Moral implications of turning off the ventilator

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmy2010
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimmy2010

Guest
Hi everyone,

I just read the news about the death of a San Diego Triathlete. She is paralyzed from the neck down and can only communicate with the nodding of her head and blinking of her eyes. She died when she ok-ed the pulling of plug to her breathing machine.

sandiego6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=aa83f5dd-b09e-42a4-8206-9878775903df

I can see that having a ventilator to breath would be a big burden and to me would be extra-ordinary care. What are the moral implications of this? If I were in her shoes, I don’t know what decision I would make.

What are the Catholic position on this?

Thanks,
JL
 
I find the quote in the article quite interesting:

***“No athlete would like to have a life with only their eyes talking.” ***

This can have a couple of implications. First, that an athlete would take such an incident and situation harder than the rest of the population. While this may have a wee bit of validity, to me it sort of smacks of elitism and condescention. Why would a non-athlete be any less distraught over being totally paralized from the neck down?

As well, most top athletes are fighters, not quitters. While not minimizing the mental anguish, this quote goes completely against that. Remember Mike Utley, the Detroit Lion player who was paralyzed?

Second, it suggests that the person’s athleticism trumps even life itself. Something like, “Well, there’s nothing more in life for me, so life isn’t worth living”. That’s not to minimize the unimaginable feeling of helplessness or even terror at having virtually no control over one’s body, or even basic functions like breathing.

Third, it devalues life itself. Something like, “well, this person is broken and unfixable, she’s better off dead.”

Two other things bother me about this story:
  1. That it appears from the story that only 3 days had passed before the decision was made to turn off life support. That seems very quick to be making such a decision, giving virtually no time for any healing that might take place. Sure, an MRI might tell the doctors there’s little or no hope, but 3 days??
Three days isn’t even enough time to get used to the idea that such a tragedy occured. I’m sure that the patient was in shock over the implications. Was she in a right mind to agree to terminating life support? Is three days even enough time to evaluate whether or not she was in a sufficient state of mind to be able to make such a decision? How leading were the questions put to her?
  1. That the patient was a psycologist. Perhaps there was some self-diagnosis going on, “I’m OK to make this decision” instead of getting an outside evaluation. Didn’t say in the article.
Morally, there are some real questions here:
  1. Was there chance for even a partial recovery (voice, breathing)?
  2. Was the patient in a proper state of mind to make such a decision?
  3. What were the facts about her medical condition as presented to her?
Sounds very familiar…anyone see the movie “Million Dollar Baby”? There was also a TV show (ER maybe) where a doctor thought the patient was communicating through blinking that they wanted to end it all…but later, and just in time for dramatic effect, it was discovered that the patient wanted to live.
 
Based on the facts as presented, I do not believe the family or she had a moral obligation to keep a ventilator running if the prognosis was that the condition was permanent and no repair could be foreseen.
 
It depends whether her decision constitutes suicide or not. I don’t know enough to say.
Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.CCC 2281
I am dependent upon an implanted device to keep me alive and upon medication. I could choose to have the device switched off and stop my medication. There is a very, very high probability that I would die as a result. *My conscience *tells me that that choice would be suicide, so I endure.

Her decision feels contrary to faith to me, the message of St Paul is that God strengthens us to endure, and does not allow us to be tested beyond our strength.

Her high profile position and resultant media attention also means that her action may be influential in other’s decisions and this is also worrying.

God bless her and her family and friends.
Karen
 
Until this month when my father died, moments after his ventilator was removed, I would have had not had anything to say about this, except I would have suspected we should leave the ventilator in.

My father was asked a week before he went on it what extraordinary life-sustaining measure he would want if it came to that point, and he said no ventilator. I was there when he said it, and I suggested, “How about if we try it, and then decide?” He agreed.

He was in good shape when he said it because he was having temporarily “new life” from the blood transfusion he was receiving at the moment.

The fact that he could talk at that moment (talking that was very hard to understand with his advanced Parkinson’s) was eerie, because he should been worse, not better than he’d been in months, or years, the day after a hip replacement, which he was is no shape to endure. But this peppy liveliness was apparently only temporary during the transfusion. After we left and it was over, they said he went into delirium, didn’t recognize anyone, was unintelligible, and my peaceable father was agitated and needed to be tied down, with a full-time 24/7 person assigned to him to make sure he didn’t hurt himself or others or pull out his IV or knock things over in his thrashing in the delirium.

