When is it OK to remove life support?

[distracted]

i am wondering if you know more about this than this googled info (below) tells on Ruth Graham choosing to be taken off life support.

Would the Roman Catholic Church approve of her deicsion? When is it OK to do such things? I don’t know much about the Church’s position on this but thought that the Church would not normally approve unless the person was in a persistent vegetative state (Terri Schiavo was NOT but got killed anyway… )

thanks.

“On Monday, June 11, at Ruth’s request and subsequent to consultation with her family… was removed from life support. On June 13, 2007, following her decline into a semi-coma, Billy Graham announced that he and his wife had decided to be buried beside each other at the Billy Graham Library in Charlotte, North Carolina.[5] She died at 5:05 p.m. EDT June 14, 2007, at her home, Little Piney Cove, in Montreat, North Carolina, with her husband and five children at her bedside. [6] A private ceremony followed by burial on the grounds of the Billy Graham Library was held on Sunday, June 17, 2007.[7]”

 

[livi]

I didn’t know that it was ever okay…can someone help me on this too?

 

[distracted]

I didn’t know that it was ever okay…can someone help me on this too?

that was my thought… but i think there are instances where it is OK??? yet, again, i don’t know… so don’t want to say for sure…

i think the Church says its OK if only extra-ordinary means can keep the person alive…

but food and hydration are not to ever be removed… as happened in Sciavo case…

 

[reginacaeli]

I did some checking online. There isn’t enough public information available that I’ve seen to be able to determine whether what Ruth decided to do was licit.

There are cases when tube feeding can be withdrawn, especially if the body is no longer able to process the nutrients and continuing to receive the tube feeding is resulting in more pain for the person dying, even as the body is shutting down. Given her age and other known recent health history, it is possible that her body wasn’t able to absorb nutrients anymore.

That was the case with my mother, who died earlier this year of ovarian cancer. In her case, she’d gotten another bowel obstruction (tumors) and the feeding she was receiving through her heart wasn’t able to be processed, so she was vomiting between 6-10 times a day (when she had injested only a little water). She vomiting the stuff from the IV. The stomach would go into spasms trying to expel the stomach contents through the intestines before she finally vomited. This caused her great pain that pain meds (morphine) wouldn’t touch. An anti-spasmodic might have worked, but the only drugs of that type available in this country are taken by mouth. Even with that, she would have had pain from her stomach filling up and not being able to expel the contents. An NG tube has its own discomforts (it sucks out stomach contents up through the throat and out through the nose) and Mom said she didn’t want one again.

Seriously, in a case like Ruth’s, where it’s plausible that food could no longer be processed, without information to the contrary, we need to give the benefit of the doubt.

ETA: Of course, the directives and pertinent sections of CCC need to be followed.

 

[distracted]

i can’t believe this is from the Catholic Church… because it makes it seem like the patient should make a choice based on the cost of the treatment… and the Church does not put a price on human life…

 

[twopekinguys]

Actually, the church says it is ok to discontinue medical treatment, as in refusing medication, and medical treatments. It is important to remember that food and water should never be withheld from the individual.

I had to discontinue medical support for my mother on Christmas Eve 2006, after consulting with her medical team, her pastor, and my priest. I should also add that I had spoken with her quite extensively about end of life issues prior to actually having to go through this.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me, it was by far the hardest decision I ever had to make.

This quote has been taken from USCCB.org at usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Mindling05.shtml

"Especially at the end of life, when it is clear that death is imminent and inevitable no matter what medical procedures are attempted, one may refuse treatment "that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted."viii Even at the stage of terminal illness when proportionate and effective treatment is no longer possible, however, palliative care is still appropriate and needed. The aim of such care can include alleviating many kinds of physical, psychological and mental suffering. Such care, said John Paul II, may involve a team of specialists with medical, psychological and religious qualifications who work together to support the patient in facing death.ix "

 

[chain]

I do not know details of this case - but my mother lived on a respirator for over 1 year. We were told at the beginning of that by the hospital to essentially dope her up so she can die quickly. She was aware but had extream difficulty communicating. After about a month, they told us that they were going to have to pull the feeding tube, and she would most likely die. Due to insurance, we had her transferred to a rehab facility instead.

Day one at the rehab facility they gave her a fork and she started eating. By the weekend she was talking (both with the trake), she was also given a rosary by someone from the neighboring catholic church. She spent most of her final year in good spirits, finding peace, and ultimately praying the rosary.

Anyway, while there is often no recovery from a respirator, it does not necessary mean your life becomes worthless.

 

[Oscarthecat]

i can’t believe this is from the Catholic Church… because it makes it seem like the patient should make a choice based on the cost of the treatment… and the Church does not put a price on human life…

I think that’s a bit unfair.

I have never interpreted this to mean that the Church is “putting a price” on human life. It is a simple acknowledgment that there are limits to what we can and should do in prolonging our lives.

The Church is addressing a couple of critical issues people struggle with in their last days…

1. financial ability to pay for extraordinary means of sustaining life does not impart a moral obligation to do so. Sure, my family may be able to keep my brain dead body on a ventilator for years, but I wouldn’t want them to because (among other reasons) I would rather that money be used to keep a roof over my children’s heads while they’re growing up.
2. inability to afford for extraordinary means of sustaining life does not constitute a moral failure. I would think that most people would find a tremendous amount of relief in the realization that they are not morally required to provide medical treatments that they simply cannot afford.

 

[distracted]

I did some checking online. There isn’t enough public information available that I’ve seen to be able to determine whether what Ruth decided to do was licit.

There are cases when tube feeding can be withdrawn, especially if the body is no longer able to process the nutrients and continuing to receive the tube feeding is resulting in more pain for the person dying, even as the body is shutting down. Given her age and other known recent health history, it is possible that her body wasn’t able to absorb nutrients anymore.

That was the case with my mother, who died earlier this year of ovarian cancer. In her case, she’d gotten another bowel obstruction (tumors) and the feeding she was receiving through her heart wasn’t able to be processed, so she was vomiting between 6-10 times a day (when she had injested only a little water). She vomiting the stuff from the IV. The stomach would go into spasms trying to expel the stomach contents through the intestines before she finally vomited. This caused her great pain that pain meds (morphine) wouldn’t touch. An anti-spasmodic might have worked, but the only drugs of that type available in this country are taken by mouth. Even with that, she would have had pain from her stomach filling up and not being able to expel the contents. An NG tube has its own discomforts (it sucks out stomach contents up through the throat and out through the nose) and Mom said she didn’t want one again.

Seriously, in a case like Ruth’s, where it’s plausible that food could no longer be processed, without information to the contrary, we need to give the benefit of the doubt.

ETA: Of course, the directives and pertinent sections of CCC need to be followed.

thank you…

and i am very sorry for what your mother went through… sounds awful… and i have often thought that i could not live long in great pain. I had a tooth ache one time & the pain was so bad i wanted to die NOW… I thoght about how it would be to be in that kind of pain indefinitely… and how i can u/stand someone not wanting to go on …

i guess a lot of the wording of that thing, even by the catechism sounds kind of… vague. But i am not familiar with end of life issues… have never seen anyone die… so What do i know??

all i do know is that Terri Schiavo was not PVS & should not have been starved to death. That was clear as day. … very weird story…

reminds me of that psg in the Bible: “In the last days, because of iniquity, the love of many will grwo cold.”

which you can see happening more and more/ worse & worse every day…

but anywya…
God bless… :heaven: