|
| Danette |
January 6, 2009 11:39:57 |
| I support the Do Not Resuscitate agreement. I believe in temporary life support when there is an expected life outcome, but not continual life support for a person in a vegetative state who would die if the artificial life support was removed. We have only to remember the words, "For everything there is a season.....A time to be born and a time to die....." I have watched loved ones die peacefully with a DNR and no life support and have watched a loved one suffer with a 135 degree temperature while on a ventilator for 2 days and his mother and wife insisted the hospital staff try to resuscitate him. That was probably the most horrifying thing I have ever witnessed. I am a Catholic woman and I work in a health care facility. Death is a natural part of life. If the world had not made the medical discoveries that have occurred, we would still be living and dying as the Lord intended us to....on his terms and time, not what is desired by the family and physicians. I think that man has discovered too much and I believe that too much knowledge itself can be dangerous. We are humans, not God, and we are not supposed to make God's decisions for him. |
|
| Debbie |
January 4, 2009 10:26:39 |
| I am a devote Catholic and I do have a medical directive that states: "Do Not Resuscitate." I believe that if I am not breathing, it is because God is calling me Home. I don't want someone beating on my chest, shoving tubes in me and hooking me up to a machine to feed me and breath for me. How else would God bring you Home! The process of death is scary for everyone but I don't want to live forever. Who are we to make people suffer day by day, month after month and year after year? Are we not also playing God with medical science? We don't even let animals suffer as much as we allow people to suffer! Medical treatments are fine but there comes a time when enough is enough! Accept the fact that God is calling you Home from this world of pain and suffering. So go Home in peace! God Bless! |
|
| BILL |
December 27, 2008 05:12:16 |
| Life is a precious gift from GOD and I think it should be extended as long as possible. only GOD gives life and takes it away. We shouldn't make decisions to end it in any way. |
|
| mary |
December 24, 2008 15:59:29 |
| I believe this is morally acceptable. These people are still human beings, and it is Gods choice when we are to die, not a doctors, and it is wrong and inhumane to make someone die by starving. |
|
| Bill |
December 24, 2008 15:37:39 |
| I have mixed feelings. To watch a loved one suffer in pain from an illness that can not be reversed creates a challenge in my thought process. I believe deeply in the power of Jesus Christ and I also believe that part of that power is his willingness to allow mankind make some of our own decisions. It certainly is a controversial subject that I pray I never have to deal with on a personal basis. |
|
| Amanda |
December 17, 2008 08:41:33 |
| Is artificial life support morally acceptable?
We humans as creations of god have been granted a great many gifts. From our unique intelligence, to our opposable thumbs we have been built and modeled to change this world. With these gifts endowed to us by our creator we have created life saving techniques that when used responsibly have been used morally. The problem is that while Doctors and Scientist where so busy creating this technology, they never bothered to figure out how to use it responsibly.
We as Catholics believe in an inherent right to life. That all people have the right to live until the day the lord calls them home.
The question that you pose to us is can we (as human beings) tell when the lord god has called someone else home?
I do not believe that is possible. The lord has granted us ability to create the technology to save lives so that we may fulfill his plans for us before returning home. We as humans need to use that technology wisely so as to not prolong someones suffering, but to prolong their healthy life.
We as Catholic's know suffering for the lord is holy, but suffering for science is not. At what point does you're loved one suffer for sake of science. At what point are they clinging to life merely due to means of science, and not by the will of the lord?
Are Do Not Resuscitate orders (DNR) morally acceptable?
A DNR is what can be thought of as our fail safe against the greedy hands of science. With the help of science we humans can live to ripe old ages brain dead in bed, with no real air in our lungs, and no natural god given heart beat.
Still a DNR is just a hairs breath from slashing ones wrists. To deny medical treatment is to deny life saving technology which as stated above we would not have if not for gods gifts to us.
A DNR can and should be used as a means of preventing science from forcing a person to stay alive at all costs.
Once again it is our human intelligence that will tell us when our bodies are benign abused by science, and when we are being saved by it. It is our responsibility and duty to god to not allow suffering in the name of science to ourselves or others.
However it is every persons responsibility to recognize when they are suffering in the name of science, and to decide if they wish to prevent it. |
|
| robert |
December 5, 2008 21:31:46 |
| I believe that if aged adults body functions fail and they are in a vegetable state, it is God's way of notifying us that our earthly time has come to an end and it is His wish that we join Him in paradise. To prolong ones suffering seems to me morally wrong. I do believe that water to be administered and the pain, if any, should be ad mistered to. Prior to this scientifically intervention to preserve life, people were let to die naturally with dignity. To do otherwise it seems to me that you are interfering with God's plan for us. I know I am making an assumption but I believe it is God's mercer that ends an aged person's life. |
|
| Deborah |
December 5, 2008 07:39:16 |
| I feel that these are two separate issues. A do not resuscitate order would be allowing God's will to remain in effect. My great aunt, who had childlike faith in God, just passed away. She was 82 years old and - as she put it - wanted to go home to her Lord. Within a week, she passed away peacefully in hospice. If she had not had the DNR order on file, efforts would have been made to resuscitate her and place her on artificial life support (hydration and nourishment). I think there are times when we keep our loved ones here with us out of selfishness. A DNR or life support is only needed when we don't allow our loved ones to return to the Lord when HE chooses. |
|
| Dianna |
November 13, 2008 07:59:29 |
| My Husband says that the no resuscitation agreement releases persons from the moral responsibility to artificially water and feed persons in a vegetative state by not creating the state in the first place. I can see both sides, when its time its time and what if a life can be extended by vegetative help. weather it is morally right I don't know. To what extent do we allow science to interfere with Gods choices or are they Gods Choices? I just seem to come up with more questions. |
|
| fish |
November 12, 2008 09:40:00 |
| Just in case anyone is confused. I'm pretty sure the church has no teaching about living wills per say as a legal document.
When it comes to life support most of the work is not worded in a way that would interfere with someone saying they did now want an attempt to resuscitate them made if they are dieing.
(if I'm wrong please direct me to some documentation on this point).
On the other hand I would be REALLY careful about what you put into your living will. I would also be REALLY specific.
For instance in the state of Minnesota, 'no life support' includes no anti-biotic and no oxygen even from a tube. oxygen from a tube never extends life, it just makes death more comfortable and no force feeding without a tube or otherwise.
My mother has seen more then one person die from pneomonia ,most likely caught because of weakness related to poor nutrition because patients who may have recoved in her nursing home refused to eat out of depression ( often having lost the family farm to medical bills).
They are classified as 'no life support' because they are wards of the state and are not told they are classified that way unless they are smart enough to act. The get sick from not eating, they can't be given anti-biotic for the pneumonia and then aren't even allowed to be given oxygen as they die to make the comfortable.
