He has been in a coma for ten years, at some point they needed to let go. Sounds harsh expressed that way but this seems to be a case where ending life support is justifiable and where life is being prolonged artificially with no hope of recovery and the patient has no quality of life whatsoever and is unaware of their surroundings.
Check this out.
Which does provide another context. However I wish people would stop pulling the Alfie Evans case in for comparison in these situations. That had a very, very particular background which means it doesn’t work well as a comparison here. If he can indeed vocalize and has some level of consciousness than no I wouldn’t support switching of the life support.
This is why I’m working on my advanced medical directive. We should all designate a person and talk to them to describe the types of treatments acne conditions that aren’t acceptable. Preferably with a few examples in writing.
It’s quite possible that he shared his wishes with his wife verbally, knowing that his family has a different view.
I have done this. The big craters that just won’t go away are the dealbreakers, for me, at least. I have it all in my AMD.
Writing an AMD and Will is a really weird exercise.
Felt so good once it was done and I didn’t have to worry about not having it done any more!
For myself, if I’m in a coma or a persistent vegitative state, I don’t want to be kept alive for a decade, on the off chance that I might, maybe, someday, gain some degree of consciousness. It’s what I’ve told my family and doctor. There are limits to medical science, and just because they can keep a body ticking for years doesn’t mean that doctors should do that. At some point, whatever your belief system, you have to accept that most people in this state do not recover, or if they do recover, it’s often to a level that I would not want to exist in.
From the original article in the OP: “The European Court for Human Rights had previously [rejected](file:///C:/Users/chadwick/Downloads/Vincent%20Lambert_%20request%20for%20interim%20measures%20dismissed.pdf) the parents’ request to delay the decision of a French court to uphold the doctor’s plan to stop artificial nutrition and hydration.”
In other words, Lambert is not what the Church would consider on artificial life support–he is being fed and hydrated. Withdrawal of his medical support means he will die of thirst and suffer great hunger.
This case is more like Terri Schiavo’s case than Alfie Evans’.
And Schiavo literally had no forebrain. She had suffered catastrophic oxygen deprivation. What was left was the brainstem, which controls autonomic functions like breathing and digestion.
You are correct - providing nutrition and hydration is not extraordinary care. Based on the teachings of the Church, withdrawing this support would be gravely immoral.
I had to dictate my preferred funeral arrangements one time. Location, song(s), headstone, etc. Super creepy experience when my expected (I hope!) time of natural death is several decades away.
Doesn’t matter. It’s unethical to starve people to death.
It’s just downright cruel…
I was not referring to their physical states, but to what was happening. Alfie Evans was on a ventilator. The hospital wanted to remove him from the ventilator, which would result in his death.
Terri Schaivo and Vincent Lambert both relied on medical nutrition and hydration, but not anything else to live. They are/were not on ventilators or dialysis machones or anything like that.
There is a difference in Catholic moral theology between removing someone from a ventilator and ceasing to give them food and water.
In the first case, they die from the results of their illness or wounds (broadly defined). In the latter case, they die from dehydration.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.