Need help with a euthanazia question

  • Thread starter Thread starter rivera01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rivera01

Guest
I know euthanzia is a moral evil, but I need help defending this position. I got a question from my RCIA class and they asked this question in relation to a scenerio, where the person was in a vegitative state and the family has exhausted their income and has no way of providing additional money to keep the person alive artificially, if it then was permissable to disconnect the person from the machines. I need help defending this here.
 
I would want to know more.

In theory, the doctors cannot remove life support without the consent of the family regardless of the financial situation.

So is this just some hypothetical they are trying to come up with to make an exception?
If so, isn’t that special pleading and a fallacy?
 
Sorry for the vagueness, yes, this is a hypothetical situation. I am aware that doctors are not able to remove life support with out the consent of the family member. I told them that euthanazia is a moral evil, and then that hypothetical situation came up, I was honest in telling them that I do not know the answer to this question, but will get back to them with an answer.

As far as it being a special pleading and fallacy, this is the logical thinking behind it.
 
rivera01 said:
Sorry for the vagueness, yes, this is a hypothetical situation. I am aware that doctors are not able to remove life support with out the consent of the family member. I told them that euthanazia is a moral evil, and then that hypothetical situation came up, I was honest in telling them that I do not know the answer to this question, but will get back to them with an answer.

As far as it being a special pleading and fallacy, this is the logical thinking behind it.
Click to expand...
As long as they are aware that they are not being logical about it…

Is it their intent to place financial resources against a human life?

Even their special pleading becomes simple when the same circumstances are worded differently.
Is it OK to pull the plug if I do not think I can afford to keep the person alive?
No. It is not OK to pull the plug in any circumstance other then those circumstances outlined by the church.

Perhaps this class should be reminded that life has more dignity than financial status.

Still I don’t think I could stop myself from demanding to know what hospital is going to pull the plug if the family files bankruptcy and does not pay the bill but refuses consent to pull the plug.
 
I disagree. The fact that someone is in a vegetative state usually means that they are being kept alive by extraordinary means; that is, they are being kept alive by machines.
Nowhere does the church require that one be kept alive by artificial means. All of us have the right to a normal death.
Money and other material resources have nothing to do with it.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
I disagree. The fact that someone is in a vegetative state usually means that they are being kept alive by extraordinary means; that is, they are being kept alive by machines.
Click to expand...
Maybe.
That information is not provided.
Of course, I am sure since it is a special pleading argument, whatever facts necessary to make it morally correct to take a life will be brought into the equation.
However, going with what we know, they simply specified ‘vegetative state’
Not ‘persistent vegetative’
So if we really want to open a can of worms, throw the definition at them…
medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vegetative+state
George_Stegmeir said:
Nowhere does the church require that one be kept alive by artificial means. All of us have the right to a normal death.
Click to expand...
Correct. But as we have seen in the Terri Schivo case, vegatative state can mean a number of things. And artificially supported can easily now mean providing food and water.

I still want more information.
But I doubt the RCIA class will be willing to comply with providing more.
doing so jeopardizes the special pleading argument.
Someone WANTS euthanazia to be right, and vagueness is key to the argument.
George_Stegmeir said:
Money and other material resources have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Money has nothing to do with morality.

Getting back to the debate going on with the RCIA, it sounds like addressing euthanasia is not the way to go about it.
Address the argument itself.
 
Only the basics for survival are required: food, water. Even if they must be delivered by a feeding tube, they cannot be denied.

It is allowed, however, to withhold medicine, breathing machines and other heroic efforts to preserve life if such efforts present a harsh burden. Denying extraordinary treatment in such circumstances is not euthanasia.

Euthanasia is taking positive steps to ensure death, for example: deliberately providing an overdose of a medication. This is never allowed.
 
Removing life support is not Euthanasia. It is letting the body take a natural course toward death, or healing.

Look up the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. She was in a persistent vegetative state for several years. The family fought in court to have the artificial life support removed. At that time, patients and families didn’t have the right to remove it. (Basically, it was the first right to die case in the US.)

Everyone thought she would pass away immediately, but, she went on to live several months afterward before dying of pneumonia.
 
Generally if a person is not alert or oriented, a feeding tube need not be started if not distinctly the person’s wish as known through a living will or verbal discussions with a loved one. However, once begun it should not be removed unless causing further harm to the patient, such as regurgitation of the formula causing aspiration (choking).

