Not providing medical treatment when it could help?

[wabrams]

That depends on the treatment. If the person had such bad lung disease for example, that even with medicines, he would still need a mechanical ventilation, I see nothing wrong in such a person refusing treatment. If the person had cancer spread throughout the body and such that treating the AIDS would really be pointless, again I see nothing wrong in refusing treatment.

Heroic measures are optional. Routine measures, in my mind, especially where withholding those would result in death, are not optional.If God provides man with the knowledge and skill to heal or treat diseases, I believe it is wrong to hasten death by refusing them.

HIV infection, in the developed world at least, is becoming more and more like any chronic disease such as diabetes or asthma, which untreated would result in death. I don’t believe we would debate very long over the morality of withholding insulin or breathing treatments now, do you?

Insulin and breathing treatments are dirt cheap compared to the medication to fight AIDS. Its like the difference between a single wide trailer and a mansion on the beach in Malibu, CA.

 

[seekerz]

Insulin and breathing treatments are dirt cheap compared to the medication to fight AIDS. Its like the difference between a single wide trailer and a mansion on the beach in Malibu, CA.

So is it cost that should decide whether someone gets basic medical care or not? Drug companies have been persuaded (with judicious application of the right kind of pressure) to drop costs so that Africa can get some anti-AIDS drugs. This only goes to show that if the will is there, even cost is not a barrier and barriers will never be surmounted if we don’t care enough to push.

Nobody expects to live forever, but hastening death by commission or omission (of basic medical care) cannot possibly be right.

 

[wabrams]

So is it cost that should decide whether someone gets basic medical care or not? Drug companies have been persuaded (with judicious application of the right kind of pressure) to drop costs so that Africa can get some anti-AIDS drugs. This only goes to show that if the will is there, even cost is not a barrier and barriers will never be surmounted if we don’t care enough to push.

Nobody expects to live forever, but hastening death by commission or omission (of basic medical care) cannot possibly be right.

Do not even think about putting words into my mouth. I didn’t even remotely hint that costs determines someones medical care. I was merely responding to your statement that AIDS is as easy to treat as asthma or diabetes. Guess what, it’s not. Cost is but one of many of the factors that diffrentiate them.

My whole point of mentioning AIDS was that on the surface it can seem we are not giving basic medical care for something simple, but in the long run we are dragging on the larger disease process that is causing chronic problems. There is no silver bullet answer here.

 

[JRKH]

Do not even think about putting words into my mouth. I didn’t even remotely hint that costs determines someones medical care. I was merely responding to your statement that AIDS is as easy to treat as asthma or diabetes. Guess what, it’s not. Cost is but one of many of the factors that diffrentiate them.

My whole point of mentioning AIDS was that on the surface it can seem we are not giving basic medical care for something simple, but in the long run we are dragging on the larger disease process that is causing chronic problems. There is no silver bullet answer here.

The nail has been struck!!

Everyone has to look at all the factors in their own given situation and make the best decision they can.

We all like to think that we know and understand what we would do in a given situation, but it isn’t the same as actully being there.

Each person looks at a set of facts, and draws some conclusion - some basic idea of what would be proper.
However, when talking to others about an issue, some people place their answers in broad, declarative statements and then have trouble understanding why others would consider holding differing viewpoints.

Other people try to understand that, each case, each person, each family is unique and must be looked at in that way. Unfortunately the “dogmatic” person sees any variance from their conclusion to be so much in error and their obligation then is to set “us” straight.

There is little to be gained by debate, since we will never understand their dogmatic position and they will never understand our “non-dogmatic” position.
A third party watching the debate might gain some understanding, but usually not the debators themselves.

Peace
James

 

[seekerz]

There is really no debate regarding giving basic care to anyone, whether it be medical or other kinds of care.

To allow someone to suffer the pain or discomfort of a particular condition when that suffering can be alleviated or even cured, simply because they have a “larger condition” makes no sense. We all suffer from the larger condition of walking the road to certain death, yet most would not dream of suffering through an excruciating headache without an Aspirin. Why should the elderly be treated differently?

It’s a different story if the treatment being considered consists of extraordinary medical interventions or is futile. Antibiotics are basic medications, available even in the most remote reaches of the world - they don’t qualify as extraordinary, though in certain situations they may be considered futile.

 

[1234]

First, let me say, I’m close to this situation, but do not want to get too personal. Here goes:

I’m confused as to what is being done, or not being done in this situation. Patient is a 92 year-old woman. She has Alzheiner’s and has been in a Catholic Nursing home for about 9 years. She doesn’t know when her own family visits. It’s sad, but it is what it is. She has contracted pnuemonia once or twice over this period and was taken to the hospital and treated with Antibiotics and recovered.

She has again been diagnosed with pnuemonia, but one of the adult children, a nun, has decided they will not bring her to the hospital this time. And just let things “take their course.”

I don’t know much about these “end of life” scenarios, but I really have a bad gut reaction to that decision! Isn’t there something wrong in NOT trying some simple medicines? I’m not talking extraordinary measures, just an IV or some pills, like before.

Can someone help me out here?

Wouldn’t the Catholic approach here to try simple treatment? Is it immoral, or worse, to let someone die in this situation?

It’s not clear who is next of kin. It sounds like there are several adult children, you wife among them (not sure).

Did the lady in question have a power Of Attorney for health care decisions? Did she make her preferences clear when her mind was still intact? DId she designate one of the adult children to carry out her wishes–best to have only one person designed and a clear chair of command after this. I would have husband, older dgtr, younger dgtr in that order.

Assuming that she did not have this, there is no necessity to treat her beyond nutrition and keeping her comfortable, without use of antibiotics, which in her case qualifies as an extreme measure. I think that Pius XII was the first to write about all of this in the modern era, but I can’t quote in encyclical in which he wrote it.

Which reminds me–do y’all have a will with a POA for health care decisions? do yo have Health Care Directives that are dated, witnessed and signed? DO you know who is your ‘next of kin’? If you’re married, it’s your spouse. Unmarried, no kids, your parents, But after that, I don’t know-it may depend on the state. We should all know these things, have wills and health care directives and know who our legal next of kin is.

 

[seekerz]

Assuming that she did not have this, there is no necessity to treat her beyond nutrition and keeping her comfortable, without use of antibiotics, which in her case qualifies as an extreme measure. I think that Pius XII was the first to write about all of this in the modern era, but I can’t quote in encyclical in which he wrote it.

How do you keep someone comfortable without addressing the cause of her discomfort? Would you consider painkillers an extreme measure? How is using painkillers different from administering antibiotics?

For that matter, what defines extreme? It sure can’t be the diagnosis pneumonia, because this is a natural and common enemy of the very young and the very old and it’s treatment is a part of basic medical care.

Is the Church’s definition of extreme related to the age of the individual or is it defined by the particular situation? What about this particular situation makes treating a painful condition an extreme measure?