So , if you write a living will, be very explicit about what you do and do not want done under which circumstances. |
|
| Laurie |
November 11, 2008 21:09:43 |
| I'm not Catholic, but have been an RN for many years. My father passed away last year from cancer which had spread through his bones. I had a lot of anxiety, even with experience, and even though I knew he wanted a DNR signed. The hospice nurse told me that as difficult as it is for families to see signs of dehydration, that dehydration from no longer wanting to drink is a natural anesthetia process. They do not feel 'thirsty' when they are in a natural dying process, and it actually eases their physical discomfort. She said that if we were to start IV fluids, his pain would actually increase and require even more pain medication. For me, some physiological information went a long way to understand why not wanting fluids anymore might be a blessing in the natural process of returning home. |
|
| Beth |
November 4, 2008 16:37:27 |
| I would add to my comments that if someone is dying then it would seem morally permissible not to force-feed that person. I think what made the Schiavo case unique and troublesome was that she was not dying. Recently we lost a friend of the family to Alzheimer's. She stopped eating in her final week or so, and no feeding tube was inserted. I think this was the right decision - her body was clearly shutting down and it was her time to go. She died with dignity surrounded by loving family. But they did not deny her food in order to hasten her death - she stopped eating because her death was imminent, and I think that is an important distinction. |
|
| Beth |
November 4, 2008 16:29:15 |
| I believe that anyone with a terminal condition who chooses not to be resuscitated during respiratory/cardiac arrest has made a morally-justifiable decision. I believe that artificial life support in the form of artificial respiration is morally required when the patient has the possibility (according to reasonable medical judgment) of recovering independent breathing function. However, I don't believe that artificial respiration must be continued in patients who are found to be "brain dead" and will not recover the ability to breathe. This would constitute an extreme and disproportionate measure and is not required. Nutrition and hydration should be provided to all patients who are able to make use of them through their body's own metabolic process, even if the nourishment/hydration has to be delivered through tubes. |
|
| Casidy |
November 2, 2008 07:03:25 |
| I believe that having a DNR is morally acceptable. In fact I believe that if it's your time to go, and you insist that you should be resuscitated it is sinful, because it is taking away your right to die in God's time. |
|
| S |
November 2, 2008 04:21:34 |
| I think that everyone, no matter what situation they are in, has a right to life. I think that artificial life support is a good thing, unless the patient formerly in life had said that they did not want to be on artificial life support. |
|
| YOLANDA |
October 27, 2008 23:48:05 |
| I think that artificial life support should and can be used if it's a temporary thing. Only to help someone recover from an illness or surgery. However, many times it's used to maintain someone alive artificially who would otherwise pass once it's removed. If people feel that only God decides when we die, why do they use these devices. Surely God doesn't need ventilators and defibrillator's to keep anyone alive. It's obvious that God in most of these cases has decided but people many of whom pray and pray over there loved one have a hard time accepting his decision. |
|
| Cecilia |
October 27, 2008 13:22:50 |
| My husband and both have a living will. We like, Suzanne look forward to the day Jesus takes us home.
Thanks for posting this artificial. Be blessed. |
|
| Suzanne |
October 23, 2008 05:58:10 |
| Please do not keep me from my destiny. I have a signed living will. I look forward to the day Jesus takes me home. |
|
| Alexandra |
October 19, 2008 19:14:52 |
| Good question. I personally believe that a DNR is morally acceptable as it is simply allowing the natural process of death to occur. Artificial life support is also acceptable because it enables medical professionals the opportunity to cure an individual. However, I've told my family that if I am ever in a coma and theres no chance for me to come out, they should turn off the life support. If God wants my life, I don't want a some breathing machine to prevent that. |
|
| Mitch |
October 18, 2008 21:37:14 |
| On our side of the argument it is a question of FAITH, we have to believe that this is right, since most of us cannot know all the details first-hand of what occurs to people in 'vegetative states'. Continue prayer and pray that what is done is right. Trust God that if He wishes to take a person he will do so in such a way that His decision cannot be overturned by we people our our technology. |
|
| Tara |
October 18, 2008 21:23:54 |
| I believe in DNR's 100%. As a nurse I feel the physicians got to far at times. Many do not want to accept they can not heal or cure a patient. People may say a DNR goes against God's gift of life and will for a person to live. How many times does a person have to be in a near death situation before he/she is allowed to decline resuscitation? We do not live forever, despite man's best efforts. Whether it be resuscitation or life support. |
|
| Rosalind |
October 16, 2008 10:38:21 |
| Though I do not like to see anyone suffer, I do not know that, as a Christian, if we have the right to determine when someone else's life should end.
I find it difficult to say "yes" as to the Do Not Resuscitate agreement. |
|
| Troy |
October 13, 2008 08:36:25 |
| I do not believe in 'Do Not Resuscitate'. This undermines the power of God and prayer. God has the power to save anyone and to agree to 'Do Not Resuscitate' would be to say that you do not accept the gift of life.
To those who believe in 'Do Not Resuscitate', it might be something that pains you, but strengthens another in Christ. To think, "I wouldn't want to experience that much pain", would be to forget that you are not living this life for you, but for God. |
|
| Brenda |
October 8, 2008 23:09:50 |
| As a practicing nurse in the field of oncology, I believe there is a time and a place for a DNR. People can have control over the amount of suffering they feel if we, as nurses, are able to hold painful treatments when there is little chance the person will survive. There have been times that by holding painful treatments and administering pain medication, the patient has been able to relax enough to let their body's immune system heal the individual. I'm a firm believer that everything happens for a reason. It is a painful decision for family to decide on a DNR but it allows for the patient to die comfortable instead of dying after (or during) a futile attempt at CPR or in ICU. There is a time to heal by all medical means necessary and there is a time to heal family bonds by allowing the patient to say goodbye. |
|
| Tyler |
October 1, 2008 20:35:09 |
| I believe that having a DNR order is morally acceptable, I have one, and I am a devout Catholic. IF you have a DNR, you are following the course of natural death, we live from conception to the point of natural death. To prolong life would be wrong, because then we are taking the role of God. |
|
| Nancy |
October 1, 2008 11:42:15 |
| Yes I do. The most precious gift God gives us is free will. If the appropriate Living Will and Directive to Physicians is executed while a person is in good mental health, then it reflects their own morality. |
|
| Kim |
September 30, 2008 19:30:56 |
| The answer to both is it depends. There is not enough information given for a for a Catholic to answer these questions. Kim |
|
| miriam |
September 22, 2008 19:51:47 |
| In everything we do, we should primarily think of one's life first, the effects of our deeds etc. I think one of our purposes why we do not only exist but also live is for us to live to give life to others in its fullness-a life that they will recognize as a wonderful gift, in spite of greatness or littleness of our ways will be. |
|
| margaret |
September 11, 2008 01:28:43 |
| What do you mean by artificial life support? Feeding tubes can sometimes be neccesary if the person is not to die of thirst or starvation. What i do have aproblem is that in the uk DNR on medical notes has become all about legalities. If it is not documented in a persons notes all patients must be resusitated. What happens when it is a elderly person who can be 90 and beyond and whoses heart suddenly stops beating. The ribs of an elderly person this old are very fragile. 20 or so years ago you would have held there hand and said a prayer. Why is it you can have doctors carrying out cardiac massage/resus on someone who is almost 100 and yet poor terri who was stable and doing ok with the help of a feeding tube was forced to starve to death? |
|
| Cindy |
September 5, 2008 23:26:40 |
First, the statement was not referring to all situations, but to those in "a vegetative state" only. Most people who have a "DNR" advanced directive in place will not be in vegetative state when this DNR directive is (or isn't)carried out. For example, if I have a car accident and suffer massive brain injury and my heart stops as well, I will not be resuscitated (at my request). I'm not in a vegetative state, I'm just mortally wounded. Other scenarios could be: I have Alzheimer's disease which has advanced to the point that I am no longer interested in food. I refuse to eat or drink enough to sustain life. I am NOT in a persistent vegetative state. I also do not want (and have an advance directive stating so) artificial nutrition (via a stomach tube)and IV fluids without nutrition are futile. When my body shuts down, eventually, I do not want anyone attempting to resuscitate me. Therefore, this withholding of artificial life support is not going against the position expressed by the "Congregation," as I read it.
