C
centurionguard
Guest
**This would be dependent on the situation. Some situations could be seen as an act of euthanasia. **
Examples:
- Status
Examples:
G
GEddie
Guest
You did mention the Atkins diet in denying that “starvation and dehydration are inhuman”.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
“cruel and inhumane” were the words used
People on the Atkins diet may or may not know that the ketosis produced by the diet suppresses hunger. This ketosis effects kicks after about 3 days of fasting, hence the reason why David Blaine managed to fast for so long. Experiments were also done on conscientious objectors in the US. When a dying person is not given food or drink, often this decreases suffering rather than increases it. They don’t get the “death rattle” for example.
Most people also don’t know how long someone will survive without food and drink. Given the expected lifespan of the patients, they will not be starving to death, nor die of dehydration.
People on the Atkins diet may or may not know that the ketosis produced by the diet suppresses hunger. This ketosis effects kicks after about 3 days of fasting, hence the reason why David Blaine managed to fast for so long. Experiments were also done on conscientious objectors in the US. When a dying person is not given food or drink, often this decreases suffering rather than increases it. They don’t get the “death rattle” for example.
Most people also don’t know how long someone will survive without food and drink. Given the expected lifespan of the patients, they will not be starving to death, nor die of dehydration.
A
a_priori
Guest
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Exactly.
C
centurionguard
Guest
I would go beyond just the framework of mechanical devices being unnatural.
I would look at it first and foremost from the moral standpoint of how the Catholic Church sees the situation. Which boils down to quality of life and what moral obligation is required to sustain life, which solely depends on the ventilated patient who is of sound mind and his or her direct family.
In either case I do not believe it would be an easy decision to make for any beloved family.
C
Cristiano
Guest
You are correct! I was making an absolute when usually we do not always have absolutes in end of life matters. I realized that because of my limited understanding of some of the medical techniques I was making some statements that were too general. Usually it is sinful to remove a ventilator, there are only a few exceptions. I need to dig out the book “A Will to Live: Clear Answers on End of Life Issues” By Bishop Gomez and study it for real. This morning at breakfast I had a discussion with the executive director of the local pro-life organization and discussed with him about this forum and he made some examples that show of a detailed knowledge of the medical case is required to make a moral decision about the end of life. Having said that I will shut up and go back to the books and study the details.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
I’d be interested to learn who made the decision as to when it is sinful and when it is not sinful.
C
Cristiano
Guest
If you want to hear it from me you will have to wait a few weeks. I became aware how little I know in practical terms and I do not want to confuse any one else. It is the Church that makes the decision on what is sinful, The Church is the one that was given the power to bind and loose.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
At least your honest.
J
JReducation
Guest
A means is extraordinary if the patient is dying and all you’re doing is prolonging the person’s agony. If the person can live with the support given and would die if you take it away, then you may not take the support away. The support is not extraordinary.
I would suggest that you go to this page from the USCCB. It has a wealth of information.
usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/index.shtml
Also, call the local Respect Life Ministry in your diocese. They have counselors that help you identify the different situations and the answers for each.
The Sisters of Life in NY are experts on these matters.
www.sistersoflife.org
You can write me by visiting either the website for the Brothers of Life
www.franciscansoflife.org or www.respectlifemiami.org
These are questions that require some information to give you answers that are helpful for your situation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I would suggest that you go to this page from the USCCB. It has a wealth of information.
usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/index.shtml
Also, call the local Respect Life Ministry in your diocese. They have counselors that help you identify the different situations and the answers for each.
The Sisters of Life in NY are experts on these matters.
www.sistersoflife.org
You can write me by visiting either the website for the Brothers of Life
www.franciscansoflife.org or www.respectlifemiami.org
These are questions that require some information to give you answers that are helpful for your situation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Z
Zatzat
Guest
If this is the true Catholic position…
What your saying is that Catholics Church’s position is;
…that if a machine is keeping someone breathing, they must remain on that machine until their heart finally stops on it’s own or a terrible infection destroy’s their body.
What’s amazing to me, is that the catholic position actually over rules natural death.
On ventilator- person lives until an infection kills them or their heart stops.
Off Ventilator - person dies within hours, as their bodies are unable to breathe on their own.
I honestly didn’t think that the Catholic Church insisted that it was sinful to not allow a machine to breathe for a person.
My mother tried for 5 months to recover from a horrific illness. She was on a ventilator for 3 months, her body deteriorated, her lungs seeped with infection. My mother chose to go off the ventilator. When the ventilator was shut off and my mother’s own body was responsible for breathing, she died within 4 hours.
I would think that when the machine is turned off and the human body dies within hours, that the machine was providing extraordinary life support.
