, moral, and what’s in the patient’s best interests. They don’t realise that ‘do everything you can’ frequently means things that are futile. The Church does not require us to agree to futile treatment, either for ourselves or for a family member when we are in the position of having to make that decision.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Death is not a friend to be welcomed and embraced.

We disagree. Your assumption that your friend would have survived to live a much longer life is just that, an assumption. Her death was easily a gift of God with the least amount of suffering. Death is be neither friend nor enemy, just a door.