|
|
|
|
||
| Bishop Speaks | ||
|
||
| March 13, 2008 Edition | ||
|
||
<< Back to regular Bishop Speaks page
|
 |
|
|
|
|
||||
Dear Friends,
Recently I was invited to speak with the wonderful people in Barneveld and Ridgeway regarding end of life issues - a topic which is both important and relevant to current public policy discussions and to many who, even today, are facing the illness of a loved one. The issues surrounding human death and dying are sometimes difficult topics, tied directly to our discussion of the dignity of human life, and are ones which cause no small amount of confusion among Catholics and other men and women of good faith, due to the seemingly endless variety of scenarios which can arise. Yet, many people clearly desire to know the will of God, through the teaching of His Church, when it comes to end of life issues. I'd like to examine here a few of the key principles which underlie each and every end of life scenario which we may face.
Speaking of end of life issues does not exactly sound like a happy topic. But, it's not a sad topic either, because it's the only way to heaven! The flight to Heaven has one stop (there are no non-stop flights) and that stop is on Calvary. The flight to heaven must stop at the Cross and at death, and only then can it go on. So, when we talk about death and end of life issues, we're talking about something that is very difficult for us - but it's the way it has to be. And the good news about death is that death is never the end of the story - heaven is the end of the story!
First, when we talk, in terms of our Catholic Faith, about "end of life issues," we are only talking about issues that arise when somebody is terminally ill and close to death. There are no end of life issues otherwise. Speaking of end of life issues necessarily means that we're dealing with a situation wherein someone is terminally ill and close to death.
Someone, for example, who has hypertension or diabetes is terminally ill, in the sense that if they were not treated for their hypertension or diabetes, they would die. But, they are not, necessarily, close to death, because, with treatment, they could go on and they could even thrive. There are many illnesses such as this which represent for someone a terminal illness and one even filled with much pain or suffering, but, in order to lay out our first criteria in the area of end of life issues, we must be clear that we are speaking of someone who is both terminally ill AND close to death.
Given that the person of whom we are speaking is terminally ill and close to death, then we have a couple of principles which we must follow. The first principle is that we may never either do something or fail to do something, directly intending their death. We cannot perform an action directly intending the death of the one who is terminally ill and close to death, nor can we fail to do something, thus directly causing the death of the one who is terminally ill and close to death. In this principle can be found our definition of euthanasia - euthanasia means performing an act directly to cause the death of someone who is terminally ill and close to death OR failing to do something, thereby intending the death of the one who is terminally ill and close to death. We can never become death dealing people.
This brings us to the third principle when dealing with end of life issues: It is not necessary to do everything possible to prolong life if somebody is terminally ill and close to death. For instance, if a patient who was terminally ill and close to death could be moved to intensive care only to have their life prolonged for two or three hours, but had no reasonable chance of recovery, it would not be necessary to move them into intensive care. On the contrary, however, if there is a reasonable chance that the patient could make some sort of recovery and that moving them to intensive care could have a positive impact on their health situation, we are required to take that action.
And so, let us recap before moving on: a) end of life considerations only arise when someone is terminally ill and close to death, b) we may never do something or omit something, thereby intending the death of someone who is terminally ill and close to death, and c) if someone is terminally ill and close to death, it is not necessary to do everything possible to prolong life.
But, let us examine further how that "c" principal works. If someone is terminally ill and close to death, then we have to start evaluating individual treatments. We must ask, "is this or that treatment simply burdensome to the person who is terminally ill and close to death, or is it really of benefit to them?" For example, sometimes people have liver cancer which progresses to the point that they are terminally ill and close to death. And, at a certain point, if you use a feeding tube - through the nose or into the stomach - their liver can no longer process the nutrition, due to the organ's degeneration. So, the nutrition which is being offered to them through a feeding tube can no longer be processed. In that case, you are not required to continue the process of feeding them through a feeding tube. But, if the food and water administered through a feeding tube would actually sustain the life of that person, then that is required - otherwise we'd be choosing to starve that person to death.
So we see that in each situation we must evaluate the treatment. We're never evaluating the value of the person's life, saying, "the person wouldn't want to live this way," or, "their quality of life is so poor they would be better off dead." If they are terminally ill and close to death, then we are evaluating each treatment to determine whether it is of benefit to them or whether it is more burdensome, always keeping in mind that we must do nothing and omit nothing which would directly cause their death.
And, as I said, these considerations may be, to a greater or lesser degree, quite difficult, but, by using the three principles above, and by keeping in mind always our tremendous respect for the dignity of human life, we can begin to see what God is asking of us when it comes to end of life issues.
Many people also ask me about the Church's teaching on end of life documents. There are two primary ways of preparing yourself for decision making when the day comes that we find ourselves in the hospital and incapable of making health care decisions. The first is a Living Will and the second is a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Issues. Living Wills are valid in some states and not valid in others, but, in truth, a Living Will is not really the way to go, due to the tremendous room those documents allow for interpretation. When it comes down to it, such interpretations may end up being undertaken by someone you did not intend - such as a judge. It really is much better to appoint someone you trust to be an agent for your Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Issues. This person would then be responsible for evaluating your health care situation if you are incapacitated and would be your appointed interpreter of what you would and would not want, in accord with the mind of the Church and God's will, when it comes to end of life issues.
And there is, in fact, more to consider when it comes to these issues. But, as we approach Easter, when Christ died and rose so that all of us might have eternal life, it is not a bad thing to consider even briefly what we believe about the end of our lives, about the sanctity of human life, and to recall that ultimately it is God who should have the ultimate say over our life and death. Christ was obedient to Him and trusted Him even to His own death and so we are asked to do the same, utilizing the technology which the medical community has at their disposal, but always remembering that it is God who grants us life and that our lives are His and His alone to take, when He calls us to heaven.
Thank you for reading this, please let us keep each other in prayer during these closing days of Lent and the coming Season of Easter, and God Bless each one of you!
Praised be Jesus Christ!