If the Catholic Church believes my mothers decision was a sin, I’m glad I have nothing to do with such a Church or even such a God for that matter…
R
Rence
Guest
I would think a ventilator is extraordinary as well in this cirumstance. The Church isn’t able to come up with every single possible senario. I think they want to make sure that life is respected and that people aren’t euthanized when they can be saved. I don’t see the merit in keeping someone in a hopelessly deteriorating condition, prolonging their pain and suffering, when clearly, their body is trying to shut down. I don’t know about the Church’s position on this specific example, but it would seem that if you have the right to refuse treatment for cancer treatment because you want the disease process to progress naturally, why would the church insist on a ventilator when someone wants the same in a similar circumstance?If this is the true Catholic position…
What your saying is that Catholics Church’s position is;
…that if a machine is keeping someone breathing, they must remain on that machine until their heart finally stops on it’s own or a terrible infection destroy’s their body.
What’s amazing to me, is that the catholic position actually over rules natural death.
On ventilator- person lives until an infection kills them or their heart stops.
Off Ventilator - person dies within hours, as their bodies are unable to breathe on their own.
I honestly didn’t think that the Catholic Church insisted that it was sinful to not allow a machine to breathe for a person.
My mother tried for 5 months to recover from a horrific illness. She was on a ventilator for 3 months, her body deteriorated, her lungs seeped with infection. My mother chose to go off the ventilator. When the ventilator was shut off and my mother’s own body was responsible for breathing, she died within 4 hours.
I would think that when the machine is turned off and the human body dies within hours, that the machine was providing extraordinary life support.
If the Catholic Church believes my mothers decision was a sin, I’m glad I have nothing to do with such a Church or even such a God for that matter…
A friend of mine had advanced emphesema and lung cancer and decided after years of fighting the disease, and suffering from the treatments on top of the disease, decided he wanted the disease process to occur naturally and take it’s natural course. So they withdrew everything except fluids and oxygen. That guys mom was very active in the Marian Center and was very devout. She always had the council of priests and nuts at her side, and they didnt’ see this as euthanasia…
M
mary1173
Guest
I do believe brain death has to have occured for the removal of a ventilator to not be considered euthanasia. Death to the body by other means…i.e. removing a feeding tube, stopping water, food sources is euthanasia and willful murder of the patient. If some persons only knew the circumstances behind the doctor’s questioning, and the true state of the loved one possibly more people would not be unwittingly killed without the proper knowledge of their families to what is going on… My mother was described as brain dead when we chose to stop her feedings,and take her ventilator from her in May of 2008. It was not because we chose for her to die, but that she had died on her transport to the hospital once she was placed in the helicopter to transfer her to another hospital. She received the last rights before her surgery however, and she had confessed her sins to a priest before hand.She was as the priest had put it, ‘‘a state of God’s grace’’, even though she could not speak because of a breathing tube being placed in her mouth and down into her lungs while receiving the blessing before the transport. Right before the transport, they removed the ventilator and used a manual pump to assist in her breathing. But nonetheless she died because of a heart attack on the way to another hospital. And was physically dead and her soul had left her body. And in that respect she was not euthanized. If a person has the ability to think, reason feel emotion and respond to words then that person is being euthanized if their food, water, air is being taken from them.
M
mary1173
Guest
God does not condemn your friendr’s actions nor do I. If by some means that your friend knew /heshe could take the pain no longer and the doctors said that heshe was already dying then it is understandable that he/she go off the ventilator. I had asked my mother once, ‘‘What do we do if you are on a ventilator and unable to speak for yourself? What should we do? Keep you alive by artificial means or allow you to pass away?’’ She said, “When I can no longer function on my own without the aide of machines, and cannot comprehend what is going on around me, and I am basically a vegetable, remove my tubes and let me be with God, because you are only keeping a heart pumping at that point. Not a soul or the person that I was.” And even if your friend was alive, and refused ventilation because /heshe wanted to die without oxygen supplimentation…it isn’t a sin. And in God’'s eyes if this person can’t stand the pain of their failing body then it is ok to pass away naturally.Without a ventilator. God has no such vindicitive motives as to punish those who choose to not lengthen their days by artificial means. No matter who says someone should be kept alive like a vegetable. This is not ordained by God. When God wants to reclaim your soul He will, if you are on a ventilator or not To prolong suffering is also wrong and inhumane treatment of a human life and soul…I would think a ventilator is extraordinary as well in this cirumstance. The Church isn’t able to come up with every single possible senario. I think they want to make sure that life is respected and that people aren’t euthanized when they can be saved. I don’t see the merit in keeping someone in a hopelessly deteriorating condition, prolonging their pain and suffering, when clearly, their body is trying to shut down. I don’t know about the Church’s position on this specific example, but it would seem that if you have the right to refuse treatment for cancer treatment because you want the disease process to progress naturally, why would the church insist on a ventilator when someone wants the same in a similar circumstance?
