End-of-life care has moral implications

Latest News

First in a series of reflections on Catholic teaching regarding health and end-of-life decisions.

As the controversy surrounding the life of Terry Schiavo reached its peak this past spring, most everyone found themselves engaged in conversation about some aspect of her ordeal. We thought of decisions we have faced when loved ones or friends were ill; of what might happen in the future; of our own wishes should we ever find ourselves in a similar situation; and of Pope John Paul II, suffering from a variety of agonizing ailments as he neared death.
I thought it might be helpful to reflect on the light shed by Church teaching on these important issues.
Life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. That is why we adamantly oppose abortion and euthanasia, and why in recent years Pope John Paul II also indicated that the circumstances in which the use of capital punishment is justified are virtually non-existent.
All of us have the responsibility to care for our health. We are stewards of our bodies, for they are God’s work, temples of the Holy Spirit. Taking care of ourselves involves everything from eating right to seeking and accepting proper medical attention when we are ill.
The Church embraces advances in medical science that heal and promote life. God works through such advances, which are responsible for the increasing human lifespan in first-world countries. We have a responsibility to help underdeveloped countries in their quest to better the health of their citizens. Medical research is extremely important and helpful, as long as it is conducted in a moral way.
When making decisions about medical treatment at times of serious illness or when one is near death, it is important to distinguish between what is morally obligatory and what is morally optional regarding treatment. Moral theologians often use the distinction “ordinary” and “extraordinary” to express the same concepts.
Most routine medical treatment we seek and receive in life is designed to keep us in good health or to help us regain good health — and so we are morally obliged to undertake it.
If we are diagnosed with a serious illness, we must seek all reasonable means of regaining health. Needless to say, medical treatment can be quite painful and can cause suffering in itself; it can be difficult both to undergo such treatment and to watch loved ones do so. Nonetheless, such treatment can also bring about remarkable healing. Medical science has advanced far, and diseases once considered incurable are now curable.
However, there are circumstances during serious illness when one might be faced with complex questions, if for example a physician suggests experimental or particularly aggressive treatment. We are free to undertake such treatment, as long as it does not involve any immoral procedures. However, we are also free to refuse such treatment if the suggested treatments have no reasonable hope of improving health or if their burdens are clearly greater than their benefits.
For example, cancer patients who have accepted many treatments with no improvement can refuse continued treatments if it is clear they are not going to bring about improvement or only increase suffering. On the other hand, it would not be legitimate to refuse routine treatment which physicians believe will improve one’s health or bring about a cure.
The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services remind us that “The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure.” Among many other things, this statement implies that a patient suffering from painful illness has the right for palliative (pain-relieving) care. Pain should be managed in a way that allows patients to prepare for death while fully conscious; the dying should be kept as free of pain as possible. Medicines capable of relieving pain may be given to a dying person, even if those medications indirectly shorten his or her life, as long as it was never the intention to directly hasten death.
However, some people want to blur the distinction between the use of medication to manage pain even at the risk of hastening the dying process, and the deliberate administration of a lethal overdose of pain medication as a kind of “mercy” killing. Any treatment directly intended to cause or hasten death is always morally unacceptable. The Church is unwaveringly opposed to euthanasia. No one has the right to take one’s own life, to enlist the help of others in taking one’s life, or to assist someone in taking his or her own life.
Both the Church and medical science use the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” to describe certain treatments. As I mentioned earlier, it can be legitimate, given certain circumstances, to refuse “extraordinary” treatments. Does the Church consider food (nutrition) and water (hydration) morally obligatory?
The Directives indicate: “There should always 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.”
Next week I will reflect on the particular circumstances of the Terry Schiavo case.
Do you have an intention for Bishop Sartain’s prayer? If so, send it to him at Bishop Sartain’s Prayer List, Diocese of Little Rock, 2500 North Tyler St., P.O. Box 7239, Little Rock, AR 72217.

