Expert Answer Forum
Euthanasia QUESTION from Frances Swank January 12, 2000
What does the Church say regarding a person who is terminal and on a respirator with no hope of coming off of it. This person has a living will, and her family expresses her wishes to disconnet the ventilator and allow what is inevitable to happen. The doctor I work for was told by our Parish Priest that if he disconnected the patient, he would be held morally responsible for this person's death. If he doesn't, the family will find another physician to do it. Is our Pastor correct in this, or can a person be disconnected if that was their expressed wish to the family? ANSWER by Mr. John Miskell on January 12, 2000
Dear Frances, Your pastor is quite correct. Death is inevitable for us all. Shall we just go about killing everyone who is ill because they're going to die eventually anyway? Of course not but that's what happens if we apply this logic across the board. You mentioned that the person is on a respirator. Is her heart beating all on it's own? Yes? Then she's still alive isn't she? Who's to say there's no hope? Many well meaning people get suckered in to signing a Living Will or in some states it's called a Medical Treatment Declaration. Generally the person requests that their life not be sustained by artificial means if they are terminal and permanently unconscious and or terminal with no reasonable expectation of recovery. The provisions of most Living Wills include not only respirators, but also food and fluid--the most basic necessities of life--administered through feeding tubes. Is there anything artificial about food and water? The term permanently unconscious is purely a judgmental designation fraught with error. Medical history abounds with instances of spontaneous recovery from so-called permanently unconscious states. In many of these cases good nursing care plus the provision of food and fluid through feeding tubes were all that was necessary for recovery. Now these would be withheld under the Living Will. Also, the words reasonable expectation of recovery are much too vague. What would fulfill such a definition? When a patient's chances of recovering are 50-50, 30-70, 10-90? We simply cannot rush death because it's convenient. John Miskell Back to Index Page