Wow...just wow...

Riss91

The woman in Ireland didn't die because of her fetus. She died because her doctors didn't treat a blood infection that she received. The story was certainly slanted to make it seem like the hospital refused a life-saving D&C. This wasn't the case. She contracted a bacterial blood disease, septicemia which was not treated - or treated too late.  She did get a D&C once the fetus' heart stopped beating. But, the bacterial disease was already too strong for her to overcome.

shawna127

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_wowjust-wow?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:c019d1ed-3f1a-4ea4-a825-69df35470311Post:f8ec2fc8-53bc-4905-bf79-cc7e68f08582">Re: Wow...just wow...</a>:
[QUOTE]The ends don't justify the means. Ectopic: The immoral way to solve is to kill the embryo. When an embryo is implanted in a fallopian tube, that portion of the tube must be removed, and indirectly, the embryo dies. The whole fallopian tube is not removed. This doesn't mean that future fertility is impaired. <strong> From what I understand, there is hope that possibly in the future, ectopic embryos can be moved to the uterus.</strong>  The 2nd question is asking why is one human life more important than another? Simply because one is "unborn" does not make them any less human that one that is. 
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

This would be awesome!

AllisonW423

Hello, everyone. I'm not Catholic, but I sometimes pop over to your board because I find your conversations interesting. I interact with a wide variety of medical patients at work, and since medical ethics were brought up, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on these scenarios:

I unfortunately deal occasionally with pregnant women who are being advised by their doctor that there is an X% chance that they will die if they "continue with the pregnancy" AKA doctor-speak for "don't get an abortion." If that chance is 100%, and the baby will not survive either way, and the woman makes the choice not to have an abortion, is she then not valuing and cherishing her own life, given to her by God? Even if the baby is also a life (which I definitely believe), but one that is definitely going to end prior to birth?

Secondly, what is your opinion on taking people (anyone from an infant to a senior) off of life support? If the patient is unable to continue to sustain their own life without a breathing machine or without sustenance from a feeding tube, and either the patient has a living will or the family makes the decision, what are your feelings on removal of life-sustaining measures?

Like I said, I'm not Catholic, but I would love to learn so that I can better serve/understand my patients who are Catholic. Thanks!

monkeysip

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_wowjust-wow?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c019d1ed-3f1a-4ea4-a825-69df35470311Post:339a0376-bf83-441c-8153-d7915f8a1bde">Re: Wow...just wow...</a>:
[QUOTE]Hello, everyone. I'm not Catholic, but I sometimes pop over to your board because I find your conversations interesting. I interact with a wide variety of medical patients at work, and since medical ethics were brought up, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on these scenarios: I unfortunately deal occasionally with pregnant women who are being advised by their doctor that there is an X% chance that they will die if they "continue with the pregnancy" AKA doctor-speak for "don't get an abortion." If that chance is 100%, and the baby will not survive either way, and the woman makes the choice not to have an abortion, is she then not valuing and cherishing her own life, given to her by God? Even if the baby is also a life (which I definitely believe), but one that is definitely going to end prior to birth? Secondly, what is your opinion on taking people (anyone from an infant to a senior) off of life support? If the patient is unable to continue to sustain their own life without a breathing machine or without sustenance from a feeding tube, and either the patient has a living will or the family makes the decision, what are your feelings on removal of life-sustaining measures? Like I said, I'm not Catholic, but I would love to learn so that I can better serve/understand my patients who are Catholic. Thanks!
Posted by AllisonW423[/QUOTE]

For your first question, there is no such thing as a 100% chance of death in these circumstances.  Miracles have happened.  But let's assume the chance is virtually 100%, say, 99%... she is not undervaluing her life simply by refusing to kill another.  PP had a great analogy earlier... if you need a kidney, and there's someone with an inoperable, fatal, brain-tumor who has a perfectly healthy kidney, you are not allowed to kill them to take their kidney.  Yes, the other person will die eventually, but there is a fundamental difference between someone dying naturally, from their own disorders/diseases, and being killed by someone else.  Both are tragic, but there is a difference.  You wouldn't be undervaluing your own life by not killing the brain-tumor person, so you wouldn't be undervaluing your own life simply by not killing your unborn child.

We need to take care of our bodies and our health, but we all must realize that our lives are in God's hands.  We are all mortal and will die someday.  It is not up to us to decide who lives and dies.

For the second scenario, it depends upon how "extraordinary" the life-sustaining measures are.  Feeding tubes are not *typically* considered extraordinary because a lot of people need extra help being fed.  Even normal, healthy infants need someone to feed them.  Feeding is typically an ordinary measure, and thus, it would be immoral to remove it.

Breathing machines would *typically* be considered extraordinary, but one must also take into consideration the person's age, overall health, and prognosis.  If a perfectly healthy young person gets into an accident and needs a breathing apparatus for a few days, that is not any reason to immediately "pull the plug".  The family and medical staff would want to consider whether this person would reasonably get better at any time, their current condition, and how long their life expectancy is.  It may be moral to remove life support in certain situations like this.

