When is a brain dead patient actually considered dead and therefore can no longer recieve his/her right to life?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), October 15, 2004

Answers

bump

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), October 15, 2004.

Sorry if this is not OK , but I only can give this kind of explanation:

brain death , explanation via google.com link

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), October 15, 2004.

When is it morally permissable to remove artificial nutrition and hydration and life support?

If a person has lost most brain activity and is unable to ingest and breath without help from a machine, does that make it morally permissable to remove artificial nutrition/ hydration and life support?

What if the only thing they can do without machines is breath? Can we then take away artificial nutrition and hydration?

How about in the case that they have lost most brain activity, they are in a permanent vegatative state, but, like Terri Sciavo, are able to react to light and touch? But they cannot ingest on their own? May we remove artificial nutrition?

-- steve (steve@nthks.com), October 16, 2004.

The Church does not require the continuation of medical treatments that are "burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome". (CCC 2278) However, food and water cannot possibly fall into any of those categories. The Church teaches that "even if death is thought to be imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted". (CCC 2279)

The Church further teaches that "any act or omission which, of itself 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." (CCC 2277) The omission of nutrition and/or hydration clearly falls into this category.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 16, 2004.

Paul, I am still not clear on this. If one is brain dead with no electrical impulses anywhere in the brain, can his body then be taken off life support? I thought the Church left it up to competent doctors to determine whether the patient is truly dead through brain death and only then can be taken off life support. At least that's what I read lately. I was also told that someone can be braindead yet his/her body can still function. I have never heard of that one. How accurate is it to say this?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), October 16, 2004.

Taken off "life support" - in the sense of biological function being maintained by machines when there is no hope of recovery - yes, such artificial means of keeping the body functioning while the brain is non-functioning can morally be discontinued in such circumstances. That would come under the heading of "medical treatments that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome". Usually when such articificial support is removed, the patient soon stops breathing and dies a natural death. However, if the patient does not die quickly when such artificial life support is removed, his death cannot be intentionally and directly hastened, either by direct act (such as lethal injection), or by omission of basic needs (starvation/dehydration).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 16, 2004.

Thanks paul, now I understand what you mean.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), October 16, 2004.

This is what happens when technology comes into play--it really blurs the lines.

People live now from what they would have died from years ago. When did tube feeding/ hydration come into common use? Also, depending on whether you live in a developed country or have access to specialized medical care (such as when doctors perform operations here and abroad on people who they know cannot get the care otherwise--like the recent Siamese twin case), or not determines whether you die a "natural death". If this were a 3rd or 4th world country, I doubt that there would be any cases like Ms. Schiavo's to agonize over.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 16, 2004.

Since I am on the same subject, I was given this short made up story from somebody's ethics class, and asked for an answer. I thought about it but I am still unsure?

Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons.

So,what would be the Church's views on this? Would the person have to stay plugged in, or is their anyway unplugging would be considered indirectly killing the patient kind of like indirect abortion?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), October 17, 2004.

darn music lovers!!!

-- brian (brian@brian.com), October 17, 2004.

First of all, any hostage situation is a direct violation of basic human rights. Hostage takers get killed frequently during the rescue of a hostage, and when non-lethal means of affecting the rescue are not possible, such homicide is morally justifable in the defense of the life of the hostage.

Secondly, no person is required to risk their own life in order to save the life of another. A person is not morally obligated to donate a kidney that would save the life of a sibling. A mother is not morally obligated to reject or postpone life-saving medical treatment, even though that treatment may result in the death of an unborn child. Therefore, no person could be morally obligated to risk their health or sacrifice their life to save the life of a stranger.

All persons have a right to life, but no person has a right to preserve his own life by violating the right to life of another, except in cases of immediate self defense from direct physical attack, when non-lethal means do not exist or would be inordinately risky.

"Unplugging" from the person to whom you had been illegally, unethically, and immorally attached would not constitute "killing" that person, either directly or indirectly. The person would simply die of the terminal disease he already had. You would simply affirm your own unalienable right to life and your own morally valid choice not to subject yourself to life-threatening circumstances in hopes of saving another.

The whole example of course is utterly ridiculous - the sick person would be far better off connected to a kidney dialysis machine than to another human being - but it is fairly typical of the wierd scenarios presented in ethics and moral theology classes.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2004.

"Unplugging" from the person to whom you had been illegally, unethically, and immorally attached would not constitute "killing" that person, either directly or indirectly. The person would simply die of the terminal disease he already had. You would simply affirm your own unalienable right to life and your own morally valid choice not to subject yourself to life-threatening circumstances in hopes of saving another."

But the wording of this scenario is given to try to equate it to the rape of a woman, who has been violated, and illegally, unethically, and immorally "attatched" to the fetus who alone will depend on her for survival. Also, the woman who is plugged in is not in any physical harm, only the discomfort of remaining there for years if need be. This causes me to say that the victim will have to remain attatched since it is not a life threatening situation. Am I right to say this?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), October 17, 2004.

There is no parallel between the two situations. In the first case, a terminally ill person dies a natural death because you did not volunteer to take extraordinary measures and to place yourself in grave danger in order to intervene. In the second case, a woman takes direct action to violently terminate the life of a healthy human being, even though she is in no immediate danger herself. In such cases (which are exceeding rare incidentally - rape almost never results in pregnancy), one can certainly sympathize with the emotional trauma of the mother. However, adding the guilt of killing an innocent child to the trauma already inflicted upon her will only ensure that she suffers additional anguish. After all, she had no cause for guilt as far as the assault was concerned, but she has full moral responsibility, with the associated guilt if she procures an abortion. In any case, even if the abortion could be palliative regarding the trauma of the attack, the end does not justify the means. The killing of another human being cannot be justified on the grounds that it relieves the killer of stress or mental anguish.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2004.

So I guess the key words are "exraordinary measures".

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), October 17, 2004.

We are not morally obligated to use "extraordinary measures" to medically prolong either our own life or the life of another which is otherwise in a terminal state. However, this has nothing to do with direct abortion. There are no circumstances, no matter how extraordinary, which can justify direct abortion.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2004.

"We are not morally obligated to use "extraordinary measures" to medically prolong either our own life or the life of another which is otherwise in a terminal state."

Ok, before I drop this issue, could you please list a few possibilities of "extraordinary measures"? eg. Is providing somebody his medicine an extraordinary measure? Or is that an ordinary measure?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), October 17, 2004.

As I said above, the Church defines "extraordinary measures" as procedures which are inordinately "burdensome, dangerous, or disproportionate to the expected outcome". Some medicines (antibiotics during an infection) certainly do not fall into those categories. Other medicines (untested experimental drugs, chemotherapy when there is no realistic chance of cure) may very well fall into such categories. Each case has to be considered on its own merits.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 17, 2004.

Ok Paul another question. If they finally stop freezing embryos. What would the Catholic Church say is to be done with the remaining ones? Wouldn't it be illicit in the view of the Church to put them into surragate moms? Should they just be allowed to die naturally even if they can willingly be saved?

Forgive me if my questions sound silly?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), October 18, 2004.

Surrogate motherhood is not just "illicit", it is "gravely immoral" (CCC 2376). Therefore it cannot be done, even to achieve a morally acceptable result. The end doesn't justify the means.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 18, 2004.