My aunt suffered from several types of cancer for many years, but one day had a brain implosion that left her unable to move, speak, possibly interpret speech, eat…although he neurologist made it clear that she was not “brain dead.” Wihout being able to chew and swallow the doctor said G tube would work.
Now I overheard my uncle and my cousins talking, using phrases like “this isnt quality of life” “what kind of life is this?” etc.
Well they opted for no G tube and the hospital let her go home in her current state, my family opted to take her off of water and nutrient IVs as well. A week later my aunt died.
Eventually the cancer wouldve did the job, but I felt funny about the whole situation.
Thoughts?
In Catholic medical ethics official pronouncements strongly oppose active euthanasia, whether voluntary or not[3], while allowing dying to proceed without medical interventions that would be considered “extraordinary” or “disproportionate.” The Declaration on Euthanasia states that:
“When inevitable death is imminent… it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to a sick person in similar cases is not interrupted.”
The Declaration concludes that doctors, beyond providing medical skill, must above all provide patients “with the comfort of boundless kindness and heartfelt charity”.
Although the Declaration allows people to decline heroic medical treatment when death is imminently inevitable, it unequivocably prohibits the hastening of death and restates Vatican II’s condemnation of “crimes against life ‘such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful suicide’”. [2]
No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put that person to death. Rather, we have a duty to care for and preserve life.
But to what length are we required to go to preserve life? No religion or state holds that we are obliged to use every possible means to prolong life. The means we use have traditionally been classified as either “ordinary” or “extraordinary.”
“Ordinary” means must always be used. This is any treatment or procedure which provides some benefit to the patient without excessive burden or hardship.
“Extraordinary” means are optional. These are measures which do present an excessive burden.
The distinction here is NOT between “artificial” and “natural.” Many artificial treatments will be “ordinary” means in the moral sense, as long as they provide some benefit without excessive burden. It depends, of course, on the specific case in point, with all its medical details. We cannot figure out ahead of time, in other words, whether or not we ourselves or a relative want some specific treatment to be used on us “when the time comes,” because we do not know in advance what our medical situation will be at that time or what treatments will be available. When the time does come, however, we must consult on the medical and moral aspects of the situation. Remember, procedures providing benefit without unreasonable hardship are obligatory; others are not. You should consult your clergyman when the situations arise.
