Is it always euthanasia to cease hydration and feeding?

[Nicollle]

I get that food and water are not excessive means, but I don’t understand why feeding tubes are not. They were not invented over 100 years ago. Back then the person would die. Were they not murdered then but are now because we have the technology. Are we compelled to use something just because it was invented?

 

[Corki]

I get that food and water are not excessive means, but I don’t understand why feeding tubes are not. They were not invented over 100 years ago. Back then the person would die. Were they not murdered then but are now because we have the technology. Are we compelled to use something just because it was invented?

Of course not. We are compelled to use ordinary means that is reasonably available and which can be used without causing undue damage. Today, in 21st century America, feeding tubes are reasonable.

Lactose free formula wasn’t available 100 years ago either. Does that mean you should give it to your infant should he/she not be able to tolerate regular formula? Of course not - at least not here in the US - that would be child abuse. But if you lived in an impoverished country where LF formula was not available, your child might die and it wouldn’t be anyone’s fault.

So, the questions to ask are 1) Is the food/water is still benefitting the patient? 2) will the food/water or the means of providing them do more harm than good? 3) can the food/water be reasonably provided?

Whether the patient is awake or unconscious or walking or talking are not relevant to the question at hand. We do not say that some people have lives worth protecting while others do not.

 

[anode]

Of course not. We are compelled to use ordinary means that is reasonably available and which can be used without causing undue damage. Today, in 21st century America, feeding tubes are reasonable.

Lactose free formula wasn’t available 100 years ago either. Does that mean you should give it to your infant should he/she not be able to tolerate regular formula? Of course not - at least not here in the US - that would be child abuse. But if you lived in an impoverished country where LF formula was not available, your child might die and it wouldn’t be anyone’s fault.

So, the questions to ask are 1) Is the food/water is still benefitting the patient? 2) will the food/water or the means of providing them do more harm than good? 3) can the food/water be reasonably provided?

Whether the patient is awake or unconscious or walking or talking are not relevant to the question at hand. We do not say that some people have lives worth protecting while others do not.

It depends what ‘benefiting’ means. I personally don’t think that feeding tubes benefit a person w/ advanced Alz. However, if that person wanted me to be a medical executor, and no other was available, and wanted a feeding tube in this case, i would comply with his/her request. I think that the means–feeding tubes–can indeed do more harm than good. For many patients with Alz it is hard to provide nourishment in a reasonable way without the potential for harm; they can’t respond to directions, aspirate, choke, etc.

I myself have made explicit directives that I not receive nutrition via a tube if I am in a state of irreversible decline. People should decide what they want and make sure their directives are clear and their chosen executors of those directives are willing and able to carry them out. This can include non-related persons.

Pope Pius XII spoke or wrote about this, and stated that unusual means of medical support did not have to be given in cases of irreversible decline. but I don’t know where he wrote or spoke it or what exactly he said.

Anybody know?