What a shock to come in the next day and not even recognize him because of this state. Apparently, delirium is common after an operation in an elderly person of this state (my Dad advanced stage of Parkinson’s made him elderly) and the delirium can go on for 6 months or maybe always. And it sets in 48 hours after the operation, not 24. So i didn’t know I was with him in his only last good moments the day before. The delirium is like the body has had absolutely enough pain and discomfort and can’t take any more.

Shortly after the dietitian upped his tube-feeding fluid for some completely unknown reason, (the tube feed was his constant diet the past 4 months) and he chocked on it and his lungs filled with it. This was absolutely more than he could take and he could not breathe with the “simpler” BI PAP ventilator. Here is a web picture of a woman wearing one of those:
http://www.airmedltd.com/front_images/patient1.jpgThis model may look comfortable but its very tight on the face and uncomfortable. The machine is making you breathe in and out, and oxygen levels are adjusted. My dad had been on one for most of April and it was very uncomfortable. But he wasn’t getting enough oxygen this way in his blood and would soon die if they did not “intubate” him on a ventilator that helped him breath in and out. They had a stick a tube down his throat to leave in place. When he woke, he needed sedatives to tolerate it. This is a web picture of someone with this in (and I’m very sorry but I just don’t know how to make this smaller, but this is very much what my father’s bedside looked like and all i could find) :

http://baycitywalker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/sspx05882.jpg

So he needed sedatives to tolerate it, so he was sleeping, the machine breathing for him, inhaling for him and exhaling for him in its artificial rhythm, the tube-feeding surgically implanted in his stomach giving him the bag-food, the tons of medications being crushed by the nurse and inserted in his tube feed, and IV for fluids, and catheter and diapers.

When he was awake he’d be in pain, thrashing his head back and forth, making choking expressions, trying to reach up his tied, mitted hands to pull it out. He looked utterly and completely exhausted. I guess he had looked that way for four months.

Before putting him on the ventilator the doctors warned him he probably would not survive extubation (going off it). I have to say, the implication when they told us this was that they did not recommend putting him on it, but to let him die. But they did leave us the choice.

But seeing his pain and discomfort when not sedated was terrible and I knew he did not want to live with a machine doing his breathing. He was not going to get better but worse, and suffer more incredible discomforts while machines ckept him alive beyond what his body could do. My mother did not want him suffering this way. She was deeply grieved he wasn’t going to get better, but sick like me over his suffering. When he was between sedations, and thrashing and choking and trying to pull out his ventilator, I would tell him that that he needed to stay still, that he needed that tube in his throat to breathe, that he just needed to keep it in a little longer because my youngest brother was flying int to see him in three days. He would calm down, and they’d sedate him.

It was the longest three days ever. I just wanted him to stop suffering. Somehow my oldest brother convinced me (as he convinced himself) that he would survive if “extubated” from that ventilator and immediately put him the other ventilator in the first illustration above. So somehow I allowed that hope to come in, even though it was not reasonable, but I was so tired. So it was a shock when my other brothers came and they removed the tube and he only survived moments.

So that’s a real ventilator story. Its not natural to have a machine breathe for you when you cannot breathe on your own. It really felt like extreme measures. I did not have time to study what is an extreme measure before we were thrown into this situation, and in it there was no time for learning. We just had to make decisions as they came. I only wish I had been prepared fro him to die when they removed the tube. All I was thinking was I was so glad he did not have to choke any more.

Only I wish I had known he’d die immediately. I wish we had more moments. There were things we could communicate, things I wanted to, with eye-blinking, even though the blinks came slowly. I really was shocked and felt unprepred.
 
Eliza, thanks for the account and prayers for your grief.

If I understand the morality correctly, we are not required to undertake extraordinary means to extend life and your story illustrates the wisdom of the morality.
 
Eliza, thanks for the account and prayers for your grief.

If I understand the morality correctly, we are not required to undertake extraordinary means to extend life and your story illustrates the wisdom of the morality.
Exactly. If we can sustain life to promote healing, we are to do that. We are not expected to simply prolong death. I think it would be compassionate to assume the best intentions of the cyclist and her family in the original post.
 
