Here is some earlier info on CAF.
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.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
If the only thing keeping someone alive is a ventilator, it is permissible to let life run its inevitable course. You may not starve or dehydrate someone to death - food and water are not extraordinary procedures.
I think it would be okay and I know I personally would not want to be kept alive under those circumstances. If I can’t be alive and fully living and conscious, then keeping me alive like that is just keeping me from heaven is how I feel. Plus I wouldn’t want to be a burden on anyone and would want to be remembered the way I am now, not as a vegetable.
Is the breathing tube the only thing keeping this person alive? If so then removing it and letting life run its course is permissible.
If you change the scenario so that everything is identical but the person in question could breathe on their own, even if a feeding tube is needed, you CANNOT remove the breathing tube and let the person eventually starve to death.
Purposefully, no. There are very difficult scenarios where a person is just conscious enough to make a feeding tube and or IV impossible to keep in, and the choice is to keep them heavily sedated to the point of unconsciousness or keep them bound in restraints in order to get them nutrition.
But yes, purposefully witholding hydration and nutrition in order to hasten or cause death is immoral.
You are right. Purposefully doing anything with the intention of hastening or causing death is murder. Period.
However, no one is required to begin, or to continue the use of extraordinary means to prolong life, even if those extraordinary means have a high likelihood of success.
Just what constitutes “extraordinary means” can vary from circumstance to circumstance, but nutrition and hydration are clearly ordinary means and must be continued at least until death is imminent (ie within hours).
It is also important to understand that it is morally acceptable to give treatments that may have the side effect of hastening death, as long as there is no intent to hasten death and the treatment is intended to help the patient in some way. A good example is giving morphine to ease pain even though it is certain that the morphine will compromise the patient’s ability to breathe, thereby hastening their death
these are the goto persons on this subject (CA sends people to them)
they have more too there and one can always call an ethicist.