I think the dilemma the "Congregation" is addressing is the person in a persistent vegetative state who cannot speak for himself. He or she needs to be cared for in a humane manner and, if they are in this state, then somewhere along the line the decision was made to preserve this life. How can one suddenly change their position about preserving the life when the person cannot tell you to do so? It would be better to err, if you will indeed err, by continuing rather than ceasing to support life. So,I would have to agree with the statement as issued. This does not mean that having a DNR agreement or desiring artificial life support is morally acceptable or unacceptable; as others have stated, that IS a choice. |
|
| David |
September 3, 2008 20:12:20 |
| I believe artificial support and a "do not resuscitate" agreement is like everything else in life.... a choice. |
|
| Carlos |
September 1, 2008 13:27:34 |
| Hello. I don't think a 'Do Not Resuscitate' agreement is morally acceptable because in the Bible many people were raised from the dead and it was not forbidden by Jesus Christ or God. |
|
| Terry |
September 1, 2008 08:15:58 |
I am a licensed nutritionist who has worked in long term care and rehab settings for many years. I have worked with elderly as well as young trauma victims. My role in helping patients and/or their families with this decision has always been more technical. Sometimes it is easy to make the decision. For example, the patient needs chemo and/or radiation for head or neck cancer. The hope is that the tube will come out.
For issues of decreased po intake, the decision becomes much more difficult. I have seen some advanced stage Alzheimer's patients lay in bed with a feeding tube with no visible ability to communicate day after day, acquiring bed sores or pneumonias without constant attention (and sometimes even with good attention). Still I have seen other patients both young and old extend their lives with many happy days lived on a feeding tube as well. Science has not brought us to the day when we can look inside the mind of that person in the coma, or the one with Alzheimere. We can only pray and seek guidance from the church, and do what we think is best. |
|
| Pat |
August 14, 2008 14:06:20 |
| For many centuries persons near death would often slip into a vegetative state and become unable to eat or drink enough to sustain life. Until medical advances in the last 50 or so years this was considered an accepted progression toward death. I fail to see why, if death is expected due to the failure of physical systems, medical or church authorities should prolong this natural process. This does not mean that those who have even minimal mental faculties should be denied all means of care just because they have some physical disability. For the families facing a decision when the line between life or death, minimal function or brain dead is blurred we can and should allow families to make a prayerful decision based on their conscience. I fail to see why medical science's advancements should prevent anyone from answering God's natural call to heaven. |
|
| Joey |
August 12, 2008 20:12:15 |
| I believe the DNR agreement is, but artificial life support is not morally acceptable. Artificial life support is resesutating (sorry if I spelled it wrong) someone dead, but making them also unable to do anything or even do so much as think. Take this case- Nazi torture kept some members of the Holocaust alive, but they went through extreme torture that caused them to end up dying twice. Many say they attempted suicide or were praying for their own death to escape it. I strongly disagree with the Church's decision on this case. I agree with them on almost all other life issues, but this was bad law, science, and faith reasoning. |
|
| Lucille |
July 26, 2008 23:58:32 |
| I do believe 'do not resuscitate' is morally acceptable. However, we should never withhold water or food from one who is in the dying-process, since that is a natural life-support. |
|
| Amy |
July 23, 2008 21:32:20 |
| I do think we should decide who should live or die. God has a plan for everyone and if it is there time to go then God will decide. |
|
| Bob |
July 7, 2008 20:13:50 |
| I believe a DNR is a hard decision to make, but a very morally acceptable decision. My wife became ill with end stage renal failure, she was on dialysis, however it was not helping. After having been in the hospital for 6 weeks, she contracted sepsis. At that point she was in a drug indused coma, the medical staff in the ccu worked around the clock, her condition just got worse, the type of sepsis she had had no known cure. She and I had talked many times of what we wanted should this should ever arise. If there is no hope of survival, sign a DNR. The evening of Oct. 25, 2006, I signed the DNR. The next day the Doctors spoke with me about taking my wife off the respirator. I told them I would let them know within the hour. I sat by wife's bedside and prayed. At that time, I heard her say "help me", I new what she wanted. She passed away 5:59pm Oct 26, 2006. Yes a DNR is a hard decision to make, but it is the right decision. The worst thing anyone can do is to let a loved one lie in PVS, without any hope of recovery, and suffer in silence. I know I did what my wife wanted, she is with her Father and her Brother. I know I will see her again. I know God is taking good care of her. |
|
| Harmony |
July 1, 2008 01:23:57 |
| I've worked in the health care industry (agedcare & hospital). Under an informed concent deal DNR is morally right. Artifical life support is crule especially when people can die peacefully (comfortably) without such overall high cost (socioeconomic & medical) interventions. As is our medical system / services is over stressed & financially streched. The workforce & families involved in the care of terminally ill people takes a lot out of each person. Yes, we all want to take good care of the ill but we need to let go ASAP so that God can do his thing: take them home or heal them. Don't be selfish let the terminally ill die in peace. If humans were alnimals or plants such issues don't even cross anyones/society minds. When pets get sick & or dying with a non cureable illness such as cancer we urgetly do the right ethical thing to control their pain/suffering levels with pain relivers (morpine for humans)so they can be comfortable than let God take them home as per destiny. Bottom line I'd be glad to die with dignaty at a comfortable state where I can still can enjoy loved ones interactions. Why be in a 'vegetative state' & not even know who is in your room , much less be able to lead a healty lifestyle for ones compramised condition. Everyone can donate their organs/ body parts to people that need them. You don't need your physical body in heaven. |
|
| Chelsie |
June 22, 2008 15:06:14 |
| I believe a 'DNR' agreement is morally acceptable if it was signed and agreed upon by the person in question. I do not see it unfitting for a person not wanting to put their family through the struggle and financial difficulties that are accompanied with taking care of a person in a permanent vegetative state. |
|
| c. |
June 18, 2008 12:43:26 |
| Absolutely, to your above question of DNR. Life support to a specified degree is too,acceptable. I am against prolonging the inevitable, working in health care makes you realize how difficult this is. I agree that suffering is necessary for Grace, however, I too feel greatly that one should have the right to chose when enough is enough when it comes to ones own body. I don't think anyone else (beside my Lord of course) is responsible for my life decisions. |
|
| Marilyn |
June 16, 2008 23:16:05 |
| The article doesn't say anything about a DNR order. Clearly... everyone NEEDS food and water to survive no matter what state your body is in. There have been a few cases where someone is "labeled" in a Permanent Vegetative State and has been able to come out of it. It is not up to US to judge their life since they are incapable. Unborn babies aren't capable and look at where that is in our society. Food and water doesn't pump your heart or keep you breathing... it is a necessity for ALL. DNR means you died (naturally) and let it be... naturally. Not deprived or starved to death. |
|
| Becky |
June 16, 2008 21:09:54 |
| Absolutely I believe a do not resuscitate agreement is moral. I believe the naturyal order of affairs, death is one, is absolute and moral. We are only on earth for a minute compared to eternity. Why be selfish: |
|
| Mary |
June 16, 2008 07:26:38 |
| Yes, I believe DNR is morally acceptable. In order to be resuscitated, one must be dead - no longer breathing and heart no longer beating. Without the advancement of modern medicine, these questions would not be issues. |
|
| Katee |
June 16, 2008 02:00:26 |
| I feel that someone is responsible to explain to all of these misinformed people that a DNR, obviously, requires resusitation, which requires DEATH! It is not suicide, not euthanasia. The person has already died! |
|
| Katee |
June 16, 2008 01:56:01 |
I consider myself to be very pro-life, but I am sickened by the Vatican's decision to prolong the unnatural existence of someone in a PVS. I completely agree with the Church on euthanasia and abortion, but cannot possibly understand how this unnatural "existence" could be obliged by the Church! If there is NO CHANCE that someone will come back to life, what is the point of operating a body just because technology can? Further, what happens to the soul? I believe that this is an abhorrent example of bad judgment and lack of understanding. I will write my instructions regarding my DNR and living will today, lest some ignorant, blind follower decides to prolong my death!
I understand, further, that suffering is a part of human life, but once someone is in the PVF, there is nothing registering in the mind of the person, including pain! The person is simply a body being pumped with air and other nutrients to keep it functioning. There is not any conscious suffering going on! |
|
| John |
June 10, 2008 19:22:32 |
| I do feel like it is morally acceptable--they could end up killing the person anyway, or they could do many worse things if they were alive. Anyway, they can see God sooner. |
|
| Kathie |
June 5, 2008 00:29:58 |
| I feel that a dnr order is a personal and family descision and yes your faith plays a part on who you are but what ever decision you make is between you and GOD. |
|
| Maria |
May 27, 2008 06:51:46 |
| My husband of 9 years was diagnosed with cancer. The doctors told us from the start, there was no hope but we could try chemotherapy. We had two boys at that time ages 5 and 6. We spoke about the day his heart would no longer work, he told me, "sign the papers, and let me go when it happens" with my heart destroyed by pain and sorrow I signed the papers he asked me (DNR), knowing that my children will no longer have their father and my beloved husband would not be by my side anymore. My husband said to someone a few days before his death (which will be 5 years tomorrow) " I am at peace with God " and from that day one, he refused to take his meds and eat. This is a very difficult subject to have the right answer about it.. I don't believe I acted based on Euthanasia, he asked me to let him go and I did, knowing that one day, I will see him again... |
|
| Michael |
May 25, 2008 13:23:32 |
I have been having complex partial seizures for the past twelve years or so and they are getting worse. I average between 10-15 a month that I know of. While in the hospital recently they had me wired up for 72hrs and I knew of two seizures. The doctors stated that the computers reflected that I had 14; again in only 72hrs.
If it comes to the situation that I get to where the Good Lord is ready to come and get me, I do not want someone to keep me alive with so called artificial food and water. I want to go to heaven. I want the Good Lord to come and get me!!!
With the prior answer of someone stating that they slapped the doctor after being revived. I know it is true. I gave blood as a child and I did die and they brought me back. It is a feeling that you cannot explain. There was a bright light and I asked God to not take me yet, because I was still so young and then I heard the staff state that we have him back. These stories are true. So yes, I have now lived my life and I do not want to be wired up and kept here in the hateful world anymore.
|
|
| Kevin |
May 22, 2008 08:01:34 |
| "DNR" means a person does not want to be artificially resusciated if they should die. In other words, if a person's heart stops beating and they stop breathing, then by virtue of a DNR they do not receive chest compressions, cardiac shocks, and do not have an artificial breathing tube placed in an attempt to bring them back to life. This concept of "DNR" is completely different from artificial nutrition and supplemental hydration. If a person is still alive, then certainly it is mandatory to provide food and water; to withold these measure would be to not help those in most need. I have read the applicable parts of JPII's Evagelium Vitae, and believe the above view fits. |
|
| Mercy |
May 19, 2008 15:13:01 |
| I believe that it is a mortal sin to have any documents that state "do not resuscitate". The family that loves one another and has arificial support for a love one will have God's mercy.
The Vatican must be very firm and tell the church because we have a very grave situation in America---Euthanasia. |
|
| Michelle |
May 12, 2008 22:09:40 |
| I understand that nutrition and hydration should never be removed from a person, unless they are in the actual process of dying and can no longer assimilate them. In this regard, we understand that providing food and water are not medical treatment, but only common care. However, under appropriate circumstances, a person may forego medical treatment that would otherwise prolong the life, when death is otherwise imminent. (The necessity of a peg tube or ng tube to assist with feeding and hydration, which insertion may be a medical procedure, do not in themselves constitute treatment such as to cure an otherwise terminal illness, in that having the feeding tube is only a means of achieving the basic care of a person, much as they would use a knife and fork. The tube merely overcomes the present disability, just as a wheelchair would. Yet a wheelchair no more attempts to cure a disease than does the feeding tube, but merely overcomes the obstacle to normal function, be it ambulation or nutrition/hydration. |
|
| Seth |
May 7, 2008 19:55:30 |
| My father is a registered nurse and a clinical rehab specialist, and some of his most touching and shocking stories are those whom he brought back by shocking their heart, those who had stopped breathing and then suddenly awoke. Once, he told me an elderly woman went into cardiac arrest, he got the kit and shocked her several times. Then, suddenly, after one of the shocks, the woman sat upright in her bed and slapped him across the face and exclaimed "Why did you do that! I was with my family again and it was so happy, why did you do that!" and if that is not the most solid proof I have of a god, and one who accepts death, then I don't know what is. |
|
| Debra |
April 25, 2008 16:14:33 |
| Thank you for the answer to this question. It is a little bit surprising to me even though the person is in a vegetative state and with no chance of coming out of it that they be given food and water but after reading the Popes response I understand better now. |
|
| fern |
April 22, 2008 21:33:35 |
| If I could not breath, heart & brain fails to function as it was designed, it's time to go. I would not choose artificial life support for myself nor my love ones. Rather, prepare a jolly farwell party beside my death bed as I will be heading to my Lord. However, if HE wishes me to live on, I should simply gain back my vital signs and no scientific intervention required. God is kool - all the time! |
|
| Harold |
April 18, 2008 16:21:10 |
| I do not believe having a "Do Not Resuscitate" agreement is morally acceptable. In my mind it is just another form of suicide, which, if I am not mistaken, is an unpardonable sin. I believe it was Mother Angelica on EWTN who stated years ago words to the effect that you cannot go to heaven if the last action of your life was to commit murder, your own. I believe in the concept "Where there is life there is hope." |
|
| Norma |
April 9, 2008 12:51:00 |
| As a nurse, I must say that I see families fill out Do Not resusciatate forms every day, many people feel that instituting life support measures (artificial) is in itself against God's plan as life support measures utilize high tech science to preserve life, if they left it up to God, these patients would die, example, many parents of multiples thank God for their babies as they should, but the fact of the matter is, many of these babies were conceived using pharmaceutical agents and high tech in vitro means and then these children are saved using pharmaceitical means and expensive ventilatory support to get past the neonatal period, if you left it up to God pulled the plug on the ventilator and did not give Surfactant, these babies would not survive, I am personally glad that we have these life-saving options, but we have to be honest about the situation, we can't have it both ways |
|
| christopher |
April 3, 2008 12:37:10 |
First of all I don't know what this declaration has to do with DNR or living wills. It seems to have more to do with what should and should not be considered life support and I agree wholly with it's content.
Anyone declaring a DNR should realize in some states that: oxygen ( which makes you more comfortable but does not extend life).
Food, water and antibiotics may be considered artificial life support.
All of which is a far cry from a heart lung machine. If we can withdraw nutrition from someone who does NOT need a heart lung machine to survive , then why not from someone who is severally retarded and 'vegative' from birth having never needed a machine, but always a feeding tube?
I don't think there are any simple answers to the living will / DNR question. If you are willing to allow a DNR are you willing to allow the opposite. I have read about court cases where people had living will specifying they wanted all and every possibly measure no mater how extreme to be taken to preserve their life and the hospital sued to circumvent the will and the families wishes.
I do think it is better that certain things remain within the decision making power of the patient or their family. however , I also would insist that suicide should be illegal. Depending on how it is worded and it's intent a DNR can easily be suicide so their should be sever restriction on them. Even a heart lung machine can be used temporarily and the patient can make a complete recovery depending on the situation so I think it is wrong to make a blanket statement about them ahead of time without all the situation facts.
|
|
| Paddie |
April 2, 2008 03:52:52 |
| I would haved freaked out a few years ago at the very idea that I would be given life support-but almost 2 years ago i had a perforated gastric ulcer and following emergency surgery my whole system went into failure and I was put on a life support system. Although to other people (including hospital staff) I appeared to be a "cabbage" I could in fact hear most of what was said to me, although being paralysed could not give a sign that this was so. I am in fact a lapsed Catholic but a friend had prayers said for me and my health immediately began to improve. i am in acceptance that I will never be as fit as I was-but I can walk, eat and enjoy my life! I was one of very few survivors in that hospital bay, thus:If God wants to take me-he will chose the time. Choose life everytime-and prayer really helps! |
|
| Michael |
March 15, 2008 21:08:54 |
| A do not resuscitate agreement should be morally acceptable. You submit yourself to the will of God rather than modern medicine to determine whether or not you are called Home. As Catholics we speak out against Artificial Life... Wouldn't Artificial Life Support be in the same category? If we are kept alive only by artificial means, doesn't that negate God's plan in some instances? If something happened to me that would hasten my journey Home, I would be resentful of being wrenched back to existence on this plane... But that is my own personal wish, not my will, but God's be done. |
|
| david |
March 14, 2008 14:02:59 |
First of all, how did artificial life support system happen? A question we need to ask of our selves. Did the Idea come to a human through God.
Did God give the inventor the vision to create the artificial life support. Maybe something we haven"t thought of before...
We are always thinking that science isn't of God.
but< maybe it is. Maybe God put those thought into the scientists mind to be helplful for all.
Maybe the lifesupport isn't for the one dying but maybe it is for the living, so we can handle the death in a slower passion in something we can deal with instead of something that could be devastating. I don't have any answers except it is not ours to judge, it is just our to love and let God judge who he needs to judge when the time come. Jesus said for us to Love. |
|
| Stephen |
March 8, 2008 06:51:11 |
| I believe that we are obligated to take necessary and ordinary steps to preserve the life of our disable friends and family. Feeding and hydrating a "vegetative" person is necessary and ordinary, in so much as you would do this for a young helpless child. There is no physician capable of saying with 100% certainty that a vegetative person will never regain some level of mindfulness. In addition, if the body and soul continue to thrive under ordinary measures- food and water, then it should be allowed to do so in God's natural way. This is not artificial, but human support. Even the assistance of a feeding tube is ordinary if the body is accepting of it. A DNR order should address the matter of inordinate measures to preserve life such as extended ventilation, heart-lung machines, and other extraoridnary means to sustain life. A person in this state will most likely not thrive and die naturally anyway. If they show signs of recovery, then all ordinary medical attempts should be made to ween them off life support and give the body a chance to thrive. We do not own the priviledge of choosing death when we feel that our life, or anyone elses, should end. Therefore, we cannot demand that we be euthanized if our body continues to thrive. The body and soul are inseparable until complete death is achieved. Only God has the priviledge of making that decision. Although it may appear that a vegetative person's life has no value, we do not see with the eyes of God. He can see the value given to others and our community when we must care for those who cannot care for themselves. Nothing or no-one is ever a waste to God- ever! |
|
| Christine |
March 7, 2008 17:49:57 |
| Would people please do their reading BEFORE writing or talking? The Vatican's statement is NOT addressing the terminally ill that are so close to death that food and water aggravates the process of death. Terri Shaivo was NOT dying. The
Vatican's statement addresses those in a "vegetative" state-not those at the very end of their life. |
|
| alana |
March 1, 2008 17:44:15 |
| I was priviledged to keep my father at home with me with the assistance of hospice. Artificial life support in terms of mandating artificial hydration though intravenous fluids and artificial nutrition through a feeding tube is only allowing the patient to continue to suffer. The Creator is waiting for them to return home. |
|
| mike |
February 27, 2008 05:54:26 |
| Yes |
|
| Roberto |
February 26, 2008 19:39:25 |
| I think that life and dignity should be preserved regardless. Let's think of love and kindness, and trust in our sweet Lord to decide when to bring us home. |
|
| Steve |
February 23, 2008 11:08:21 |
For birth control we talk of trusting the Lord and not using human controls such as pills or condoms. For death why do we then jump into the opposing camp and feel the need to control and use all manner of extensions and worry about DNR? Why should we not trust God, as in conceptions? Are we supposed to use human controls to cause folks to linger and suffer rather than trusting God to usher us into the next life? In fact some hospitals now use the acronym AND or Allow Natural Death.
Sometimes we seem to become fixated on savoring suffering. We do well to acknowledge the sacred and the learnig that can come from suffering but we also do well to allow God, both in birth and in death, to take charge. If we begin to see suffering as an end in itself aren't we becoming a little strange? I vote for "allow" and an absence in prevention in both birth and in death. |
|
| Fred |
February 22, 2008 12:25:51 |
Giving water and food by any method are not extraordinary measures but normal and necessary.
Terry Schivo should not have been murdered by the judge and Micheal Schivo, having committed no crime and without due process. President Bush did not fulfill his oath to protect Terry Schivo by holding the judge and Micheal Schivo over for trial on murder charges.
If the USA keeps on at this rate we are all next!
|
|
| Franco |
February 14, 2008 10:14:00 |
| No. You do not have the right to tell someone not to follow the "Golden Rule" if by that it means saving your life through providing you with adequate nutrition and hydration. However, what does the act of having a "DNR" cause, is it akin to suicide or is it murder through negligence by the person following your orders? |
|
| Br. |
February 14, 2008 07:41:27 |
| Personally I would want everything possible to resuscitate me. I do not have a licing will either.I do have someone that willbe incharge in a situation like thiss to make the decicion. He knows I would want every messure taken to save my life. But at the same time I am elderly and I am ready to meet Jesus anytime he feels like call me home. When he decides , nothing you do will keep you here on earth. |
|
| Chris |
February 12, 2008 13:04:10 |
| We cannot be naive, when there are medical personnal who think suffering equates with having less or no dignity. This is when I wish there were more sisters (nuns) running Catholic hospitals-women who would trust the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church and passing on wisdom, rather than their inflated opininion.
|
|
| Melanie |
February 11, 2008 09:31:12 |
| God has endowed human beings with the ability to navigate between right and wrong. The outcome of their choice lies entirely with God. Why should we circumnavigate God by trying to legislate what people can and cannot choose? Whether they choose life support, or a dnr, the outcome of their choice lies in God's hands. That is exactly where it belongs. |
|
| Lynn |
January 22, 2008 10:19:12 |
I agree with your position on the "do not resuscitate" idea. I think that when life is preserved, that is God's plan. I also feel that the sanctity of life has taken a hard hit from the liberal press and that is why there is hardly a mention of abortion these days. Jesus came that we might have LIFE and that more abundantly. God forbid that we play God and try to control the power over life and death.
Prayerfully submitted. We denied the holocaust until years later, can we turn our heads now and say that we did not know? |
|
| mariah |
December 30, 2007 18:05:29 |
| Life support is a right no matter what religon. |
|
| Bill |
December 21, 2007 08:41:19 |
| I think that it is a case by case basis answer. I cannot assume to answer except for myself. Regardless of what the Church teaches (and I have been been on a fast track to Hell for a long time when it comes to "Church Teaching") I would not want to exist as a vegi. Go back to the time of Jesus, if one even performed CPR They would be Stoned for desacrating the dead. Look DEAD is DEAD. Don't bring me back I am already with the Lord. I will face Him and depend on his Sacrifice on the Cross. I do not want to be a a useless ;and very expensive (by the way) lump of used to be me.I do not want to suck up a lot of resources better used on younger people( I'm 60) don't waste organs or time on me. I've led a full and happy life. I have fulfulled God's expectations for me. I have been married to one wife for 40 years had 3 good Kids Believed in Him and His mercies all my life. Don"t cheat me out of my day with Him . He knows when He wants me, and I want to go then. Regardless of Doctrine or what some Bishop teaches God understands. |
|
| Bob |
December 18, 2007 14:07:24 |
| Ronald hit the nail on head. Our Church guided by the Holy Spirit, and our Popes for 2000 years,has givin us the guidelines we need if we remain humble. We don't need thousands of self appointed "Popes" with a myriad of opinions. |
|
| elaine |
December 17, 2007 02:52:56 |
| I am an RN who works in a Catholic hospital. I do not think a DNR is sinful. People come into this world with love. Caring hands hold him or her as they emerge from their mother and take their first breaths of life. It is much lovelier when someone who has struggled with a long illness such as cancer can leave this world with the same experience of caring hands letting them go back to Jesus. Resuscitation in real life is not like in the movies. Most often, the patient is being poked, prodded, compressed, and aerated, and loses all dignity in the process. Meanwhile the loved ones are often either standing to the side of the room or out in the waiting room anxiosly awaiting a report. How much better it would be for them to hold the hand of a spouse, daughter, son, or grandchild. There are times when resuscitation is the right thing to do, drowning, electrocution, a heart attack etc, but for the chronically ill, I believe it is OK to sign a DNR. Technology has left us with ever more difficult choices. In our grandparents age, it was not an option. Death occurred naturally. I see all too many people who come from a nursing home to our hospital, unable to speak, fed through a tube, incontinent; their bodies and souls seem to be fighting with one another. |
|
| Bill |
December 14, 2007 18:23:15 |
The linked communication does mot treat the question of "artificial means of life support' but rather narrowly speaks to feeding and hydration only. The question of drastic and highly difficult "life support" techniques involving maintenance of heartbeat and respiration is significantly more difficult and raises entirely different questions about the actual presence of life -- and therefore the soul -- of the patient.
It is easy to moralize on these issues but the final decision in each individual's case must be a matter of conscience. In my own situation I have a DNR order which is made available to any medical facility. It specifically calls for nutrition and hydration only if there is brain activity indicating that life continues. With the cessation of brain activity, no farther mechanical interference with normal life processes is permitted.
You picture the Schiavo case -- did not an autopsy reveal that her brain was severely deteriorated and essentially absent? There can be no intellect without the brain and therefore no "person" in that body. Without a person, can there be a soul? |
|
| Michael |
December 13, 2007 17:03:16 |
| More than a response it is a question.
|
|
| Ileigha |
December 8, 2007 20:51:13 |
I think both are morally acceptable.... depending of course, on the circumstances. This is all, still, a very "slippery slope" and will need continuing clarification from the Congregation For the Doctrine Of Faith.
As Catholics we are mandated to follow the teachings of the Faith; if one disgarees with the bedrock, foundational beliefs of The Holy Roman Catholic Church then obviously, they shouldn't BE Catholics, nor call themselves Catholics. |
|
| Deborah |
December 3, 2007 17:02:57 |
I think that if the body can not work by itself it is morally acceptable to let him or her go.
I think a Do not resuscitate agreement is morally correct also, is not killing, is just let him go once he or she had actually died for natural or others reasons |
|
| Jacob |
December 3, 2007 16:13:18 |
| Artificial life support is to deprive the suffering person to die peacefully in a natural way. It will extend the suffering fo the dying person. Let the person be natural before he/she dies. |
|
| Elizabeth |
November 12, 2007 11:48:43 |
| I think that Rachael sums up this statement eloquently...why take life of an infant (abortion) and deny a person the right to be with Jesus (DNR). As a nurse, I have seen first hand the struggles of families making the brutal decision to let their loved one join Jesus Christ. As a wife, mother and daugher, I cannot fathom making those decisions. For myself however, I want peace and tranquility upon my death. I do not want my family to sustain my life for their own needs and sadly, people cannot 'let go' of a loved one. |
|
| Hilary |
November 8, 2007 10:43:37 |
"The Catholic Church leads us to all truths."
I agree with that statement, Nilo, but I find different significance in the words that you do.
As Catholics, we are the Church. Therefore, we must lead the Catholic Church towards truth. We are the teachers.
By means the divine inspiration, doctrine has changed over time. This change is not evil, but good because it draws us closer to universal truth.
I believe that life is sacred and murder is always wrong. At the same time, I do not believe that life must be prolonged by all means for all time. We do not gain eternal life through living but by dieing. If we believe, why are we scared?
|
|
| Nilo |
November 7, 2007 10:36:54 |
The Catholic Church leads us to all truths. It is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15). So whatever the church teaches, one must abide.
A lot of people opposes the Catholic Church because it touches on the subject of the gravity of their sins. |
|
| John |
November 6, 2007 13:43:01 |
| No. |
|
| Hilary |
November 6, 2007 09:58:10 |
Ana, babies do have conscious thoughts. This has been proven with the use of EEGs. Just because a baby cannot communicate his/her conscious thoughts does not mean he/she is not having them.
I like Rob's idea that the church needs to focus on a definition of life. I like Descartes, "I think, therefore I am." By this definition, once the process of thought can no longer be preserved, life ceases to exist. Once life ceases to exist, what is it that we are trying to preserve? A mere shell of what once was. |
|
| Julia |
November 6, 2007 09:51:30 |
| As a nurse and a daughter who has had to make the hard decisions at the end of life for a loved one, I see the highly technical interventions made on individuals who have no possibility of survival as invasive and against the plan of God. Isn't there a point where we offer ourselves or our loved ones into the loving hands of Jesus and allow death to happen? |
|
| John |
November 5, 2007 19:00:36 |
| Artificial life support is not feeding tubes and oxygen alone. It is very complicated and when in the critical or intensive care setting is truly life support. I am going to tear up my "living will" and replace it with "a will to live". We all may be pulled off life saving measures of any kind by profit driven insurance companies in the future. It is not immoral to have a DO NOT RESUSCITATE agreement. When diagnosed with terminal cancer or other life ending illness,this is death with dignity. As a health care giver we continue all life support functions except CPR. Which is chest compression, when heart stops and forced breathing, when breathing stops. |
|
| Anonymous |
November 4, 2007 19:00:31 |
Ana, your reply to what I said in my comments below yours were foolish. A baby who has just been born is NOT the same as an adult with a grave illness or injury. Apples and Oranges my dear.
Thats what makes all this so silly. Its more complex that Romes statement makes it out to me.
Why are Christians so scared to pass on? I thought the true home was with Christ? Your statement, and others like it make it seem that Catholic are scared to meet God, and want to fight nature to keep from doing so. How silly. |
|
| Joaquin |
November 2, 2007 20:48:46 |
| God has provided us with doctors and medicine and it is our responsability to do everything that we can to heal our bodies with the medicine available. We are not call to end our lives because it is painful and unbareable we are call to carry our cross and follow the Lord Jesus and it is only God's will that allows to heal or die...That is why God is God and we are just humans |
|
| lorenzo |
October 30, 2007 09:41:26 |
| "Do not resuscitate agreement" is an unusual expression. Using term like "resuscitate" is not correct, is partial.
|
|
| alisa |
October 29, 2007 21:51:47 |
| I'm orthodox, but I think that if it has come to the point where the person needs something to breath for him or her... its their time to go. Gods will is for them to pass on. |
|
| Mark |
October 26, 2007 11:32:34 |
| Having a DNR is not immoral, a person has the right to die naturally. If you do Resuscitate, the person will likely end up on life support and it then becomes a morality issue. Do we pull the plug? No, because thats immoral, do we keep them alive? I think no, because it's hypocritical to not let a person die naturally. People are going to die, we need to come to terms with that. There is nothing valuable or important about keeping a persons soul prisoner where they have nothing to live for except to comfort our mourning... thats immoral. |
|
| Jacob |
October 23, 2007 20:01:28 |
| Very vague question. However having a do not resuscitate is not immoral. |
|
| Frank |
October 16, 2007 18:40:40 |
| I think that the question is somewhat vague in its description of life support. If a person is determined to be dead in every physical sense of the word by a physician than placing them on a respirator is purely selfish. All this does is to keep their body breathing. They have been invited to join our Lord in Heaven. By keeping them alive without hope, we prolong the inevitable and seperate them from God. On the other side of the question if you only refer to an IV that keeps them from starving than it opens an entirely new argument. If that is the only form of life support they require than they are not technically dead and deserve every bit of kindness, love, hope and prayers that anyone else does. God will come for each and every one of us in his time. Not ours. Love on another like tomorrow may be your day to meet our Lord. And treat your neigbor just the same. God Bless |
|
| Ross |
October 16, 2007 05:16:48 |
| Don't like the question as "artifical" life support and "Do Not Resuscitate" are two totally different things. I think that life support (food & water) should ALLWAYS be given. A person should never starve to death. I also think a "Do Not Resusciate" agreement is acceptable. If a person is dead how is it morally wrong to let them remain so? |
|
| Philip |
October 15, 2007 20:43:26 |
| Yes, I think having artificial life support is nothing wrong cause at the end of the day life is more valuable and important. |
|
| Bernadette |
October 14, 2007 21:08:44 |
My father died last Oct. 6. We were already expecting it but not that soon. He had a lot of pains and most of the time was giving everyone a hard time because he wanted somebody to attend to him even in the wee hours of the morning. Doctors knew about this since he was in and out of the hospital until they advised us that he can no longer be accepted in the hospital but undergo hospice instead with a DNR agreement. We cared for him at home taking turns and it was really hard for us esp. for our Mom since he weighs 250 lbs and needed to be lifted to stand up. My mom had a real big sacrifice on him until we got a caretaker to help her at night.
Thing is I didn't know that hospice was like putting a death sentence on my dad. They seemed like caring and giving relief but the day before my dad died it just occurred to me that they might have overdosed him with morphine which led him to die so soon. It is already acceptable to me that he is dying but having someone to do it besides the hand of God seemed unacceptable. I, for one do not seem to understand why they should do such a thing to a human being esp. my Dad. I may be wrong and I hope I am because it is a sin to judge and to put the blame on others when I am not certain that it happened. Please give me some advise and pray that God may enlighten my mind. Thanks. |
|
| Mark |
October 12, 2007 08:32:52 |
| If life can be maintained then medical intervention to do so should take place!