Exactly. If we can sustain life to promote healing, we are to do that. We are not expected to simply prolong death. I think it would be compassionate to assume the best intentions of the cyclist and her family in the original post.
I’m with you. I think you have to be there to judge, and if it’s our turn you need to have a clear understanding of the morality to cling to when your heart is being broken.
 
Thanks Biggie and Jen. Yes, I think it was the moral thing to do. It was awfully hard to be in the position to think about such a thing when you are in grief. It really is good to have pre-thought about all these things before the emergency happens. I have a friend who I think will be the best one to know what my wishes are. My brothers don’t share my Catholic values, and she does. Also my Mom would not be able to decide this. So, I think I want to soon persue writing the necessary papers for this. If anyone knows of a site or a thread here on the topic, please let me know.
 
Eliza,
I heard Father Pavone speak about the Catholic Living Wills not
too long. I believe you can find more info on them on his
website, priestsforlife.org.
Hope this helps, I’m not quite in the same situation because I have
a sister who would follow my wishes, but she lives far away. I’m
going to check out the wording of those wills myself.
As to this current situation, I would have wanted to have a bit
longer than 3 days.
 
Thanks Biggie and Jen. Yes, I think it was the moral thing to do. It was awfully hard to be in the position to think about such a thing when you are in grief. It really is good to have pre-thought about all these things before the emergency happens. I have a friend who I think will be the best one to know what my wishes are. My brothers don’t share my Catholic values, and she does. Also my Mom would not be able to decide this. So, I think I want to soon persue writing the necessary papers for this. If anyone knows of a site or a thread here on the topic, please let me know.
What you want to find out about is a specialized power of attorney to make health care decisions.

You do *not *want a living will. Doctors do not look at them, and they can put a DNR on you at any time. I heard about a lady with cancer which was under control who was allowed to die of a minor heart attack because of this, evne tho all her relatives were trying to show that her living will related to if her cancer got bad.
 
Hi everyone,

I just read the news about the death of a San Diego Triathlete. She is paralyzed from the neck down and can only communicate with the nodding of her head and blinking of her eyes. She died when she ok-ed the pulling of plug to her breathing machine.

sandiego6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=aa83f5dd-b09e-42a4-8206-9878775903df

I can see that having a ventilator to breath would be a big burden and to me would be extra-ordinary care. What are the moral implications of this? If I were in her shoes, I don’t know what decision I would make.

What are the Catholic position on this?

Thanks,
JL
Without extraordinary care having already been applied, she probably would not have lived as long as she did.

Catholics are allowed to refuse extraordinary care if they feel that too much of a burden is created, for example, if one’s family would suffer financial hardship (cited as an example of burden), if the treatment doesn’t have much chance of ameliorating the condition, and the like.

Had she been in the exact same condition, but the care necessary not been extraordinary (for example, she had to be fed through a tube, and not on a ventilator), the tube could not have been removed, because provision of food and water are not considered extraordinary care.
 
Well said. This is the salient point here.
The difficulty is, we don’t know if we are making a decision to prolong life, or prolonging death. It is very hard to know, even the Drs. don’t know with a 100% certainty if one should continue life support, or let go. How does one choose? We don’t want our loved one to die, but we also don’t want to cause unnecessary suffering. Until we, or a loved one is in such a situation, we won’t know. But whatever decision is made, we are the ones who have to live with it for the rest of our lives. How terrible.
 
The difficulty is, we don’t know if we are making a decision to prolong life, or prolonging death. It is very hard to know, even the Drs. don’t know with a 100% certainty if one should continue life support, or let go. How does one choose? We don’t want our loved one to die, but we also don’t want to cause unnecessary suffering. Until we, or a loved one is in such a situation, we won’t know. But whatever decision is made, we are the ones who have to live with it for the rest of our lives. How terrible.
I think terrible is exactly the word. I used to work in adult critical care as a respiratory care practitioner at a large medical center and managed ventilators all day long. Anytime technology is used to augment life a tension arises. This will always be the case. I personally believe that the wishes of the patient and family should be honored. As long as patients aren’t directly euthanized (a whole different discussion) I do not believe it is immoral to unplug them. If a person cannot live on their own as God made them I don’t see disconnecting them, in and of itself, as a moral problem.

