Is this euthanasia?

[Listener]

Yes. Euthanasia falls under the 5th Commandment, just as abortion does.
Euthanasia is murder just as abortion is murder.
There is no such thing as a “mercy” killing.

Mercy killing is a term used by people who murder others to put them out of their pain. It is kind of a “whitewashed” term, kind of like saying “termination of pregnancy” instead of “the murdering of an unborn child.”

Allowing someone to die naturally does not fall in this category.

 

[Listener]

Letting nature take its course is not a deliberate act of killing someone.

The Church teaching:

CCC 2324 Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.

CCC 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.

The Catechism says more than this:

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.

Notice what it says about “disproportionate to the expected outcome.” It also says that the patient himself should make these decisions. I’m not a medical professional, but I know that sometimes patients are so far into the process of dying that their bodies cannot handle feeding and hydration tubes.

The other thing I would like to point out is how many of us would actually be able to hook a patient to a feeding tube? Most of us wouldn’t have a clue, and we are stuck accepting whatever the medical professionals are willing to do. If they are not going to insert a feeding tube because of the patient’s wishes, how would we have the power to make them do it?
It is hard enough on people when a family member dies. I’m sure it doesn’t help when a bunch of strangers on the internet accuse them of murder.

 

[thistle]

The Catechism says more than this:

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.

Notice what it says about “disproportionate to the expected outcome.” It also says that the patient himself should make these decisions. I’m not a medical professional, but I know that sometimes patients are so far into the process of dying that their bodies cannot handle feeding and hydration tubes.

The other thing I would like to point out is how many of us would actually be able to hook a patient to a feeding tube? Most of us wouldn’t have a clue, and we are stuck accepting whatever the medical professionals are willing to do. If they are not going to insert a feeding tube because of the patient’s wishes, how would we have the power to make them do it?
It is hard enough on people when a family member dies. I’m sure it doesn’t help when a bunch of strangers on the internet accuse them of murder.

I don’t understand your point.
The Church teaching is very clear. Intentional euthanasia is MURDER.

 

[sisterpatril]

I am going through this right now with my dying father. It’s very hard…especially since my “Catholic” family members can’t believe I pray every day that God takes him but yet I’m still having him fed and hydrated through a feeding tube!

I found solace by praying, of course, but also by reading an article by Fr. Frank Pavone on the Priests for Life website. It’s entitled, “Brief Reflections on Euthanasia”. Very helpful!

Here’s a sample:

"We do not have a “right to die”. Many people now speak of such a thing, but without the proper understanding of the terminology they use. A “right” is a moral claim. We do not have a claim on death. Rather, death has a claim on us! We do not decide when our life will end, any more than we decided when it began. Much less does someone else - a relative, a doctor, or a legislator - decide when our life will end. None of us is master over life and death.

What we do have a right to is proper care. It is never"care" in any sense of the word to terminate life, even if that life is full of suffering. We have no right to terminate life. There are groups in our country pushing for the “right” to use lethal injections on the seriously ill or TO REMOVE THEIR FOOD AND WATER. We must oppose such moral nonsense with all our strentgh.

• Fr. Frank A. Pavone

I ask all of you to pray for my dad…and me!

 

[thistle]

I am going through this right now with my dying father. It’s very hard…especially since my “Catholic” family members can’t believe I pray every day that God takes him but yet I’m still having him fed and hydrated through a feeding tube!

I found solace by praying, of course, but also by reading an article by Fr. Frank Pavone on the Priests for Life website. It’s entitled, “Brief Reflections on Euthanasia”. Very helpful!

Here’s a sample:

"We do not have a “right to die”. Many people now speak of such a thing, but without the proper understanding of the terminology they use. A “right” is a moral claim. We do not have a claim on death. Rather, death has a claim on us! We do not decide when our life will end, any more than we decided when it began. Much less does someone else - a relative, a doctor, or a legislator - decide when our life will end. None of us is master over life and death.

What we do have a right to is proper care. It is never"care" in any sense of the word to terminate life, even if that life is full of suffering. We have no right to terminate life. There are groups in our country pushing for the “right” to use lethal injections on the seriously ill or TO REMOVE THEIR FOOD AND WATER. We must oppose such moral nonsense with all our strentgh.

• Fr. Frank A. Pavone

I ask all of you to pray for my dad…and me!

You are both in my prayers.

 

[ChibiBarako]

Whether or not removing a feeding tube is euthanasia (frankly, it’s direct murder by deprival of food!), it is definitely wrong. Pope John Paul II addressed the matter directly in a speech 3/20/04 (around the time of the Terri Schiavo case). wf-f.org/JPIILifeSustaining0304.html
“In particular, the term *permanent vegetative state *has been coined to indicate the condition of those patients whose “vegetative state” continues for over a year. Actually, there is no different diagnosis that corresponds to such a definition, but only a conventional prognostic judgment, relative to the fact that the recovery of patients, statistically speaking, is ever more difficult as the condition of vegetative state is prolonged in time.
However, we must neither forget nor underestimate that there are well-documented cases of at least partial recovery even after many years; we can thus state that medical science, up until now, is still unable to predict with certainty who among patients in this condition will recover and who will not.”
"

The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a *natural means *of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, *ordinary *and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.
The obligation to provide the “normal care due to the sick in such cases” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”, Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission."

 

[typewriterman]

In my OP, I pointed out that that Joe’s family went along with their father’s wishes as directed in his living will. I’ve asked Joe to read the posts in this forum – which he did – and even though many of the posts were comforting to him, he is now pretty convinced he murdered his dad. As I wrote in the OP, the feeding tube was never used because after discussing with family and pastor (I didn’t mention Catholic), Joe was convinced this was the right course of action. He told me he had several long talks him but Joe told me “My priest evidently didn’t know what he was talking about”. I feel sad for Joe because he thought he was doing the right thing but after all, his dad was probably not dying, but simply could not live without extra(ordinary) life support of feeding tube and IV hydration. I told him he didn’t “murder” his dad because that wasn’t his intent but that he should seek good Catholic counseling.

I had personally experienced a similar situation when my wife of 40 years died of liver failure. My wife was a devout Catholic who had been anointed by several priests while in her last hospital stay and had received Viaticum. At the end, she was on a feeding tube and IV hydration BUT her vital organs were shutting down and beginning to deteriorate. Her intestines would no longer absorb nutrition and were becoming increasingly ulcerated, her capillaries were beginning to “leak” plasma into surrounding tissues, somehow causing her blood cells to attack each other and making it necessary for 2-3 units of daily blood transfusions. In the last week she was unconscious and every day – every hour – even her skin was deteriorating. The was in a Catholic University teaching hospital and all attending doctors and chaplain staff assured our family she was “in the dying process”. The nutrition was simply going “in and out” and hydration was increasing deterioration, not prolonging life. The staff told our family they would do anything we wanted for my bride. There was no point in keeping neither the feeding tube nor the hydration because if she had any bodily sensations it was only making her more uncomfortable, so we requested it be removed. She was taken out of ICU and put into a hospice room where there were no restrictions on the number of family and friends. Dozens came and we prayed and talked and cried and laughed. I hope she could hear the laughter because she loved to laugh. She was there for 2 days and oddly, maybe beautifully, at the moment of death she opened her eyes and looked to our 38 year old daughter next to her. She spoke some words of love to her mom, then sang a verse of “You are My Sunshine”, a song she had sung countless times to our children when they were little. Then she closed her eyes to this world for the last time and I think opened them to our Savior. She had suffered much with this disease yet never wavered in faith, hope or love.