Why does John Paul II endorse the abuse that occurs when a doctor, through the use of artificial nutrition and hydration, animates a human body that is in the process of dying?

Why would he reduce human life to artificial means of nutrition?

-- John Dern (JohnDern@yahoo.com), June 25, 2004

Answers

Feeding someone who can't feed themselves is an act of kindness.

What would you say if someone said a baby had to feed themselves, or an invalid?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.

The fact that a person is dying from some pathologic condition does not justify murdering the person by starvation. Keeping a patient clean, nourished and hydrated is simple human decency. There is nothing artificial about it. Withholding food and water would indeed be "artificial", as well as dehumanizing. It says in effect, "he/she is no longer a human being, and no longer deserving of human dignity, so we might as well scrap it as quickly as possible". It is abandoning people, not caring for them, that reduces human life to something less than human.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 25, 2004.

i liken it to a scuba diver deep in the ocean. they are, in effect, on life support while they are down there. by your logic, it would be inhumane to leave their tank intact, since without it they would be dead... therefore we are artificially keeping them alive. in keeping with the logic of your original post, the only humane thing to do would be to cut the divers tube (and, i guess, your own) and let yourself die like you naturally would.

humanity DEPENDS on the artificial for survival. do you think that a man alone with a bear could survive? NO. man NEEDS tools, NEEDS artificial means to survive. THAT is what God gave us to rule the world with, the ability to implement discovery in an advanced way to preserve life. it is not only inhumane to let someone die who could otherwise live, but it is throwing the gift that God gave us back in His face.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 25, 2004.

i believe john is correct.

there is a mutitude of possibilites in which a person might find themselves either needing one form of artificial care, or many. there are many different cases that require different levels of caution.

let me make this clear. There are patients who are in a coma, in a paralyzed state, or even some in a vegetative state who still have most brain function, and are not in a process of dying. we are morally required to care for them and do all we can to give them artifical nutrition and hydration, bathe them, and be with them.

BUT

there are cases where: -a human being has lost most brain function -due to an accident or other illness -they have lost conscious motor abilities -they move, but they are really unconscious -this has been documented widely -they have been in a declining persistent vegetative state -in these cases doctors keep increasing artificial care -more intreveneous drugs, respirators, pacemaker...

In these specific cases it is obvious that the human body is in the process of dying. Yes, life is sacred, but so is death. When human life is in a process of dying, we must respect it as a solemn, sacred part of God's will. In these cases, removing artifical nutrition and hydration is not "murder," it is clearly "allowing to die." It is not we who kill in these cases, it is the disease or condition that ends the life!

I believe the Holy Father should be more clear about this and let families develop a healthy understanding of death. Many devoutly Catholic families have loved ones on death beds for years and are only prolonging death. This is something that needs to be addressed clearly and cautiously.

-- jiggy la douche (jiggy@liggy.com), June 26, 2004.

The only complete and healthy understanding of death is found in the Church. Apart from the Church there can be no real understanding of death at all, except in the biological sense.

The Holy Father and the Church are completely clear on all aspects of this issue. Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 2278 ...

"Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate ... here one does not will to cause death. One's inability to impede it is simply accepted".

What could be clearer than that? However, the Church is equally clear on the other side of the issue. CCC section 2227 ...

"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 judgement into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded."

The Church never requires prolongation of life by extraordinary means when there is no hope of recovery. However, the provision of basic bodily needs like nourishment and hydration is never extraordinary. Indeed, nothing could be more ordinary. Therefore the deliberate withholding of such basic needs with the intent of causing death is murder.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 26, 2004.

i agree with you paul. good points, and thanks for bringing up the codes and rules.

but there is one dilemma. moral theologians argue about the word "extraordinary." it causes problems.

less than 100 years ago, Terri Schiavo would have expired already. plastic tubes injecting a nutritional fluid is not ordinary. it is extraordinary.

Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep somebody on a hospital bed with wires and tubes sticking out of them for a decade is not ordinary. That is extraordinary, and it is abuse. Terri is being violated. her body tells us that it wants to die. Hers is not a state that medicine can improve. It's almost an injustice what that family and that hospital are going through.

If only the Church would explain a little more, do a little research, hundreds of families around the world wouldn't feel they had a moral obligation to spend all this money and time because of such an unhealthy attitude toward death.

-- jiggy la douche (jiggy@liggy.com), June 26, 2004.

In these cases, removing artifical nutrition and hydration is not "murder," it is clearly "allowing to die."

If the person was in the process of dying... providing nutrition and hydration would not alter that course. to discontinue nutrition and hydration actively promotes and causes death and is not simply allowing someone to die. Discontinuation of nutrition and hydration is never morally acceptable. It would result in the death of even a healthy person. A few years ago i required hydration through the very unnatural means of intravennous otherwise I would have died ...fortunatley no one decided they should just simply allow me to die.

-- jphod (jphod@comcast.net), June 29, 2004.