Human life is sacrisanct and God decides when we are to die and not mere mortal human beings; venerable physicians or otherwise. Sadly, there ia also these days the talk of the "economics" of keeping some alive who is in a "permanent vegetive state" or "vegetive state" in order to free up a hospital bed and equipment. This surely is putting a cheap price on human life AND a few people have MIRACULOUSLY recovered after many years of unconciousness. |
|
| Brendan |
October 8, 2007 22:45:44 |
"When competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness", how can it be justifiable to maintain a person in a "persistent vegetative state"?
If there is a chance for recovery I can sympathise with the arguments for maintaining life, however where there is no chance I cannot see how we can be morally certain that maintaining a person beyond the term of their "natural" life is what God would want. |
|
| Rachael |
October 6, 2007 15:37:14 |
| I think that if as a Catholic you believe it is not right to take life from an infant to whom God has given life, then you should think it equally abhorrent to give life to a person whom God has invited to join him in Heaven. |
|
| John |
October 6, 2007 04:06:41 |
This is a misleading question. The text of the response specifically was addressed only in the context of someone assessed as being in a persistent vegetative state and dealt with the classification of nutrition and hydration. It was not a blanket statement concerning artificial life support or DNRs.
The statement clarifies clearly that food and water are not extraordinary means and that someone diagnosed as PVT still has dignity as a human person. The Catholic position does not condemn the withdrawal of extraordinary life support measures for someone who has entered the final stages of death, nor does it condemn the use of a DNR in that context. It does, however, condemn the withdrawal of food and water for a disabled person not entering the final stages of death and also would extend to condemning a decision for a DNR exclusively on the basis that the person was mentally disabled.
I have previously made a decision to withdraw extraordinary life support and a DNR for a dying child and that decision was made in full compliance with the Church's teaching on the Gospel of Life. |
|
| Charles |
October 5, 2007 21:44:48 |
| The pope who is the human voice of Jesus is right in the approved statement given by the Vatican. Life needs to be sustained in/by any means necessary. |
|
| Joe |
October 5, 2007 08:49:45 |
| A "Do not recusitate" request is wrong and probably shows ignorance of what it really means. Many people who are comatose, with the help of medical science, become perfectly normal again in relatively short periods of time. We must not assume God's perogatives for ourselves, or hand them over to what may be unethical or faithless medical people or even relatives without first establishing what is right and what we want in such cases. |
|
| Anna-Maria |
October 3, 2007 07:52:32 |
| Life, in all its forms is a gift of the Lord! Everyone who has an experience of the Holy Spirit knows all too well that the Lord is present with us in aboslutely every situation on Earth at each and every moment of our lives. We, Roman Catholics, are in this world, but are not of this world (!!!), meaning that in all possible circumstances the Lord lifts our human spirit "above" the material world if only we allow it. Prayer and holy sacraments become the wings of our souls! This is not an insinuation, self persuasion or whatever you might call it; it is an authentic experience of our Christian Faith. Lord's mercy envelopes the faithful at even the gravest moments and provides absolutely everything necessary for the sustencance of our whole beings even though our physical bodies may appear or be ailing. We can certainly remember the last moments of our beloved late pope JP II, can we not? Didn't we all spiritually reap such rich fruits of his drawing nearer to the Lord? My only conclusion is that some of the participants on this page unfortunately have never encountered a person who, although sinful, desires to totally succum to the Lord and allows the Holy Trinity to take full control of his/her life. Enjoying the strength and abundant grace from our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacraments the faithful is conquering all inadequacies of this physical world. The agony is not an agony at all, but turns into a grace and belssings for everybody around the patient and it resounds far more stronly than than any words or empty discussions about our rights - "Lord, Have mercy on us sinners!" However, this is impossible to comprehend without the experience of the immesurable grace offered to us within the Church and its Holy Sacraments! |
|
| Sara |
October 1, 2007 18:41:46 |
| I am an RN with 40 yrs experience. I have already written my own "Do not resuscitate" and have forbidden my children to allow a tube to be inserted into my stomach for feedings. When the body begins to die, one of the first things to go is the desire or need for nutrition. If a person is unable or unwilling to swallow that is a sign that death is coming, and food is not meant to be given. Men, priests, in Rome have no idea of reality and I believe that they do not have the right or knowledge to issue such a statement. |
|
| Seminarista |
October 1, 2007 13:33:39 |
| Acredito que a luta pela vida é válida, pois é dom de Deus, se chegamos ao ponto de podermos contruir máquinas para ajudar a vida e esperar reações da qual a realidade humana se encontra, devemos sim dispor do aparelho para a luta pela vida, do contrário é preferível a não construção. |
|
| Stella |
September 24, 2007 02:24:18 |
| It pains really so much to see a loved one suffer helplessly for a long time without living or dieing. But I think I share Ana"s Idea. Life is precious no matter what it has turned out to be, no one has the right to take it except God. There is no situation that God cannot change, and any thing He permits is for a purpose and leads to good. It is not the suffering itself that matters but our attitude to it that really makes the whole lot of difference. precisely our acceptance or rejection of suffering, and it is this same attitude of avoidance of suffering that make people commit suicide when they think life is worthless. But we all know that there is no situation that God cannot change. So, let's give God a chance to do as He will. That was Christ prayer at Gesthamany ".....if this cup cannot pass me by, let your will and not mine be done". Finally, suffering is edifying and purges away sins, purifying our souls to make it fit for the kingdom. |
|
| Steven |
September 23, 2007 22:34:35 |
| I do not believe a do not resuscitate agreement to be sinfull. I believe that God will cause whatever he wants to happen. If a person is placed on life support and after an accident, they are only prolonging the wishes of the Father. If the person is removed from life support and God really wants that person to continue in this life, God will not allow that person to die. |
|
| Ana |
September 20, 2007 12:51:12 |
| Life is LIFE, no matter how crippling it may be to some. Breathing, even if it is by artificial means, is a gift from God. Who are we to be judge of who is worthy to live or die. In response to Rob's comments: Conscious thought? Do babies have conscious thought? No, and yet we know that they are living human beings. Or is this just a "century old belief" too? |
|
| Rob |
September 19, 2007 02:11:24 |
| A person should have the right to end thier life when they see fit. Not being kept alive after being brain dead is one of those rights.
I think that the real issue here that needs to be answered BEFORE the church makes any real further commitments is, "what is life"? What makes a person, a person? Is it flowing blood, or is it human, conscious thought? If the church can not properly answer this, then it needs to keep quiet until it can. What is needed here is real facts, not simple assumptions nor century old beliefs. |
|
| Ronald |
September 18, 2007 18:49:25 |
| People employed in the healing professions are always encouraging people seeking healing help to
make an sign a living will. I just tell them I am a Roman Catholic. That means my faith informs me how to live as a Roman Catholic under ALL of life's conditions. Roman Catholics need to see that the people involved in the healing arts don't violate our faith and that we make our faith clear with regard to life support. |
|
RSS | Advertisers | Publishers