A friend of mine had advanced emphesema and lung cancer and decided after years of fighting the disease, and suffering from the treatments on top of the disease, decided he wanted the disease process to occur naturally and take it’s natural course. So they withdrew everything except fluids and oxygen. That guys mom was very active in the Marian Center and was very devout. She always had the council of priests and nuts at her side, and they didnt’ see this as euthanasia…
God Bless and be with you.
Mary1173
Z
Zatzat
Guest
You are mistaken.
If a person chooses to have mechanical respiration discontinued, it allows for natural death to occur, as their body is unable to survive without the mechanical intervention of ventilator.
M
mary1173
Guest
Brain death occuring means that even if the person is on a ventilator they will die and their organs will fail the same way as if they chose to go off of the ventilator. The only thing that was asked is if it was euthanasia to allow someone to die if they could survive and live a long life and recover from that illness. In that case it is. When brain death or terminal conditions persist or present themselves in advanced stages it is alright to refuse the extraordinary means to keep a dead or dying body breathing by means of a machine.
My mother made her wishes clear that when her body gave out she did not want to be kept alive by extraordinary means. Natural death means that the person 's heart stops or they are considered brain dead. Whether or not they are on machines to help them breathe or not. You should ask JReducation more about this one…Natural death does not mean refusing treatment that might save your life and make it possible to live longer upon this earth. If the friend is terminal and is dying or in the throws of death, and things as severe illness occurs, then yes, that person may choose to not take in supplimental oxygen/ ventilators, but that doesn’t mean that what I have stated is incorrect. Brain death and your heart stopping ARE considered natural death. Not the act of refusing treatment when you are still alive and will live because you received the treatment.
S
stcalixtus
Guest
In Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II discussed euthanasia and condemned it. Removing a ventilator kills a patient and is done to kill the patient - it is euthanasia and is morally wrong. What Pope John Paul II thought could be justified though was refusing treatment that is exceptionally burdensome. The types of treatment that can be refused seem to be those that prevent one from being physically aware or active. Refusing the treatments does not in itself cause death, although receiving the treatments might lengthen life. The question is whether or not it is proportionate to lengthen life with the treatment or not. The patient who refuses treatment is about to die and refuses treatment not with the intention of dying or to shorten life, but to live out their life in consciousness and being physical able. A justifiable refusal of treatment is not euthanasia since it does not kill the patient.
Cristiano was right - removing the ventilator is euthanasia since it is a willful act to kill a sick person.You do much harm by by being misinformed
I remove patients from ventilators,I work in intensive care picu/nicu/icu, let me just say each case should be judged individually.Had a family years ago that anguished over taking their son off life support/ventilator, catholic priest arrived and stated all this equipment was not necessary if God wanted to provide a miracle, family was absolved and patient died peacefully, in this case life support would not have changed the outcome.I am under the impression that christian theology ask that terminally ill patients at the end of their life be kept comfortable,pain controlled? starving and dying of thirst is not comfortable? ALL cases should be reviewed individually and have a priest assess the situation? a priest SHOULD BE INVOLVED, please do not take forum answers as definative?
Nutrition and water are ordinary measures - these are the types of treatment that Pope John Paul II was referring to when he said those could not be taken away. Removing these things causes death.
For further explanation, see the BBC.
Z
Zatzat
Guest
Thank’s for clarifying your position, now I understand exactly what you’re saying.
M
mary1173
Guest
That’s alright, I had to ask my Mom what was considered natural death as opposed to unnatural. Unnatural means of existence are being on machines when brain waves are no longer present in a person, even if they are receiving oxygen and tube feeding. Death also occurs when the heart stops, because the act of cpr has to be used to restart the heart. A lot of the time the heart just gives out and it cannot be restarted. The left ventricle contains nerve endings that keep the heart beating. When they become so damaged that the heart can no longer function, then natural death occurs because the heart can no longer pump blood throughout the body.The heart muscle then dies, and so does the patient. [That’s what happened to my Mom. She’s with God now. She has to be…with all the time she spent keeping me alive and healthy she has to have gotten the ok from God to enter into His kingdom! Now I keep myself alive for the sake of all that she did and for the chance to be with her again in Heaven.Once my job here is done. To evangelize and teach about God’s good news to the people of earth. Whoever would like to listen and come koin our church.And to those who do not wish to join the church because of undecidedness, you are wellcome to learn at a distance, and welcome to join [hopefully you will choose to.] if you change your mind.
God Bless
Mary1173
- Status