No treatment

Not sure if this is place to post this question…
Would it be a sin to refuse treatment of a disease that would eventually kill you?

It boils down to making a rational decision.
My guess would be that in most cases where this occurs, it would not be a sin since the person has decided that cure is worse than the disease.
Sometimes people may be overly anxious or depressed and avoid treatment; it would make sense to treat that first.
I suppose there could be situations where it is a sin.

It depends.

The Church requires us to accept “ordinary means” of treatment but not "extra ordinarly means of treatment. What is considered ordinary or extaordinary depends on the individual circumstances.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
2278. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
Here is a good article discussing the issue:

Good article, thanks.
Looks like refusal to treat, say cancer, at the beginning stage and letting nature take its course is frowned upon.
But taking treatment in the end stages and just opting for palliative care is OK.

Yep. The first, tho, is assuming the illness (cancer or whatever) is found early enough to be treated. I’ve known a couple of people who weren’t diagnosed until it was too late to do anything constructive.

And on the other hand, I know a woman whose husband decided he wanted her alive no matter what. It’s been some years now since her “extreme” treatment and she’s doing great. But they had good insurance & lots of money.

No idea. But if a disease is going to kill you, you should -]probably/-] definitely get treatment.

We are required to seek reasonable treatment to preserve our lives. However, there could certainly be some circumstances where it would be immoral to accept a treatment. For example, if you needed a new heart, it would be immoral to have someone else killed for their heart. I’m sure there are lots of other hypothetical situations one could think of where it would not be moral to accept a treatment, but in nearly all real life cases, the question is whether to accept a course of treatment that would give a patient more time or more comfort in the time they have.

What causes considerable anguish is when we have to decide for an incompetent family member.
Doctors cannot foresee the future and can provide only very limited information about prognosis.
Considerations one encounters include weighing risks and benefits of treatment, concerns about the person’s suffering and trying to determine what their wishes would be, issues of exhaustion, feelings of loss and guilt in the caregiver. In these situations it helps to pray and remember that it is in God’s hands.

The Catechism reminds us that life is precious, but is not the most important thing.

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them…

2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for its sake…

and to emphasize a passage already quoted,

[By a legitimate refusal of treatment,] (now quoting from 2278) “…one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted…”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit