What is "over-zealous" medical treatment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Navy_Ken
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Navy_Ken

Guest
In discusssing Euthanasia the Catechism (2277-2278) states:
Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
Click to expand...
What exactally does the Church mean when She says “over-zealous” treatment? In Terri’s case, for example, does the fact that her organs are continuing to function and therefore if she were only able to swallow she would be able to live without any external technology indicate that a feeding tube is not “over-zealous”? Especially given that the throat is bypassed in many other cases in order to preserve life–a tracheotomy (sp?) for example. Or since someone in her same condition without advanced medical treatment would have starved to death years ago naturaly, by the simple fact that a feeding tube is unavailable, imply that a feeding tube is needlessly prolonging suffering? Is prolonged use of respirators, dialysis machines, and cardiac machines, the basis of the term “over-zealous” treatment, since vital organs are assumed to have ceased functioning? Basically, how do we determine if medical treatment is “over-zealous” in a given situation? (Catholic Answers needs a new edition of the “Voter’s Guide”–"The Medical Treatment Guide for Serious Catholics 🙂 )

I understand that there is no hard and fast answer to this question, but are there any Church documents that provide guidelines or discuss the issue in more detail?

And one last question, as Christians we are called to carry our crosses and rejoice in suffering, therefore should we not, at least in part, shun the world’s fear and aversion to suffering? Perhaps, Terri, in her spirit is offering-up her suffering to our Lord. We will not know this side of Heaven, however, in this case wouldn’t our “compassion” for her in this case be counter to her wishes? After all, was Christ’s death “dignified” as so many claim death should be?

Thanks and God Bless
Ken
 
Last question first: Yes, we should live our lives based not on our fears, but in the peace of knowing that we will not go wrong by serving God and that if we only ask for His help, He will not send us a day’s trials without sending the strength to bear what each day brings. That is a life of dignity.

Absolving health-care providers from “over-zealous” treatment means that it is okay to let a dying person die in peace without jumping on them or delivering an electrical shock every time their heart tries to stop. You don’t have to bankrupt the family in order to keep a dying person alive a little longer. It is okay to realize that the process of dying has begun and will not be stopped, and to let it happen. A patient is not morally required to die in a hospital with doctors and nurses hovering over them, trying win them every possible breath. Playing God is not our job, whether it means adding days or subtracting them. We do have to keep patients warm, clean, and fed, however, even if doing so become expensive.

With regards to comfort care, if a person with ten days to live is requiring levels of morphine that might prove addictive, it is okay to go ahead with it and to decide you’ll cope with the addiction in the unlikely event that they pull through. It is even okay to allow them levels of pain relief that might have the unintended side effect of hastening death somewhat, as long as the side effect is not the intention. Providing comfort is a legitimate and moral medical aim, and when the suffering to be relieved is great, the possibility of greater unintended side effects is a morally acceptable cost of providing the care.

The Church sometimes avoids defining these things in particular detail because these details differ from one situation to another. What is possible care or even normal care depends on the circumstances: who is available to provide the care, what medical resources are available, how many other patients are in need of care that might be denied it if it is given instead to the person in question, how the technology has evolved, what research shows the likely outcomes are from each type of care, and so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top