IV feeding and life supporting medicine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reformed_Rob

Guest
I’m sure this has been discussed 50x or more…but if a person is being kept alive by the nutrition they are receiving via IV, and also by medicines that allow their blood pressure and other vital functions to be regulated…would it be morally acceptable to allow them to die by stopping either one or both, oronly the medicine??

I’m thinking that the IV nutrition falls under the category of normal care (food) that we are required to give to the elderly and/or sick people if at all possible. Likewise, to discontinue the food, while keeping the medicine going, seems like it would lead to a prolonged death.
 
Isn’t the Church somewhat quiet about this? I think that no matter what the Church would say about it people wouldn’t like it. But I think it would be good to raise the issues and have a smart man comment on those issues. What scares me is that when you have a loved one about to die you are so open to ideas about saving their life. There is so much money being spent on junk medicine that i think it is sad.

We, of all people, should be able to accept death. We should have the sure knowledge that we are going to meet God, and that is a good thing. So why fight it so much? If it is your time go in peace.
 
Actually, I was under the impression that there is clear teaching on these things…such as feeding food via the mouth or IV, which is a modern innovation.

For instance, in my RCIA class, we had a whole night on end of life issues, and the priest went through several scenarios, and applying the Church’s teaching to each one, from a moral theology perspective (which my priest is trained in) gave the Catholic answer.

There are books written on it, probably Encyclicals, and the Catechism addresses it, but as is often the case, it is quiet vague on some points…hence my question.

I realize there are probably disagreements like there are on everything else.
 
larry85704 said:
Isn’t the Church somewhat quiet about this? I think that no matter what the Church would say about it people wouldn’t like it. But I think it would be good to raise the issues and have a smart man comment on those issues. What scares me is that when you have a loved one about to die you are so open to ideas about saving their life. There is so much money being spent on junk medicine that i think it is sad.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply, Larry. Yes, it is important to talk about these issues.
 
As a general rule food and water whether by IV, feeding tube or whatever are required unless the person is so far gone that the food is no longer metabolized and is uselessly provided. Usually pain control meds are appropriate even if they result in a speedier death, just as long as the intent is to control pain and not cause death. When the organs, liver, kidneys, stomach etc. start shutting down sometimes there is not much one can do except alleviate pain.

Five years ago this coming September, I had a heart attack so bad that my kidneys, liver, and stomach started to die from lack of perfusion( blood circulation). The paramedics got me started again and at the hospital they put me on a ventilator for ten days, fed me by tube and I.V., installed a pacemaker, and kept me drugged up so much that I don’t remember anything that happened until I came off the vent. Basically the lining of my stomach had started to die which led to bleeding ulcers, and they waited to see if my liver would start back to work. It did and they started dialysis. After three weeks the kidneys also restarted, the stomach healed and I am not the picture of health, but I am still alive, driving, going to Mass, working with Girl and Boy Scouts as a volunteer, and instructing in RCIA . I shop, cook meals, fold clothes, and cook and my wife is happy I am still around. After all that time immobile in bed I had to relearn how to walk. If the liver had not started functioning they would not have installed the pacemaker and would have let me go. Thank you Father Solanus…
 
Wow, very glad to hear of your recovery story!

And thank you for your comments
 
So it is legitimate or not legitimate to remove a person from intravenous nourishment if they want that to be done?
 
Basically, if a feeding tube is not overly burdensome on the patient or the caregiver, it is required.

If someone requests the removal of the tube because there is no hope of recovery and they want the pain to stop, that request can not normally be fulfilled. We know that withholding food and water causes one to die.
 
Reformed_Rob said:
So it is legitimate or not legitimate to remove a person from intravenous nourishment if they want that to be done?
Click to expand...
There’s also the matter of the chance of recovery, which affects such decisions. By this I mean if a young, otherwise healthy teenager goes into a coma as a result of an auto accident, but has stated that he doesn’t “want to be hooked up to a bunch of tubes”, it’s a different matter than a 96 year-old in poor health who does the same.

That’s not to say that oral feeding by tube is not obligatory, but IV total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is far more complicated. The risk of infection with total IV nutrition is quite significant, whereas complications with oral tube feedings is less so, to the point that IV TPN would likely be considered extraordinary care and treatment, if it were necessary to carry on for the forseeable future.

Different story if it were to be a forseeable temporary treatment situation, of course.

There also exists the question of whether a person can make a clear-headed decision about refusing all nutrition i.e. are they in a rational state of mind, not depressed, etc.
 
As a general rule food and water whether by IV, feeding tube or whatever are required unless the person is so far gone that the food is no longer metabolized and is uselessly provided.
Click to expand...
That is the correct answer. Food and water, regardless of how provided, cannot be withdrawn as long as it can be metabolized.
 
Ok, thank you for your replies. It’s good to have a couple people give what seems to be the Catholic thinking on the issue.

