Respirator vs Feeding Tube

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

manualman

Guest
As I understand it, we are under no obligation to accept heroic medical treatment when there is no reasonable chance for recovery, such as when brain damage is to the extent that the body cannot breath and/or no longer prompts the heart to beat.

But I also understand that the church does not consider a feeding tube to be heroic medical treatment. Therefore, it is considered killing a person if they die as a direct result of removal of the feeding tube (when they cannot eat any other way).

This seems like a disconnect. If you remove a feeding tube, you are guilty of depriving the person of food and water and thus commit murder (euthanasia) when the person dies.

But when you turn off a respirator, don’t you deprive a person of oxygen? Why isn’t that the same thing? The person cannot eat/drink without the tube. The person cannot breathe without the respirator. No hope of improvement in either case.

I trust the church’s judgement, but it would help in conversation if I could explain the distinction!
 
As I understand it, we are under no obligation to accept heroic medical treatment when there is no reasonable chance for recovery, such as when brain damage is to the extent that the body cannot breath and/or no longer prompts the heart to beat.

But I also understand that the church does not consider a feeding tube to be heroic medical treatment. Therefore, it is considered killing a person if they die as a direct result of removal of the feeding tube (when they cannot eat any other way).

This seems like a disconnect. If you remove a feeding tube, you are guilty of depriving the person of food and water and thus commit murder (euthanasia) when the person dies.

But when you turn off a respirator, don’t you deprive a person of oxygen? Why isn’t that the same thing? The person cannot eat/drink without the tube. The person cannot breathe without the respirator. No hope of improvement in either case.

I trust the church’s judgement, but it would help in conversation if I could explain the distinction!
Perhaps the reason why you are having a difficulty understanding the distinction is because in your question you seem to think that the use of the respirator is always extraordinary means. This is not the case. A respirator only becomes extraordinary means when it is truly the only thing keeping the person alive. This means that brain death has occurred or the person is in a perpetual vegetative state. In such a case a respirator or even food and water is not necessary since clinical death has already happened or is imminent.

In another case a respirator is necessary when it is a tool being used to allow a person to get better or at least maintain current stability. A perfect example of this Fr. Groeschel who without these types of treatment would have died. However, medical science told us that there was a chance for him to get better.

I doubt this will answer all your questions but this is better understood in a dialog so let’s keep going until enlightenment is attained.
 
Along with mosher’s fine explanation, I’d like to point out that anyone who can breath on their own is alive, but would die, in time, if deprived of food and water. For example, I would eventually die if kept from eating and drinking (probably in less time than a more healthy person), but not within minutes or hours, but days or weeks. No one should be deprived of food and drink for days or weeks who can breath on their own–that is murder.
 
Do I understand correctly that the only case when it is moral to remove a respirator is when the person is determined to be dead ‘by neuralogical criteria?’ (i.e. brain dead.)

That WOULD be clearer. Is that what you mean?
 
As I understand it, we are under no obligation to accept heroic medical treatment when there is no reasonable chance for recovery…But I also understand that the church does not consider a feeding tube to be heroic medical treatment.
I must admit that I shared your confusion when Pope John Paul II said that a feeding tube wasn’t extraordinary medical treatment.

I still don’t entirely understand the rationale, but I’ve tried and here’s what I think. Partly it might be because a feeding tube is often just that: a tube. The tube runs into the stomach (or possibly intestines) when for whatever reason a person is not able to swallow on their own. Although we often use expensive machines to administer the feeding formula, but it can also be done by gravity and a bag. Tube feeding have become fairly routine treatment now. Once the feeding tube is in place, food and water can usually be administered with minimal effort and little medical supervision once the routine is tolerated and established.

While eating is natural, healthy people still have to put forth a bit of thought and effort into obtaining nutrition, (obtaining food, cooking, chewing, etc.) On the other hand, healthy people breathe without thinking. A machine to do what we normally wouldn’t even need to think about is a bit more extreme that a tube. Respirators are far more than just tubes into the lungs. They are complicated and expensive machines.
 
I would look at it this way.