Finances, should not come into play in the removal process. In the US if the person is out of money Medicaid will pay for necessary treatment.

Obviously the bigger question is “if ok now, how about one week before now…” which opens the door to a natural progression to an official Euthanasia program cleansing society of anyone not of monetary production value.
 
I like the information that is given here, thank you all for the is being given. Yes the monetary ideal behind it seems to be the strawman in the decision to go ahead and euthanize a person. Although, from what I am reading, if a person is not able to live without the use of extraordinary means, then they will undergo a natural death, of which is already apparent, considering the situation, correct?
 
As others have mentioned, if they are being kept alive by machines, then there is nothing immoral about switching them off.

Euthanasia is the direct and willed killing of an individual. Say, if you injected an overdose of morphine into that patient, a dose that would kill them.

Turning off the machines is simply acknowledging that life comes to and throwing the switch is accepting that. The machine is an extraordinary means of keeping someone alive.

The questions are actually - is this patient truly vegetavie? Completely brain dead? And turning off the machines, they could breathe on their own and move beyond that hospital setting.

Sometimes I think in our need to push a pro-life ethic we have become too affraid of death and too weary to allow it to take its course. Turning off a machine is not akin to purposefully killing someone. Yes, there may be 100% knowledge that that patient will die as a result of the machine being turned off, but the terminally ill patient being give high doses of analgesics may die quicker as a result of those drugs, but it doesn’t mean we withold them and watch them die in agony.

Promote life, but don’t try and force it.
 
Everyone should have the right to a holy death. Our faith considers extra-ordinary measures to sustain life up to the individual. This includes mechanical life support, antibiotics, surgical interventions, or medicines specifically for maintaining life. If a person is in pain, all medical resources should be offered to relieve that pain, even if it may shorten life. You may not shorten life to relieve suffering. There’s a big difference and that is what confuses people.
 
rivera01 said:
I know euthanzia is a moral evil, but I need help defending this position. I got a question from my RCIA class and they asked this question in relation to a scenerio, where the person was in a vegitative state and the family has exhausted their income and has no way of providing additional money to keep the person alive artificially, if it then was permissable to disconnect the person from the machines. I need help defending this here.
Click to expand...
Rivera,

The family having exhausted their income would then be interviewed by the Social Services for Medical/State Aid. This is an automatic anyway when anyone enters the hospital. If this were the case the family would hold their position and the hospital would then be making the decisions based on committee. The family cannot force the hospital to do anything unless they get a lawyer to work pro bono. This appears to be the solution.

It does happen that people do recover from a vegetative state and more information is needed as to the cause, etc.
 
SteveLy said:
Generally if a person is not alert or oriented, a feeding tube need not be started if not distinctly the person’s wish as known through a living will or verbal discussions with a loved one. However, once begun it should not be removed unless causing further harm to the patient, such as regurgitation of the formula causing aspiration (choking).
Click to expand...
This is inaccurate: we must feed even disoriented or unalert or even unconsciois patients, through a feeding tube if necessary; we cannot allow someone to die of starvation.
Finances, should not come into play in the removal process. In the US if the person is out of money Medicaid will pay for necessary treatment.
Click to expand...
Not everyone can be covered by Medicaid, and sometimes a familly’s resources must be exhausted before those who can be covered are elegible for coverage.

If a patient needs an operation or other “extra-ordinary” care, the care can be refused by the patient or those making decisions for the patient under several reasons, one of which is “grave financial burden” as explained in the CCC. Other reasons mentioned is the lack of likelihood of benefit to the patient (think experimental treatment), other problems the patient may be having, etc.

The overall point is that the patient should die *because of the medical problem or treatment for the problem, *rather than because of neglect of *ordinary *care, such as nutrition and hydration.
 
The only moral thing to do would be to keep the person on life support which if I understand correctly a person is only morally required to make sure that the person on life support receives nutrition and hydration. It might also require a ventilator but I am not certain about that one.

That said, if I was ever in this situation I would definitely make sure that my relative was still receiving nutrition and hydration and breathing assistance if needed. Even if I had to go in to debt I would still make sure that they were receiving those things. A human life is far more important than money. To be honest with you, if someone is putting money above a human life then they are making money into a sort of idol.

There is great gain in godliness with contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.
(1 Timothy 6:6-11 RSV-CE)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top