Is it ever acceptable to refuse medical treatment?

[DL82]

I have heard it said that at the end of his life, John Paul II told his medical attendants not to send for another ambulance, that he’d rather end his days in the Vatican than go through more surgery to prolong his death.

So is it ever permissible not to try to save a person’s life? What about where there is a chance, but a very very slim one, of a recovery of sorts, like someone with an advanced metastatised cancer that has travelled to numerous organs. If they had intensive chemotherapy, multi-organ transplants, lots of bits of them cut off or cut out, they might once again be cancer-free, but it would be a 1000 to one shot. Or what about the case of someone suffering from a degenerative condition like MS or Alzheimers who then develops a complication like pneumonia, they might recover from the complication with invasive treatment, but only to die a longer and more protracted death from the underlying condition. Is it wrong for someone in that situation to prefer to end their life peacefully by letting nature take its’ course than spend months in agony only to prolong their death?

Is there a difference between a person consciously making this decision for themselves and a next of kin making it for them based on what they know of the person’s likely wishes when unconscious?

Clearly, there have to be some cases when invasive treatment is too much, otherwise hospitals would be full of brain-dead bodies slowly degrading while hooked up to heart-lung machines. Where do we draw the line (from the perspective of Catholic morality and respect for life), and why?

 

[puzzleannie]

of course it is acceptable. any medical intervention, particularly a treatment that will cause some harm, like chemo or surgery, has to be proportionate to the expected benefit and to the severity of the disorder.

 

[bilop]

I have heard it said that at the end of his life, John Paul II told his medical attendants not to send for another ambulance, that he’d rather end his days in the Vatican than go through more surgery to prolong his death.

So is it ever permissible not to try to save a person’s life? What about where there is a chance, but a very very slim one, of a recovery of sorts, like someone with an advanced metastatised cancer that has travelled to numerous organs. If they had intensive chemotherapy, multi-organ transplants, lots of bits of them cut off or cut out, they might once again be cancer-free, but it would be a 1000 to one shot. Or what about the case of someone suffering from a degenerative condition like MS or Alzheimers who then develops a complication like pneumonia, they might recover from the complication with invasive treatment, but only to die a longer and more protracted death from the underlying condition. Is it wrong for someone in that situation to prefer to end their life peacefully by letting nature take its’ course than spend months in agony only to prolong their death?

Is there a difference between a person consciously making this decision for themselves and a next of kin making it for them based on what they know of the person’s likely wishes when unconscious?

Clearly, there have to be some cases when invasive treatment is too much, otherwise hospitals would be full of brain-dead bodies slowly degrading while hooked up to heart-lung machines. Where do we draw the line (from the perspective of Catholic morality and respect for life), and why?

Yes, one can refuse medical care.

One can not refuse ordinary care, i.e. food and water, but medical care is not required.

God Bless

 

[yellowbicycle]

One can make quality of life decisions about the medical care they would like to receive.
If there were some treatment that would give me six grueling months, instead of six peaceful weeks til death, I’d take the six weeks.
Under catholic doctrine, that is perfectly acceptable.
As bilop said, though, there are certain things which are human ‘rights’ - food, water, shelter, that cannot be deprived of a person.

 

[DL82]

One can make quality of life decisions about the medical care they would like to receive.
If there were some treatment that would give me six grueling months, instead of six peaceful weeks til death, I’d take the six weeks.
Under catholic doctrine, that is perfectly acceptable.
As bilop said, though, there are certain things which are human ‘rights’ - food, water, shelter, that cannot be deprived of a person.

What if there’s a treatment that will almost certainly save my life, but I choose not to take it?

For example, the case of some older children who don’t want a heart transplant. If they are over the age of majority and don’t like the idea that they’ll have a ‘different’ heart, can they make that decision, even if it means death? Or what about an adult who likewise turns down a perfectly simple life-saving treatment? What about if you knew your heart was a match for your son, who needed a transplant, and you found out you had an easily curable condition but chose not to accept the treatment? Is that allowed?

I know these are unusual situations, and I’m sorry for going into them. What I’m really trying to understand (forget the difficult cases above) is what are the grounds for justly refusing medical treatment, and where are they crossed? Whose decision is it? Can a doctor ever be allowed to not give a treatment that a person wants, or to treat a person who doesn’t want to be treated?

 

[Newbie2]

What if there’s a treatment that will almost certainly save my life, but I choose not to take it?

For example, the case of some older children who don’t want a heart transplant. If they are over the age of majority and don’t like the idea that they’ll have a ‘different’ heart, can they make that decision, even if it means death? Or what about an adult who likewise turns down a perfectly simple life-saving treatment? What about if you knew your heart was a match for your son, who needed a transplant, and you found out you had an easily curable condition but chose not to accept the treatment? Is that allowed?

