Removing Nutrition and Hydration

  • Thread starter Thread starter WeakLucille
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PilgrimToChrist said:
You should be uncomfortable with this, it is suicide even though it is passive, and as such it is a mortal sin. Medication is not necessary (it is extraordinary means) but nutrition and hydration (even if through a tube) are necessary. For a person to stop eating in order to kill themselves is suicide, for a person to stop feeding someone in order to kill them is murder, these things are clearly sinful.
Click to expand...
That isn’t quite true. A dying person is not physically able to process food or drink and so removing it is acceptable.
The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.
Click to expand...
Not removing the feeding tube in many cases is what will actually hasten death.
 
markomalley said:
Exactly and that is the point. What I’m getting at is that a hospital “could” do such a thing.

And in this hypothetical, the family’s culpability would be different.

But I was, in no way, implying that a hospital would do such a thing.
Click to expand...
I think I was agreeing with you, but my tone was a little horrified. 😉
 
WeakLucille said:
Struggling with an email I just received from a friend who has a family member who has Parkinsons and now pneumonia. Death is near and the patient who cannot swallow has asked to have medication and nutriton/hydration removed which was done on Friday. I am very uncomfortable with this but not sure what to do. Thanks for your advice.
Click to expand...
It is a friend if you are not next of kin or have a health care power of attorney signed by your friend there is nothing you can do. Pray the Divine Mercy chaplet for her, or with her if you are allowed to visit.

Not every such decision at the end of death is immoral, it depends on how far advanced the death process is, and that has to be guided by the medical people on hand, not at a distance.
 
KostyaJMJ said:
That isn’t quite true. A dying person is not physically able to process food or drink and so removing it is acceptable.
Click to expand...
It depends on if they are actually in the stages of death or not, how much of their body has shut down. Yes, there are instances (and certain conditions) where the ordinary means (food and water) actually harm the person, in these cases, no they are not morally necessary. But clearly what is being referred to by the OP is that the patient is asking that their food and water be removed so that they will die, not so that they will get better or live longer. The question then relates to what is termed “passive euthanasia” (which is contrasted with “active euthanasia” – the administering of some poison/overdose in order to kill the person). Neither passive nor active euthanasia is morally permissible (even if the patient requests it), they are both grave sins.
 
PilgrimToChrist said:
But clearly what is being referred to by the OP is that the patient is asking that their food and water be removed so that they will die, not so that they will get better or live longer.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think that it was clear at all.
 
In addition to the Document that Mark posted from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, there is a Commentary that accompanied their response which clarifies things even more.

The last two paragraphs are particularly helpful:

When stating that the administration of food and water is morally obligatory in principle, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not exclude the possibility that, in very remote places or in situations of extreme poverty, the artificial provision of food and water may be physically impossible, and then ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. However, the obligation to offer the minimal treatments that are available remains in place, as well as that of obtaining, if possible, the means necessary for an adequate support of life. Nor is the possibility excluded that, due to emerging complications, a patient may be unable to assimilate food and liquids, so that their provision becomes altogether useless. Finally, the possibility is not absolutely excluded that, in some rare cases, artificial nourishment and hydration may be excessively burdensome for the patient or may cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.

These exceptional cases, however, take nothing away from the general ethical criterion, according to which the provision of water and food, even by artificial means, always represents a *natural means *for preserving life, and is not a therapeutic treatment. Its use should therefore be considered ordinary and proportionate, even when the “vegetative state” is prolonged.

Keep in mind that this was written specifically in regards to patients in a “vegetative state”, but I believe the principles apply more broadly.

In any case, I agree with puzzleannie. The best thing you can do is pray.
 
KostyaJMJ said:
That isn’t quite true. A dying person is not physically able to process food or drink and so removing it is acceptable.

Not removing the feeding tube in many cases is what will actually hasten death.
Click to expand...
I agree. My mom passed from cancer last year in March. She was in Catholic hospice for two weeks. For the last week she was not on IV given no fluids and obviously could not eat.
I still often struggle with lingering self-doubts that this was a form of euthanization, but from all the doctors and good counsel I have spoken with, the consensus is it does a body more harm to try to feed it when a person is terminal and is dying.

My prayerers are with you Lucille.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top