Is this okay?

[Inquiringperson]

A person is on life support. The only way the person can keep living is life support. Can the Doctors release the person and let the person die?

 

[prstoessel]

Yes

 

[LoyalViews]

Yes they can. This does not count as euthanasia, nor does it count as murder. It is natural death.

 

[Kleftiko]

The life support system, as my understanding of Catholicism goes, is the “playing God” bit. That doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t any further ethical dilemma. Although they don’t compare exactly the same, we might imagine giving someone with a heart condition sugar pills instead of their regular life-sustaining medication. Yes, it would be a natural death, but preserving life is something to contend with by religious and secular terms. Because we have the ability to preserve life in ways greater that whatsoever we could have imagined before, failure to do so poses an ethical dilemma in itself and, in some ways, may constitute negligence.

It might help to ask yourself whether it is okay to pull the plug on a loved family member who, after a nasty car accident, may any-day emerge from their comma. I think we can see that if a doctor moved in and unhinged the possibility of life from someone we care about, that to do so is quite obviously not okay.

What does your gut tell you on this one?

 

[LoyalViews]

The life support system, as my understanding of Catholicism goes, is the “playing God” bit. That doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t any further ethical dilemma. Although they don’t compare exactly the same, we might imagine giving someone with a heart condition sugar pills instead of their regular life-sustaining medication. Yes, it would be a natural death, but preserving life is something to contend with by religious and secular terms. Because we have the ability to preserve life in ways greater that whatsoever we could have imagined before, failure to do so poses an ethical dilemma in itself and, in some ways, may constitute negligence.

It might help to ask yourself whether it is okay to pull the plug on a loved family member who, after a nasty car accident, may any-day emerge from their comma. I think we can see that if a doctor moved in and unhinged the possibility of life from someone we care about, that to do so is quite obviously not okay.

What does your gut tell you on this one?

I can’t this one enough.

 

[Mel_Stones]

It really depends on the specific situation.

Here is what the Catechism has to say:

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

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.

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.

 

[Corki]

Lots of variables here:

1. is the condition requireing life support permanent or temporary? It would probably be immoral to disconnect a respirator from a patient recovering from a car accident, for example, but not necessarily so for someone who is actively dying.
2. How are you defining “life support”? Some people include food and hydration in this category but the Church considers them ordinary care and usually immoral to discontinue.

It would also not be “okay” for the doctor to do this on his/her own against the wishes of the family or the prior expressed wishes of the patient.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Lots of variables here:

1. is the condition requireing life support permanent or temporary? It would probably be immoral to disconnect a respirator from a patient recovering from a car accident, for example, but not necessarily so for someone who is actively dying.
2. How are you defining “life support”? Some people include food and hydration in this category but the Church considers them ordinary care and usually immoral to discontinue.

It would also not be “okay” for the doctor to do this on his/her own against the wishes of the family or the prior expressed wishes of the patient.

I’m talking permanent.

 

[Corki]

I’m talking permanent.

The short answer is that for many, if not most, cases of life support it would not be okay to remove it.

For example, a person has a spinal injury that requires assisted breathing. He/she is conscious and able to communicate but will die if you remove the device. There is no way you can remove it morally.

Another person is dying and no longer able to eat normally. He/she is not yet in the end stages of the disease but removing food and hydration will allow him/her to die sooner. Not at all “okay”.

A child has polio (it still happens) and needs to be in an iron lung. He/she may need this assistance for the rest of his/her life. You may not take the person out just because it’s permanent.

 

[Inquiringperson]

The short answer is that for many, if not most, cases of life support it would not be okay to remove it.

For example, a person has a spinal injury that requires assisted breathing. He/she is conscious and able to communicate but will die if you remove the device. There is no way you can remove it morally.

Another person is dying and no longer able to eat normally. He/she is not yet in the end stages of the disease but removing food and hydration will allow him/her to die sooner. Not at all “okay”.

A child has polio (it still happens) and needs to be in an iron lung. He/she may need this assistance for the rest of his/her life. You may not take the person out just because it’s permanent.

So its only morally right if there is no chance of recovery and the person won’t respond again, only the heart is beating.

 

[Corki]

So its only morally right if there is no chance of recovery and the person won’t respond again, only the heart is beating.

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.

Usually this means that the patient is already actively dying.

 

[puzzleannie]

A person is on life support. The only way the person can keep living is life support. Can the Doctors release the person and let the person die?

no way to answer, each of these is an individual unique case. We don’t know the nature of the illness or condition, why he is on life support, what the prognosis is, whether there are other options and treatments, or even what “life support” means.

 

[Inquiringperson]

So its only morally right if there is no chance of recovery and the person won’t respond again, only the heart is beating.

I’m saying the heart beating is the only thing the body can do, and after 100 years, the heart beating is the only thing it can do.