I know these are unusual situations, and I’m sorry for going into them. What I’m really trying to understand (forget the difficult cases above) is what are the grounds for justly refusing medical treatment, and where are they crossed? Whose decision is it? Can a doctor ever be allowed to not give a treatment that a person wants, or to treat a person who doesn’t want to be treated?

Not at all, these are great questions.

A heart transplant is extrodinary treatment, and can be declined. Easily tolerated low-risk treatments such as medications…antibiotics and such…especially when one has dependants would be shirking one’s responsibility.

Several things have to be taken into consideration:

1. Just prolonging life or is it a curable condition?
2. Chance of success vs. risk?
3. Hardship on person, family.

Not all of these things are of equal weight, but are among other things that must be taken into account.

 

[yellowbicycle]

What if there’s a treatment that will almost certainly save my life, but I choose not to take it?

For example, the case of some older children who don’t want a heart transplant. If they are over the age of majority and don’t like the idea that they’ll have a ‘different’ heart, can they make that decision, even if it means death? Or what about an adult who likewise turns down a perfectly simple life-saving treatment? What about if you knew your heart was a match for your son, who needed a transplant, and you found out you had an easily curable condition but chose not to accept the treatment? Is that allowed?

I know these are unusual situations, and I’m sorry for going into them. What I’m really trying to understand (forget the difficult cases above) is what are the grounds for justly refusing medical treatment, and where are they crossed? Whose decision is it? Can a doctor ever be allowed to not give a treatment that a person wants, or to treat a person who doesn’t want to be treated?

I think these are great questions…I often ask similarly ‘unlikely’ situations, but the Church is supposed to be for ALL people and ALL times. You’re just making sure of that
I think in Catholicism, intent counts for alot. Everything as a matter of fact. So in your scenarios it would be helpful to know WHY someone made the choices that they did. Why did someone refuse medical treatment? Was it an easy way to off themselves? Or is it that they would rather live, however long, with what their particular malady is than risk the procedure? Though the two may end very much the same, they are seen very differently I would think in the eyes of God.
As to your last question, I am assuming you mean morally rather than legally. Again, intent matters. Did the doctor refuse to treat a prisoner because he thought the person’s life wasn’t worth the trouble and expense? Or was it that he saw it would actually deprive him of the few weeks he might have left?
I hope this helps some. But there are people on this site WAY smarter than me who will probably give you a much more eloquent answer.

 

[Debra_C]

YOu have already received many good answers-- it has to be balanced between the expected benefit to the patient and the amount of suffering or burden the treatment in question might cause. A patient can decide that a treatment poses an undue burden and refuse it, and so can the family if the patient cannot speak for themselves.

If a person is in the process of dying and a feeding tube would unnecessarily prolong life or inflict more suffering without offering them a chance at survival, even this can be refused. The Terri Schiavo case brought this issue to the forefront. In her case, she was in a persistent vegetative state. She was not dying, but she was unresponsive (This point may be debatable, but not having been there I won’t–it is moot to the ethical argument anyway.) and unable to take food or water on her own. Basically, it was her husband’s desire to “allow her to die.” The reality of the matter is that in removing the feeding tube, they directly caused her death by means of starvation/dehydration, which is NOT morally permissable under Church teachings. In such a case, a feeding tube is considered to be ordinary care.

 

[manualman]

Great summary of Terry’s plight.

By contrast, there are situations where people ARE dying (will die soon anyways) where it IS acceptable to withold a feeding tube if said tube is likely to increase the suffering of the patient during the time he/she has left.

Similarly, it is OK to take pain medication to relieve suffering even if the unintended, but unavoidable side effect of that medication is to somewhat accelerate the coming of death.

All of these issues are kind of like trying to describe the difference between nude art and pornography: you can game darn near any definition, but you can’t fool an honest conscience.

 

[Ceil-1]

As a hospice nurse, I have never seen a case where palliative medication has actually hastened death. It may be the case if there is an overdose, but, that would be hard to determine, if the patient were already unresponsive and actively dying.

There is no reason to be anxious over these decisions.

It would be sinful to not seek treatment for a child you knew had appendicitis, or other life-threatening illness.

I know a couple who is so opposed to traditional medicine, they allowed their (grown) son to have a strept infection that turned into a septic arthritis. He could not walk for months. He went to the local “healer”, and the guy did a liver cleanse. Oh, the consultation was free, but the “liver cleanse” cost a bundle. The mom passed on my invitation for him to attend a healing Mass with a known healing priest. That sort of thing is a sin, in my book. It defies reason, quite frankly.