AllisonW423

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_wowjust-wow?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:c019d1ed-3f1a-4ea4-a825-69df35470311Post:47417ec9-f008-4eb9-9586-4c3cbac048a7">Re: Wow...just wow...</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Wow...just wow... : For your first question, there is no such thing as a 100% chance of death in these circumstances.  Miracles have happened.  But let's assume the chance is virtually 100%, say, 99%... she is not undervaluing her life simply by refusing to kill another.  PP had a great analogy earlier... if you need a kidney, and there's someone with an inoperable, fatal, brain-tumor who has a perfectly healthy kidney, you are not allowed to kill them to take their kidney.  Yes, the other person will die eventually, but there is a fundamental difference between someone dying naturally, from their own disorders/diseases, and being killed by someone else.  Both are tragic, but there is a difference.  You wouldn't be undervaluing your own life by not killing the brain-tumor person, so you wouldn't be undervaluing your own life simply by not killing your unborn child. We need to take care of our bodies and our health, but we all must realize that our lives are in God's hands.  We are all mortal and will die someday.  It is not up to us to decide who lives and dies. <strong>For the second scenario, it depends upon how "extraordinary" the life-sustaining measures are</strong>.  Feeding tubes are not *typically* considered extraordinary because a lot of people need extra help being fed.  Even normal, healthy infants need someone to feed them.  Feeding is typically an ordinary measure, and thus, it would be immoral to remove it. Breathing machines would *typically* be considered extraordinary, but one must also take into consideration the person's age, overall health, and prognosis.  If a perfectly healthy young person gets into an accident and needs a breathing apparatus for a few days, that is not any reason to immediately "pull the plug".  The family and medical staff would want to consider whether this person would reasonably get better at any time, their current condition, and how long their life expectancy is.  It may be moral to remove life support in certain situations like this.
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>Thanks for the reply. I wasn't too clear on the second scenario, was I? I intended to be referring to someone like Terri Shiavo. An individual whose neurological prognosis would not allow for any meaningful recovery, but who could be kept alive via artificial methods. There would always be a possibility that a miracle could take place, but in essence you would be artificially feeding and breathing for someone who will be "alive" but not in any meaningful sense. Typically, patients like this die of an infection or secondary illness.

</div>

professorscience

I might be wrong, but I think part of the opposition to removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was that all her other systems were working, so it was predicted to take her a LONG time to die without the tube, during which time she'd feel all the pain of starvation.

If you want another place to look for information on this, I really like Fr. Tad Pacholczyk's talks on bioethics and some of the other speakers Catholic Answers has for topics related to right-to-life.

Calypso1977

It is my understanding that you are not to remove things like feeding tubes.  a brain dead person who can breathe on their own and only needs a feeding tube is not dead and can live on their own.  IMO, Terri Schiavo should still be alive.  I read her family's book - her husband actually denied her things like water and COMMUNION once the no food order was given.  Shameful.

Her case is all the more reason that we shoudl all have specific health care orders in place so that spouses and parents (or others) are not fighting over our wishes.

I know for me, if i ever get pregnant, i will be signing and notarizing a document that explicitly states that my baby is not to be aborted, under ANY circumstances even if that means i must die. 

monkeysip

To clarify, feeding tubes CAN be considered extraordinary means in some circumstances.  If the person is already dying, the feeding tube can be an excessive burden on them, and you have some people for whom the feeding tubes only worsen their condition.  It may be moral to remove the feeding tube in certain instances.

I've heard arguments from Catholics on both sides of Terri's case, but ultimately, I think the Catholic Church felt that she was being unfairly viewed as a "vegetable", and there is no such thing as a "vegetable" in human life.  All humans have dignity and humanity, even when dying, comatose, or non-responsive.

Riss91

Is there a difference between:

NOT giving someone a feeding tube in the first place, knowing that they will likely die without one
and
pulling out a feeding tube, knowing that they will die without one?

Calypso1977

i just dont see how feeding someone can be considered "extraordinary means". 

Resa77

Riss, I'm not sure,  but I'd imagine that morally, there isn't much of a difference.

Calypso, I too struggle to fully understand.  I may be wrong, but I think you also can consider whether you're prolonging life or prolonging death.  If removing or not giving a feeding tube will provide relief from discomfort and pain, and will not cause death, I think that's WAY different than removing it/not giving it and then the person starving to death.   I've known people who had feeding tubes removed from a relative when they were told the person only had hours, maybe days, to live.  They didn't die from starvation, but at least they had a little less suffering in their death.

monkeysip

From the USSCB's medical directives:

“There should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration, as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient” (#58).

The point is, it's not absolute.  There MAY be circumstances under which it is okay to remove the tube.  Some people choke on the tubes or keep pulling them out (not consciously).  For some people it can worsen their condition, or it is just making their death slower and more painful than removing it.

chelseamb11

As for the ectopic prengnacy thing, this actually, unfortunately, hits close to home.
SIL discovered in May of last year that their first child had implanted into her fallopian tube.  It actually burst before she found out.  Removing the fallopian tube does not directly end the embryo/fetus' life.  Yes, the end of that life will be the result of removing the tube, but you are removing a damaged organ, not terminating the pregnancy. The way I look at it, is your doctor's actions in that situation indirectly end the life of the child.  However, in just takign whatever pill or doing whatever it takes to abort the child, you are DIRECTLY ending that child's life.  God will decide how long that child will live in the removed tube.

The same goes for feeding tubes and other means (which is why I'm not opposed to people being able to sign stuff that says no extraordinary measures will be taken).  Removing the tube does not directly kill the person (i.e. the physical act of removing the tube doesn't kill a person, the lack of food eventually does).  When removing a tube, God decides how long that person will still live on their own.

The biggest difference for me is: Are you still leaving the life in God's hands?  If you are skipping a "step" and just ending the life yourself, then no, it's not in His hands.  If you are giving God the chance to choose when that life ends instead, then it is in His hands.

chelseamb11

And that article makes me want to vomit.