I know this is a bit reductionist in light of the complexities here. Since no one can be sure, as you pointed out, then the patients wishes should be honored. IMO.

If a patient is considered terminal, a sticker is applied to their bed that says DNR for “Do not resuscitate.” Many people working in critical care would place stickers on the back of their badges to make a statement. Take a poll of people who manage ventilators for a living and ask them if they would want to be prolonged or unplugged. In my experience, the tendency would be heavily weighted toward pulling the plug.

This is a heart-wrenching issue. But much of human experience in general is heart-wrenching. This is why we need a Savior.
 
Okay, I found the “Will to Live” that Father Pavone was talking
about. The document is at nrlc.org/euthanasia/willtolive/index.html
Be sure to read it carefully. I am going to take it to a lawyer just
to make sure everything is legal.
Sorry about my thinking it was a living will…dud, that is what you
do not want.
 
Catholics are allowed to refuse extraordinary care if they feel that too much of a burden is created, for example, if one’s family would suffer financial hardship (cited as an example of burden), if the treatment doesn’t have much chance of ameliorating the condition, and the like.
Would you mind clarifying what counts as extraordinary care? Also, could you suggest where I would find this in the catechism or canon law if possible (for my own piece of mind).

I have a life threatening heart condition and sometimes wonder how far I am ‘expected’ to go in terms of consenting to medical treatment. At the moment I am relatively young (43) and my heart condition is under control as far as possible, but there is a very high possibility of complications at any point. I already struggle with the emotional and physical burden of my condition, hence my ‘wondering’ about what I am asked to do.

Thank you.
Karen
 
Based on the facts as presented, I do not believe the family or she had a moral obligation to keep a ventilator running if the prognosis was that the condition was permanent and no repair could be foreseen.
That’s what’s questionable to me…an awful big “if”. Having had neurological cases under my care (dogs and cats), three days is a very short time to make such a determination, even by the doctors. Neurological conditions usually take a long time to heal, if ever, and I’m skeptical that any doctor would say it’s hopeless in that short of time. Maybe there’s a “rest to the story” that we simply cannot know. 🤷

I guess that IF it were better known what was likely to happen…say a couple of weeks to months later and there was no change for the better, that would perhaps be a different situation. Not to judge, but I can’t help feeling that given a little more time, they’d have better standing to say even a partial recovery was hopeless.

That original quote in the article still bothers me…I wonder what degree of loss of function would be acceptable for an “athlete” vs. a “regular joe” in terms of being able to handle. In this case, what if she regained speech function? Ability to move her head and control a wheelchair? Would anything less than a complete recovery be acceptable?
 
What’s extraordinary care? That’s the real question, and the answer will not be the same for everybody.

A feeding tube is not extraordinary most of the time, but in the case of a person with a progressive illness which now affects the throat and swallowing, but will inevitably also affect breathing, it could be so considered. It will only prolong life, without hope of recovery. Think Huntington’s.

A respirator is often considered to be extraordinary, but it is not extraordinary most of the time. Elderly people with pneumonia may need to be on one for a few days during the worst of their illness. Then the antibotics do their job, and they recover and come off it. A person who will never be able to be weaned from the respirator is extraordinary by almost anybody’s standard.

So if you are filling out an advanced care directive, be it Catholic or not, don’t just flatly list types of equipment to be accepted or refused. Make statements based on whether this is likely to be a permanent condition, and the possibility of healing.
 
So extraordinary care might be considered to be treatment over and above basic needs (food, water, hygiene, comfort) that may prolong life in a situation where recovery is not going to happen. For example, ventilating someone who would be unable to breathe on their own and is never going to breathe unaided?

I see that cases may be different, one person may tolerate and adjust to permanent ventilation, especially if young or with a family, where another may not. For example a much older person without family and with other health conditions.

I did not know that Catholics could refuse extraordinary care without it being considered suicide. For me, that is reassuring.

I had a friend in her 80s with advanced ovarian cancer who refused dialysis when her kidneys failed and although I believe she had the right to choose, I did wonder how the Church views this type of decision.

Thank you
Karen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top