Viewing Single Post From: Assisted suicide

Viewing Single Post From: Assisted suicide
JD	Sunday, 19. October 2008, 16:12
Posts: 564 Group: Banned Member #207 Joined: August 26, 2008	I was wondering when does pro longing life become an obstacle to natural law taking place? Church Teaching states the dignity of the human person and concept of life are very important, and must be protected. We have the right to die peacefully with 'human and Christian dignity', however, we are unable to procure our own death or help someone else. However, when does the use of therapeutic means cause problems, of course, taking into account the conscience of the sick person, their spokesperson, and even the doctors? Is it necessary in all circumstances to have recourse to all possible remedies or just some relevant ones? Moral theology implies one is never obliged to use "extraordinary" means'. But what does that mean today, especially in regards to the 'the rapid progress made in the treatment of sickness'? What is "proportionate" and "disproportionate"? There are a number of factors to consider when deciding on the best course of treatement, which are, complexity or risk, cost, possibilities of using it, chances of a result, state of the sick person and their physical and moral 'resources'. Additionally, If there are no other sufficient remedies, then with the patients consent, one can use experimental treatment with possible risk. By accepting them, the "patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity." These can be stopped if results are inadequate but taking into account patient and family views. One can look at the patient suffering and decide whether that is in proportion to the benefits. Moreover, its ok just to use "the normal means that medicine can offer." Additionally, one cannot force someone to have treatment already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome, and this is not the same as suicide but "an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community." The following Church Teachings must be added: "The administration of food and liquids, even artificially, is part of the normal treatment always due to the patient when this is not burdensome for him or her; their undue interruption can have the meaning of real and true euthanasia”. "In response to those who doubt the “human quality” of patients in a “permanent vegetative state”, it is necessary to reaffirm that “the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a ‘vegetable’ or an ‘animal’...“The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of possible recovery. I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering” "When stating that the administration of food and water is morally obligatory in principle, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not exclude the possibility that, in very remote places or in situations of extreme poverty, the artificial provision of food and water may be physically impossible, and then ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. However, the obligation to offer the minimal treatments that are available remains in place, as well as that of obtaining, if possible, the means necessary for an adequate support of life. Nor is the possibility excluded that, due to emerging complications, a patient may be unable to assimilate food and liquids, so that their provision becomes altogether useless. Finally, the possibility is not absolutely excluded that, in some rare cases, artificial nourishment and hydration may be excessively burdensome for the patient or may cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed." Taken from CDF Declaration on Euthanasia Also see the Pontifical Council Cor Unum document entitled Some Ethical Questions Relating to the Gravely Ill and the Dying Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers 'Charter for Health Care Workers'


Assisted suicide · Archived Discussions