Soft form of euthanasia?

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

mizznicole

Guest
Posting here because of family experiences of death.

We’ve had two experiences where food & water were denied to a dying person as a form of routine care. The first was my husband’s aunt, the second was a cancer patient my MIL was caring for as part of a cancer charity.

In both cases, the hospice staff and the family said they were denying water because it would possibly harm the patient and make death more painful. In the case of my husband’s aunt it was very distressing. She wanted to eat - and the staff threatened to kick out MIL for trying to give her some oatmeal. She died that day.

So, knowing the Church says that we cannot withhold normal sustenance, what should we make of this procedure? Is there really a point at which food & water cause too much pain for the dying, or are hospitals performing a soft form of euthanasia?
 
2_B_Helpful said:
Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix just issued a document on this very issue. If giving hydration or nutrition will actually cause more harm or suffering for the patient, it is within Catholic morality to withhold them.

diocesephoenix.org/pdfs/2009/Directives%20for%20Catholics%20Concerning%20Artificially%20Administered%20Nutrition%20and%20Hydration%20final%2009012009.pdf
Click to expand...
I think the problem is this isn’t always made clear when you’re in that situation and the medical professionals just seem to assume that hydration or nutrition will cause suffering.

When my grandma was in the hospital before she died, she lingered for a few days near death, clearly suffering and mostly unresponsive. I don’t think they were giving her any nutrition for a few days, and when they finally did give her something through her IV (my uncle made them), she “miracuously” perked up and started talking. That night we had a little gathering in her hospital room and she sang and laughed with the family. She died the next day.

Don’t ever just assume.
 
2_B_Helpful said:
Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix just issued a document on this very issue. If giving hydration or nutrition will actually cause more harm or suffering for the patient, it is within Catholic morality to withhold them.

diocesephoenix.org/pdfs/2009/Directives%20for%20Catholics%20Concerning%20Artificially%20Administered%20Nutrition%20and%20Hydration%20final%2009012009.pdf
Click to expand...
Great statement! This is the single best, simple, one sentence explanation I have heard:

"Simply put, a person should die from one’s illness and not because a basic necessity of life was denied them."

Basically, we don’t want to starve people to death or have them dehydrate to death. But there can often come a time close to death when it is too painful to eat. In the case of your husband’s aunt, for example, it seems obvious that (since she died that day) her death was due to her illness, not a lack of food and water. (Though it does seem sketchy to me that the hospice staff would be so adamant about not feeding someone who wanted to eat. If the person wants to eat, they should be fed I would think.)
 
masondoggy said:
I think the problem is this isn’t always made clear when you’re in that situation and the medical professionals just seem to assume that hydration or nutrition will cause suffering.

When my grandma was in the hospital before she died, she lingered for a few days near death, clearly suffering and mostly unresponsive. I don’t think they were giving her any nutrition for a few days, and when they finally did give her something through her IV (my uncle made them), she “miracuously” perked up and started talking. That night we had a little gathering in her hospital room and she sang and laughed with the family. She died the next day.

Don’t ever just assume.
Click to expand...
:eek: That’s awful. How could they simply stop giving someone any nutrition? Thank the Lord that you were able to have that last gathering before your grandmother’s passing. What a blessing.
 
Joe_5859 said:
:eek: That’s awful. How could they simply stop giving someone any nutrition? Thank the Lord that you were able to have that last gathering before your grandmother’s passing. What a blessing.
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure how long she went without it. It may only have been a day or so. I suspect that they just assumed she would go any minute and figured “why bother”. But I do remember it came to a point where my uncle had a meeting with the doctors to discuss how to best get her nutrition. The problem they said was that surgery to insert a feeding tube would be painful for her or something like that… That morning is when they gave her the IV fluids. I’ll tell you what, though, when she perked up and started talking, she made it very clear that she was hungry.

I do treasure that last night with her. She had a great send-off. 🙂
 
mizznicole said:
Posting here because of family experiences of death.

We’ve had two experiences where food & water were denied to a dying person as a form of routine care. The first was my husband’s aunt, the second was a cancer patient my MIL was caring for as part of a cancer charity.

In both cases, the hospice staff and the family said they were denying water because it would possibly harm the patient and make death more painful. In the case of my husband’s aunt it was very distressing. She wanted to eat - and the staff threatened to kick out MIL for trying to give her some oatmeal. She died that day.

So, knowing the Church says that we cannot withhold normal sustenance, what should we make of this procedure? Is there really a point at which food & water cause too much pain for the dying, or are hospitals performing a soft form of euthanasia?
Click to expand...
 
I took too long fixing my last post so I’m replying to my self…

It does seem really odd that the staff would deny food to someone who asked for it. That seems a bit over the top for me. But maybe the staff and family knew something that I don’t. Perhaps it’s been the experience of hospice workers that *most *patients seem to be in greater distress after eating than they are when hungry or are likely to vomit and aspirate on the food.

I do know that in the case of terminally ill patients there is a difference between “dying” and “actively dying”. An actively dying (in the last couple or so days prior to death) patient’s kidneys and digestive system are shutting down. (This is obvious from skin color, blood tests, and other signs that hospice workers learn to recognize.) Food and water WILL act more like poison than nutrition to such a person. Typically such people would not want to eat if if they are conscious. It’s possible that water could perk them up if a feeding tube was inserted but it could just as easily hasten death.

I really think this is one of those judgment calls on the part of family and care-givers. And judgment calls are sometimes right and, unfortunately, sometimes wrong. The Church’s admonition to provide “normal sustenance” presumes that the patient is benefiting from the food and water. But there does come a time when the body loses its ability to process the food and water. Additional food and water will accelerate the buildup of toxins in the bloodstream.

I know that when my mother was about three days away from dying she rapidly lost the ability to swallow. The hospice people suggested we use a wet swab to wet the inside of her mouth and her lips to help keep her comfortable. She was getting some oxygen to assist in breathing and we had a water filter which added moisture to the air. Other than that we did not give her water.
 
When I read this post, I really felt the need to reply. I am an RN and have worked in oncology for several years and deal with issues that arise at the end of life on a daily basis. We always want to be loyal to our faith and serve the person at the end of life with love. I would caution people against assuming that because a patient who is dying is not receiving fluids/ nutrition via IV or g-tube that the patient is being denied basic needs. There have been times when a family insisting on this in the last hours of life has been traumatic to watch because the patient aspirates the tube feed or oral fluids into their lungs. Many patients “third space” when the IV fluid/ TPN (total parental nutrition or IV dinner in a bag which is not without risk and problem…) are not held in the vascular space (blood vessels) but leak out into the tissues, if the heart is not pumping effectively and pulmonary edema develops the person basically drowns. I suppose that I sort of bristled at the title because there is no such thing as “soft” murder which is what euthanasia is and further I do not participate in murdering people on a daily basis. I do not agree with the language used, but I do understand the concern of the OP. The best way to deal with the issues that she raised is to speak with the nurse or doctor and to understand why the patient should not receive food. Is there a tumor blockage of the GI tract etc…If valid reasons are explained alternate comfort measures can be implemented. If the medical staff have no good reason then by all means their advising should not be regarded. Oftentimes, however, there is a good reason, and we would all be well served to investigate the situation further in order to come to good conclusion as to how to best act in accord with our faith.
 
Nrbc said:
When I read this post, I really felt the need to reply. I am an RN and have worked in oncology for several years and deal with issues that arise at the end of life on a daily basis. We always want to be loyal to our faith and serve the person at the end of life with love. I would caution people against assuming that because a patient who is dying is not receiving fluids/ nutrition via IV or g-tube that the patient is being denied basic needs. There have been times when a family insisting on this in the last hours of life has been traumatic to watch because the patient aspirates the tube feed or oral fluids into their lungs. Many patients “third space” when the IV fluid/ TPN (total parental nutrition or IV dinner in a bag which is not without risk and problem…) are not held in the vascular space (blood vessels) but leak out into the tissues, if the heart is not pumping effectively and pulmonary edema develops the person basically drowns. I suppose that I sort of bristled at the title because there is no such thing as “soft” murder which is what euthanasia is and further I do not participate in murdering people on a daily basis. I do not agree with the language used, but I do understand the concern of the OP. The best way to deal with the issues that she raised is to speak with the nurse or doctor and to understand why the patient should not receive food. Is there a tumor blockage of the GI tract etc…If valid reasons are explained alternate comfort measures can be implemented. If the medical staff have no good reason then by all means their advising should not be regarded. Oftentimes, however, there is a good reason, and we would all be well served to investigate the situation further in order to come to good conclusion as to how to best act in accord with our faith.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing your professional experience. Yes, we certainly want to investigate these situations on a case-by-case basis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top