Special to Arkansas Catholic

Latest from From the Bishop

End-of-life care has moral implications

Latest News

First in a series of reflections on Catholic teaching regarding health and end-of-life decisions.

As the controversy surrounding the life of Terry Schiavo reached its peak this past spring, most everyone found themselves engaged in conversation about some aspect of her ordeal. We thought of decisions we have faced when loved ones or friends were ill; of what might happen in the future; of our own wishes should we ever find ourselves in a similar situation; and of Pope John Paul II, suffering from a variety of agonizing ailments as he neared death.
I thought it might be helpful to reflect on the light shed by Church teaching on these important issues.
Life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. That is why we adamantly oppose abortion and euthanasia, and why in recent years Pope John Paul II also indicated that the circumstances in which the use of capital punishment is justified are virtually non-existent.
All of us have the responsibility to care for our health. We are stewards of our bodies, for they are God’s work, temples of the Holy Spirit. Taking care of ourselves involves everything from eating right to seeking and accepting proper medical attention when we are ill.
The Church embraces advances in medical science that heal and promote life. God works through such advances, which are responsible for the increasing human lifespan in first-world countries. We have a responsibility to help underdeveloped countries in their quest to better the health of their citizens. Medical research is extremely important and helpful, as long as it is conducted in a moral way.
When making decisions about medical treatment at times of serious illness or when one is near death, it is important to distinguish between what is morally obligatory and what is morally optional regarding treatment. Moral theologians often use the distinction “ordinary” and “extraordinary” to express the same concepts.
Most routine medical treatment we seek and receive in life is designed to keep us in good health or to help us regain good health — and so we are morally obliged to undertake it.
If we are diagnosed with a serious illness, we must seek all reasonable means of regaining health. Needless to say, medical treatment can be quite painful and can cause suffering in itself; it can be difficult both to undergo such treatment and to watch loved ones do so. Nonetheless, such treatment can also bring about remarkable healing. Medical science has advanced far, and diseases once considered incurable are now curable.
However, there are circumstances during serious illness when one might be faced with complex questions, if for example a physician suggests experimental or particularly aggressive treatment. We are free to undertake such treatment, as long as it does not involve any immoral procedures. However, we are also free to refuse such treatment if the suggested treatments have no reasonable hope of improving health or if their burdens are clearly greater than their benefits.
For example, cancer patients who have accepted many treatments with no improvement can refuse continued treatments if it is clear they are not going to bring about improvement or only increase suffering. On the other hand, it would not be legitimate to refuse routine treatment which physicians believe will improve one’s health or bring about a cure.
The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services remind us that “The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure.” Among many other things, this statement implies that a patient suffering from painful illness has the right for palliative (pain-relieving) care. Pain should be managed in a way that allows patients to prepare for death while fully conscious; the dying should be kept as free of pain as possible. Medicines capable of relieving pain may be given to a dying person, even if those medications indirectly shorten his or her life, as long as it was never the intention to directly hasten death.
However, some people want to blur the distinction between the use of medication to manage pain even at the risk of hastening the dying process, and the deliberate administration of a lethal overdose of pain medication as a kind of “mercy” killing. Any treatment directly intended to cause or hasten death is always morally unacceptable. The Church is unwaveringly opposed to euthanasia. No one has the right to take one’s own life, to enlist the help of others in taking one’s life, or to assist someone in taking his or her own life.
Both the Church and medical science use the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” to describe certain treatments. As I mentioned earlier, it can be legitimate, given certain circumstances, to refuse “extraordinary” treatments. Does the Church consider food (nutrition) and water (hydration) morally obligatory?
The Directives indicate: “There should always 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.”
Next week I will reflect on the particular circumstances of the Terry Schiavo case.
Do you have an intention for Bishop Sartain’s prayer? If so, send it to him at Bishop Sartain’s Prayer List, Diocese of Little Rock, 2500 North Tyler St., P.O. Box 7239, Little Rock, AR 72217.

Special to Arkansas Catholic

Latest from From the Bishop

End-of-life care has moral implications

Latest News

First in a series of reflections on Catholic teaching regarding health and end-of-life decisions.

As the controversy surrounding the life of Terry Schiavo reached its peak this past spring, most everyone found themselves engaged in conversation about some aspect of her ordeal. We thought of decisions we have faced when loved ones or friends were ill; of what might happen in the future; of our own wishes should we ever find ourselves in a similar situation; and of Pope John Paul II, suffering from a variety of agonizing ailments as he neared death.
I thought it might be helpful to reflect on the light shed by Church teaching on these important issues.
Life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. That is why we adamantly oppose abortion and euthanasia, and why in recent years Pope John Paul II also indicated that the circumstances in which the use of capital punishment is justified are virtually non-existent.
All of us have the responsibility to care for our health. We are stewards of our bodies, for they are God’s work, temples of the Holy Spirit. Taking care of ourselves involves everything from eating right to seeking and accepting proper medical attention when we are ill.
The Church embraces advances in medical science that heal and promote life. God works through such advances, which are responsible for the increasing human lifespan in first-world countries. We have a responsibility to help underdeveloped countries in their quest to better the health of their citizens. Medical research is extremely important and helpful, as long as it is conducted in a moral way.
When making decisions about medical treatment at times of serious illness or when one is near death, it is important to distinguish between what is morally obligatory and what is morally optional regarding treatment. Moral theologians often use the distinction “ordinary” and “extraordinary” to express the same concepts.
Most routine medical treatment we seek and receive in life is designed to keep us in good health or to help us regain good health — and so we are morally obliged to undertake it.
If we are diagnosed with a serious illness, we must seek all reasonable means of regaining health. Needless to say, medical treatment can be quite painful and can cause suffering in itself; it can be difficult both to undergo such treatment and to watch loved ones do so. Nonetheless, such treatment can also bring about remarkable healing. Medical science has advanced far, and diseases once considered incurable are now curable.
However, there are circumstances during serious illness when one might be faced with complex questions, if for example a physician suggests experimental or particularly aggressive treatment. We are free to undertake such treatment, as long as it does not involve any immoral procedures. However, we are also free to refuse such treatment if the suggested treatments have no reasonable hope of improving health or if their burdens are clearly greater than their benefits.
For example, cancer patients who have accepted many treatments with no improvement can refuse continued treatments if it is clear they are not going to bring about improvement or only increase suffering. On the other hand, it would not be legitimate to refuse routine treatment which physicians believe will improve one’s health or bring about a cure.
The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services remind us that “The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure.” Among many other things, this statement implies that a patient suffering from painful illness has the right for palliative (pain-relieving) care. Pain should be managed in a way that allows patients to prepare for death while fully conscious; the dying should be kept as free of pain as possible. Medicines capable of relieving pain may be given to a dying person, even if those medications indirectly shorten his or her life, as long as it was never the intention to directly hasten death.
However, some people want to blur the distinction between the use of medication to manage pain even at the risk of hastening the dying process, and the deliberate administration of a lethal overdose of pain medication as a kind of “mercy” killing. Any treatment directly intended to cause or hasten death is always morally unacceptable. The Church is unwaveringly opposed to euthanasia. No one has the right to take one’s own life, to enlist the help of others in taking one’s life, or to assist someone in taking his or her own life.
Both the Church and medical science use the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” to describe certain treatments. As I mentioned earlier, it can be legitimate, given certain circumstances, to refuse “extraordinary” treatments. Does the Church consider food (nutrition) and water (hydration) morally obligatory?
The Directives indicate: “There should always 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.”
Next week I will reflect on the particular circumstances of the Terry Schiavo case.
Do you have an intention for Bishop Sartain’s prayer? If so, send it to him at Bishop Sartain’s Prayer List, Diocese of Little Rock, 2500 North Tyler St., P.O. Box 7239, Little Rock, AR 72217.

Special to Arkansas Catholic

Latest from From the Bishop