The situation is my grandmother, who is 94, has been getting worse and worse with different things over the past couple years, is very weak (can’t even suck water up a straw), and to top it all off had to go through a colostomy surgery just a week ago after being on morphine and having internal bleeding. Her two sons are the executors (whatever you call it) of the medical decisions, in accord of course with her living will. Honestly, we all sort of wish they would have let her die a week ago instead of having the surgery…would have been a better situation we believe. And her two sons agree…but that is a hard decision to make when you are thinking she would be a lot better post-op.

A few days ago, she requested a pill that would let her die in her sleep. It was wishful thinking on her part…because that just is not something that is going to happen. Because nothing like that is legal in my state (tennessee) so anyways, she has been, as of a couple days ago, taken off some or all of her IV nourishment.

So that’s the situation…nobody is happy about it, the main thing I’m concerned about now it is taking a long time for her to die…and she’s extremely weak and can’t hardly even call for help when she’s uncomfortable.

thank you for your time
 
Reformed_Rob said:
I’m sure this has been discussed 50x or more…but if a person is being kept alive by the nutrition they are receiving via IV, and also by medicines that allow their blood pressure and other vital functions to be regulated…would it be morally acceptable to allow them to die by stopping either one or both, oronly the medicine??

I’m thinking that the IV nutrition falls under the category of normal care (food) that we are required to give to the elderly and/or sick people if at all possible. Likewise, to discontinue the food, while keeping the medicine going, seems like it would lead to a prolonged death.
Click to expand...
I would have to give this more thought, but initially I think that both the IV and the medication should continue to be given. The hipocratic oath states, “First do no harm”. There is no harm in continuing what are ordinary means rather than extraordinary. If the body is worn out, or damaged enough, it would be a moot question. Eventually the body will cease functioning.
 
Newbie2 said:
There’s also the matter of the chance of recovery, which affects such decisions. By this I mean if a young, otherwise healthy teenager goes into a coma as a result of an auto accident, but has stated that he doesn’t “want to be hooked up to a bunch of tubes”, it’s a different matter than a 96 year-old in poor health who does the same.

That’s not to say that oral feeding by tube is not obligatory, but IV total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is far more complicated. The risk of infection with total IV nutrition is quite significant, whereas complications with oral tube feedings is less so, to the point that IV TPN would likely be considered extraordinary care and treatment, if it were necessary to carry on for the forseeable future.

Different story if it were to be a forseeable temporary treatment situation, of course.

There also exists the question of whether a person can make a clear-headed decision about refusing all nutrition i.e. are they in a rational state of mind, not depressed, etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the differentiation between tube feeding and IF TPN. I had not heard this argument before, but it sure makes sense. IV TPN does add certain burdens that may make it weigh more on the side of extraordinary means of treatment in certain cases (but, let’s clarify, not automatically).
 
Reformed_Rob said:
Honestly, we all sort of wish they would have let her die a week ago instead of having the surgery…would have been a better situation we believe. And her two sons agree…but that is a hard decision to make when you are thinking she would be a lot better post-op.
Click to expand...
There is nothing easy about these decisions. That’s why we need to make them in prayer and with lots of support from people who acknowledge the value of human life.

The vague nature of the Church’s teaching in this issue is due to the complexity and uniqueness of every situation in which these decisions are made. The Church gives us solid principles, but the messy work of applying the principles is up to us (with God’s help, of course).
A few days ago, she requested a pill that would let her die in her sleep. It was wishful thinking on her part…because that just is not something that is going to happen. Because nothing like that is legal in my state (tennessee) so anyways, she has been, as of a couple days ago, taken off some or all of her IV nourishment.
Click to expand...
Obviously this would have been direct killing, and so morally wrong in every circumstance.
So that’s the situation…nobody is happy about it, the main thing I’m concerned about now it is taking a long time for her to die…and she’s extremely weak and can’t hardly even call for help when she’s uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
While it’s hard to see our loved ones suffer at the end of their lives, the value of human life exists beyond the “quality of life.” That’s really what the end of life issues are all about.

The Catholic teaching is a balance between extremes. As lary85704 said, Catholics should not unconditionally strive against death, since we know that our true life awaits beyond time. That’s why the Church teaches that extraordinary means of treatment may be refused. On the other hand, human life is precious because the human person is precious. Human dignity exists beyond our state of capacity or incapacity, beyond our “quality of life.” We still have human dignity even in the midst of suffering. Therefore our lives are valuable and cannot be treated as yet another commodity to be accepted or rejected at will. That’s why the Church teaches about the obligation to accept ordinary means of treatment.

So, the decision we need to make is what constitutes ordinary or extraordinary means of treatment. Issues like, “he wouldn’t want to live like that” are not legitimate parts of the decision making process. The line of thinking this statement represents comes from a materialistic mindset.

You will be in my prayers today!
 
Well, I know this. To remove the feeding tube or other source of nutrition is to remove necessary care and is to starve the person to death which is definitely immoral and sinful. As to removing the medication, I don’t think that would be immoral but I am not completely certain so don’t take my word for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top