What is the Church's position on living wills. I ask this in view of the controversy about Terri Shiavo. She does not have a living will. Hypothetically, what if she had had a legal document stating her desire that no extraordinary attempts to prolong her life i.e. by feeding tubes, etc. be in place? Would there still be an ethical issue? The church's leaning toward natural law would seem to allow the termination of the artificial means that is keeping her body alive. She has no say in the situation and the family is being torn apart. I'm s\not convinced that her husband is a monster. I am probably in a minority here as I don't view this as a clear cut, slam dunk...keep her life support on. I don't have a living will, but in view of sad situation surrounding Terri, I am seriously considering getting one for myself and my family's sake. Jim

-- jim Furst (furst @flash.net), October 22, 2003

Answers

bump.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), October 22, 2003.

jim,

being a certified first responder who has dealt with this before, i can answer your question...

Hypothetically, what if she had had a legal document stating her desire that no extraordinary attempts to prolong her life i.e. by feeding tubes, etc. be in place?

well, there is something REQUIRED for medical care called CONSENT TO TREAT. when a person is unconcious it is considered IMPLIED CONSENT, allowing medical staff to act. HOWEVER, if there is a living will which states that the person has a DO NOT RESUCITATE, then consent is considered denied and for the person to try to administer care to revive a person who would otherwise die would be illegal.

case in point, i was on the scene along with a nurse and a doctor when an old man had a heart attack. as we prepared to do CPR, his wife told us he had a DNR, and showed us the paper for it. all we could legally do was talk to him, hold his hand and watch him die. quite a sad experience if you ask me. legally we could not touch him though.

As to the morality of it??? well, she was resucitated. starving her, despite her state, would be murder. a baby is not capable of feeding itself, yet not feeding it and letting it waste away would still be a sin. so, yes, her husband is a monster. there is a difference between not bringing her back, and killing her.

if she had a DNR would it be moral? tough call. the hard part is, you want to save the person, but if you do you could pay fines or go to jail. AND when you become a first responder you pledge to profer care and follow medical guidelines which state that you will not treat without consent, so its a binding promise

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 23, 2003.

Thanks paul,

I should be more clear, but I hadn't thought about how the document would actually work. In my "hypothetical" case, I would want every attempt to resucitate... to get me started again, but would want some limit on how long those methods were used to keep me going. I wouldn't want to be featured on the evening news with everyone in my family at odds, and various outside groups trying to figure out whats best or right.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), October 23, 2003.

right, well, your living will could include a resucitate for a given amount of time. including that after say, two months you wish to remove consent to treat would be the same as if terry asked for herself to have them remove the feeding tubes.

HOWEVER... be careful when setting time limits on treatment. if you went into a coma, and were expected to make a full recovery if left on IV for food, then your DNR became active before you woke, you'd pretty much have your lifesource cut when you were far from dead or even vegitized. if youre going to set yourself a timeframe for a DNR, then take this advice: give yourself ALOT of room for recovery.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 23, 2003.

Even a living will is only good if someone has it on them and the medical people find it, or a spouse hands it to the medical personnel, or you die at the right place, etc.... The only reason the Schiavo case is in the news at all is that those closest to her are not in agreement as to her care. She could have had something written saying "resusitate at all costs" and the husband threw it away, we don't know. As someone brought up on another forum, you have to have a written contract for a real estate transaction, but in this case the courts are relying on "verbal wishes", with not even a recording of them to go to to verify that such words were spoken at all. Why is this allowed?

Even with organ donation, which you can designate as your wish on your driver's license, can be ignored by your next of kin. I understand that obviously they would want to have some assurances that some "body snatcher" isn't declaring people dead right and left for money, but there are still people out there who think it will "ruin the viewing" (a ghastly practice if you ask me), or for superstitious reasons won't let it be done, which to me is wrong.

I don't understand the Church's position on this. It is okay to choose to die for your faith, or to save another's life, but not okay to decline medical treatment. Well, it isn't always for a selfish reason you would do that--is it right to to tie up several doctors and other medical personnel on just one person, or would those people be doing more good giving basic medical care say to hundreds or thousands of people, and I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about the combined expertise of those people? And gee, are we committing suicide if we choose to live out in the boonies, have the same thing happen to us as Ms. Schiavo but can't afford to or can't get to a hospital with the latest and greatest in life support?

Finally, as one of the links John provided in the first post on Terri's case points out, how are these "living wills" interpreted, and how can you write one that covers all the bases and says exactly what you want it to in a way that can't possibly be misinterpreted? What does "do not resusitate" mean? Is that generally accepted meaning okay with you, or do you want some other term or phrase, and be prepared to explain down to the last detail, too.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 23, 2003.

Living wills are limited at to what you specifically ask for and decline. It is possible that a DNR would prevent you from having heart surgery if it includes having the heart stop. Unless indicated by a surgical release, the doctor could not restart the heart.

It is much better to have a documented medical proxy (spouse, parent, adult child, close friend). Discuss in detail your attitude and religious beliefs regarding medical intervention, quality of life, and sustained care - including PVS.

In New Jersey - Bioethics boards are only called into a situation if there is no clear direction from a living will or medical proxy and there is a conflict in the family or between the family and doctor. Bioethics board generallly give greatest weight in the decision making process to the spouse, with adult children and parents of a minor child following.

After serving for over 9 years on a bioethics board for a major hospital in New Jersey, I do not recall one dispute that involved a designated medical proxy.

Hospital bioethics boards are made up of medical and administrative staff, clergy (including nuns), and community volunteers. There is extensive training in bioethic decision making. However, the stated religious beliefs (in New Jersey) of the adult patient regarding treatment (accepting or declining) over rides family wishes or ethic board findings.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), October 23, 2003.

Thanks paul h. and all who responded. True... its a very difficult thing to spell out legally. I see the problems. I would want every chance,... especially since I fear death and want to put it off as long as possible. I just don't want to be dragged around because nobody has a clear idea of what I want. This whole story makes me recognize that we should probably make some attempt to clarify what we want. In spite my recognition of this, I'm pretty sure I will not actually do anything about it. I have said it to people, but thats about it.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), October 23, 2003.