A respirator is used because something is wrong with the lungs, they quite simply do not work the way they are supposed to. So forcing them to work, is extra-ordinary.

A feeding tube is used because the person cannot legitimately eat. There is nothing wrong with the digestive system, it is not forced to work, it is doing what it does naturally. If the feeding tube somehow forced stuff along, moved it through, forced things to happen, then it would be extraordinary, but as it is, it simply gives food.

Think of it this way, the person on the respirator should be dead, it is only though machinery that they are alive, and that they stay alive.

A person on a feeding tube should be alive, the machine only aids them in getting nutrition. (for example, most could eat, it would just be a hassle and possibly damaging to them.)

One is keeping life after the body no longer can, one is simply helping the body along.

At least those are my thoughts on it.

A lone Raven
 
A respirator is used because something is wrong with the lungs, they quite simply do not work the way they are supposed to. So forcing them to work, is extra-ordinary.

A feeding tube is used because the person cannot legitimately eat. There is nothing wrong with the digestive system, it is not forced to work, it is doing what it does naturally. If the feeding tube somehow forced stuff along, moved it through, forced things to happen, then it would be extraordinary, but as it is, it simply gives food.
I am interested in the line of thought, but am unsure of it. Don’t the lungs still work to allow the oxygen to pass into the bloodstream, or else the respirator wouldn’t help at all? Offhand, I would have said the lung tissue still works, just the mechanism for delivering the air has failed (the use of muscles to draw the good air in and the bad air out). I don’t have any good understanding of physiology, though.
 
My fiancee had heart surgery and used a feeding tube for weeks.

My take is this: a feeding tube does the same thing a spoon or straw does; it presents food for the body to properly digest.

Whereas, a respirator can continue to provide oxygen even past brain death, and even when the body is decomposing.

Also, I did not see this distinction on this thread so I thought I might add: a respirator is not always extraordinary means. For example, during a surgery or when the lungs have been traumatized and need repair, using a respiratory is hardly extraordinary.

Here’s the thing, if a person has no neurological function, then a feeding tube will not do anything; the person will not digest, void or excrete, absorb nutrients or continue to maintain the body’s inner environment. Yet a respirator can continue to distribute oxygen.

Thus, I think apparatus such as feeding tubes can actually aid doctors in realizing a patient requires basic treatments. Take, for example, the infamous story of Teri. She had only a feeding tube. If she truly was in a brain dead state, her body should have been decomposing and shutting down. For a person who is truly beyond means of life and healing, a feeding tube offers little.
 
Thus, I think apparatus such as feeding tubes can actually aid doctors in realizing a patient requires basic treatments. Take, for example, the infamous story of Teri. She had only a feeding tube. If she truly was in a brain dead state, her body should have been decomposing and shutting down. For a person who is truly beyond means of life and healing, a feeding tube offers little.
In fact, for the actively dying, a feeding tube is harmful in the sense of causing pain, and non-beneficial in the sense that the person no longer benefits from nutrition (and even water at the very end). The feeding tube, if not removed from the actively dying patient, would continue putting food into the patient while nothing is leaving (no bowel movements) so you end up w/ a big blockage, bloating, and other negatives.

You can tell after the fact that it was definitely legit to remove the feeding tube … the cause of death is not from lack of food (no one is going to starve to death between midnight and 6:40 am … in fact I’d wager most people do go that long between eating w/o any harm).

For example–my grandmother, dying of lymphoma and complications from the attempt at chemo (1 week of the 16 week course completed, then she had cascading complications until death). She was on a feeding tube, but they removed it between midnight and three am (this info comes to me via an aunt [mother’s sister] to my mother). She died at 6:40am that same morning.

However, unless a person is that close to death, he is likely still benefiting from the nutrition provided via tube. Saying “the feeding tube is the only thing keeping the patient alive” is accurate only if we also say “my next meal is the only thing keeping me alive”. Take away the average person’s meals for as long as you’re withholding the feeding-tube–if it’s legit, death will occur long before the average person is more than mildly hungry.

Note how long Terri lingered after the food was taken away … that is death by starvation (thus morally reprehensible … murder, even). Once you get into the real end of life, remaining time is measured in minutes, possibly hours–and food and water aren’t any use. Natural death usually doesn’t happen in a ‘light switch off’ pace (excluding trauma … but then you wouldn’t be talking about feeding tubes for an average person prior to that car accident that kills him)–one body system after another shuts down.
 
Do I understand correctly that the only case when it is moral to remove a respirator is when the person is determined to be dead ‘by neuralogical criteria?’ (i.e. brain dead.)

That WOULD be clearer. Is that what you mean?
In a sense yes. It gets very difficult to distinguish these things in practice because there has to be a reliance on the state of medical knowledge and technology. The point is that if a person is alive we can’t do anything that will kill them intentionally. However, if a person is “on their way out” (so to speak) we are not required to stop the natural process of death unless it would only require ordinary means to keep them alive. But if a person is dying and there is nothing that can be done except prolong life for a time then it is ok to let that person die.

Always remember the rock bottom premise of all bio-ethics which is that “one cannot directly intend the death of another.” This premise finds its roots in the ethical axiom that “one cannot directly intend the death of an innocent human life” and that finds its roots in the most basic of axioms “the ends do not justify the means.”
 
I think that its a hard situation but until people have been through it they shouldn’t judge.

My Grandma is 93 years old and has been going through dementia as well as infections… She had a bad infection a couple of weeks ago and started to refuse to eat. Grandma know doesn’t communicate whatsover since then… Her nine children decided not to give her a feeding tube… Yes, there are surgeries that could be done to pro long Grandma’s life, but we don’t see the reason why it should be done. It’s merely prolonging the inevitable and its not something Grandma wants either. Four years ago my Grandma told my Aunt that she was praying that she would fall asleep and not wake up, My Aunt said well I’m praying that you do wake up.

But now we realize at this point that its time to let Grandma go?
For two years, my Grandmother was in a situation where we actually had a caretaker feed her by hand, but now she will not accept that food and chokes it up.

It use to be that in many ways this is how it would happen anyways. A patient would get very old and sick, and than the would refuse to eat/drink…Death by dehedraytion as actually pretty painless…It feels like this way is more natural than forcing Grandma to go through procedures to pro long her life, when she’s really unable to live her life anymore… Until her new illness she did talk a bit but would be catatonic for hours, now she’s at the point where she is no longer talking whatsover…

My Great Grandmother had increasing dimensia became very sick, and was basically not concious, her children decided not to give her a feeding tube either, especially since Great Grandma said before that she didnt’ want one. Great Grandma was 95 years old.
 
Anyone been on a respirator? I’ll volunteer my experience.

You have a tube down yr throat. You feel like you are choking to death. Every fiber of your being wants to pull that damn thing out. Your hands are tied to the bed. You can’t talk. You’re panicking. And you think you are dying. And it doesn’t stop. Not as long as you have a respirator in you.
 
Why isn’t that the same thing? The person cannot eat/drink without the tube. The person cannot breathe without the respirator. No hope of improvement in either case.

I trust the church’s judgement, but it would help in conversation if I could explain the distinction!
Think of how many other human beings there are out there who cannot feed themselves: Babies, people who are weak or paralyzed and cannot use their limbs, people who simply do not have access to food, or people with mental or emotional illnesses such as eating disorders, or the dementia that comes with old age, or those who are so weakened by other illnesses that they cannot swallow.

Eating is an act of will. We choose to pick up food and put it in our mouths. Babies latch on to the bottle, or their mother’s breast when it is offered to them, and swallow delibarately. When people cannot feed themselves, we must assume they would eat if they could. We are obligated to act accordingly.

Breathing is different. It is an automatic action. We do it as long as our bodies are capable. Even if we try to hold our breath until we die (as some young children try to do when they are angry) we will pass out, and while we are unconsious, begin breathing again, automatically. When people stop breathing naturally, their death (at least, compared to starvation) is relatively quick. When a person is hooked up to a respirator, their life is extended artificially, beyond the point when it would have naturally ended. And, as Mike pointed out, with great physical and mental discomfort to the patient.

Many people on feeding tubes or who recieve IV nutrients often have bodies that are capable of sustaining themselves (even if they aren’t in perfect health) without other interference. To deprive such people of a feeding tube is equivalent to depriving anyone else with an otherwise self-sustaining body of food, and thereby starving them to death. It is perhaps twice as bad, because a person who cannot feed him or herself is usually one who is relatively helpless compared to a healthy person.

If we are not morally obligated to feed those who cannot feed themselves, then we are no more obligated to give our babies a bottle, than we are to give a feeding tube to our elderly grandmothers.

I hope I never live (or die) in a world that would place so little value on human life as to deprive me of food simply because I could not put it in my mouth and swallow it on my own power.
 
Many people on feeding tubes or who recieve IV nutrients often have bodies that are capable of sustaining themselves (even if they aren’t in perfect health) without other interference. To deprive such people of a feeding tube is equivalent to depriving anyone else with an otherwise self-sustaining body of food, and thereby starving them to death. It is perhaps twice as bad, because a person who cannot feed him or herself is usually one who is relatively helpless compared to a healthy person.

If we are not morally obligated to feed those who cannot feed themselves, then we are no more obligated to give our babies a bottle, than we are to give a feeding tube to our elderly grandmothers.

I hope I never live (or die) in a world that would place so little value on human life as to deprive me of food simply because I could not put it in my mouth and swallow it on my own power.
I have done a lot of research on this subject in the last hour, and the more doctors study the issue of end stage dementia, more and more are recommending NOT giving these patients feeding tubes.

Here’s an excerpt from first things magazine

Alzheimer’s dementia is the most common type of brain deterioration, afflicting five percent of individuals over sixty-five and perhaps as many as 50 percent of those over eighty-five. It is manifested by progressive cognitive impairment, followed by physical deterioration. This process generally takes several years, often a decade, and is ultimately fatal. In its final stages it almost always interferes with the patient’s ability to swallow. Eventually the individual chokes on even pureed foods or liquids. Continued attempts at feeding by mouth very commonly result in aspiration of food or fluid into the airway, frequently leading to pneumonia. Aspiration pneumonia will sometimes respond to antibiotics, but other times it leads to death. Such respiratory infections are the most common final event in this progressive disease.

Feeding tubes have been commonly used in the later stages of Alzheimer’s. The reasoning has been that this patient is not able to take in adequate fluids and nutrition and he is not imminently dying. Several assumptions then follow: a feeding tube will improve his comfort, will prevent aspiration pneumonia, and will ensure adequate nutrition which will in turn prevent skin breakdown and thus postpone his death. However, empirical evidence, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1999, has shown each of these assumptions to be incorrect: using a feeding tube in a patient with dementia does not prevent these complications, nor does it prolong life.

In addition, there are several negative aspects to using a feeding tube in a person with advanced cognitive impairment. There are rare complications during insertion, some merely uncomfortable, some quite serious. Having a tube in one’s nose is generally uncomfortable; even having one coiled up under a dressing on the abdominal wall can be annoying. Because the demented patient doesn’t understand the intended purpose of the feeding tube, he or she may react by trying to remove it, requiring either repeated re-insertions or the use of hand restraints. In addition, using a feeding tube may deprive the patient of human presence and interaction: hanging a bag of nutritional fluid takes only a few seconds, as opposed to the extended time of human contact involved in feeding a cognitively impaired person.

There is a slowly developing consensus in medicine that feeding tubes are generally not appropriate for use in most patients nearing the end stage of Alzheimer’s disease. This belief can be supported from a moral standpoint in terms of proportionality. And yet feeding tubes are still rather commonly used. A recently published review of all U.S. nursing home patients with cognitive impairment found that an average of 34 percent were being fed with feeding tubes (though there were large state-to-state variations, from nine percent in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to 64 percent in Washington, D.C.).
 
There is a slowly developing consensus in medicine that feeding tubes are generally not appropriate for use in most patients nearing the end stage of Alzheimer’s disease.
This is interesting. I have an elderly relative who may be in that situation soon. She already does not handle bandages and such well, when they are used to cover injuries she gets when she falls or bumps into things, because she has trouble with her balance. I can definitely see that she wouldn’t do well with an IV or a feeding tube inserted in her stomach. However, she still has a more physical strength than one would imagine at her age. It still doesn’t seem right to let her starve, even if she can’t remember where she is.

I should also note (meaning no offense whatsoever to the wonderful pro-life doctors who are out there) that the general consensus in the medical community is also that artificial birth control and abortion are OK. This is why it is very hard for pro-life med students enrolled in the many medical schools that now include abortion training as a graduation requirement.
 
This is interesting. I have an elderly relative who may be in that situation soon. She already does not handle bandages and such well, when they are used to cover injuries she gets when she falls or bumps into things, because she has trouble with her balance. I can definitely see that she wouldn’t do well with an IV or a feeding tube inserted in her stomach. However, she still has a more physical strength than one would imagine at her age. It still doesn’t seem right to let her starve, even if she can’t remember where she is.

I should also note (meaning no offense whatsoever to the wonderful pro-life doctors who are out there) that the general consensus in the medical community is also that artificial birth control and abortion are OK. This is why it is very hard for pro-life med students enrolled in the many medical schools that now include abortion training as a graduation requirement.
Actually, the suggestion would be to hand feed patients with dementia first. Because then the get the physical pleasure of eating. My grandmother was hand feed for two years, but she had a major infection two weeks ago, so the disease is progressing. Now, she chokes up any food that she has. Dementia is actually a terminal disease, and they eventually die from complications due to dementia…It’s not just a patient forgets things…
 
Think of it this way, the person on the respirator should be dead, it is only though machinery that they are alive, and that they stay alive.
First of all, “ventilator” is a more appropriate term, although many in the biz call them respirators. When a person cannot ventilate adequately on their own, that is move air in and out in a mechanical sense, CO2 builds up and they can die. (Sometimes people are placed on ventilators due to “oxygenation” issues, but that is a different story.)

It is common to assist people temporarily on a vent so that some underlying condition can improve, i.e. post-op heart surgery, trauma, some chronic obstructive diseases like emphysema, etc, etc.

Some people can be weaned off the ventilator and some cannot. If a person is unresponsive and has no chance of regaining the capacity to breathe on their own then you can make the case that vents are “extra-ordinary”. Otherwise, tread softly.
 
Anyone been on a respirator? I’ll volunteer my experience.

You have a tube down yr throat. You feel like you are choking to death. Every fiber of your being wants to pull that damn thing out. Your hands are tied to the bed. You can’t talk. You’re panicking. And you think you are dying. And it doesn’t stop. Not as long as you have a respirator in you.
As one who has inserted endotracheal tubes and managed ventilators for a living, I can tell you that your case was not handled very well if you were in that much discomfort over a period of time.

Being on a ventilator is very unpleasant but with proper medication and setting management it can be made semi-tolerable.
 
I apologize, my post could have been taken in the wrong way.

If they are on a ventilator, and they will never get off of it, meaning they are approaching the end of life and the body cannot heal,
I should have been more clear.

A lone Raven
 
There is a slowly developing consensus in medicine that feeding tubes are generally not appropriate for use in most patients nearing the end stage of Alzheimer’s disease. This belief can be supported from a moral standpoint in terms of proportionality. And yet feeding tubes are still rather commonly used. A recently published review of all U.S. nursing home patients with cognitive impairment found that an average of 34 percent were being fed with feeding tubes (though there were large state-to-state variations, from nine percent in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont to 64 percent in Washington, D.C.).
From First Things I read this:
• If Dr. Orr is correct in arguing that the use of feeding tubes in end-stage Alzheimer’s patients is of no help to those patients and may sometimes be burdensome to them, we would have no moral reason to provide them with tube feeding. This judgment, however, has nothing at all to do with “proportionality.” It has to do, simply, with the two criteria we ought to use in making treatment decisions—usefulness and burdensomeness. If a treatment is useless or excessively burdensome, it may rightly be refused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top