Hello.
I have located several sources on this subject:
From the article, "The Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Current
Consensus about Life-Sustaining Treatment," by Carol A. Tauer
"...In the latter 1950s, Pope Pius XII was often presented with
specific questions from professional societies that were granted
audiences with him. In 1957 he addressed an International Congress of
Anesthesiologists, who had presented to him three questions regarding
the use of resuscitation and respirators, technologies that were new
at the time. The Pope's response has been published under the title
"The Prolongation of Life," and includes both a general philosophy and
specific guidelines (Pius XII).
... While "natural reason and Christian morals" require us to accept
necessary treatment to preserve life and health, "normally one is held
to use only ordinary means- -relative to circumstances. . .- -means
that do not involve any grave burden for oneself or another." To
require more "would render the attainment of the higher, more
important good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities
are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends" (Pius XII, pp. 395-96).
Specific points made by the Pope:
1) It is up to the medical and scientific professions to "give a clear
and precise definition of 'death' and 'the moment of death' " and to
provide criteria for diagnosing permanent unconsciousness (p. 396).
2) Resuscitation and respirators may be used, but only with consent of
the patient or family (p. 397).
3) In "hopeless" cases, including cases of permanent unconsciousness,
treatments such as resuscitation and respirators "go beyond the
ordinary means to which one is bound," and thus there is no obligation
"to give the doctor permission to use them" (p. 397).
4) Stopping artificial respiration "is never more than an indirect
cause of the cessation of life, and one must apply in this case the
principle of double effect" (p. 397)."
source: "The Catholic Intellectual Tradition and the Current Consensus
about
Life-Sustaining Treatment," hosted by stkate.edu
http://minerva.stkate.edu/alumna.nsf/pages/Tauer
From the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"...If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with
the patient's consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the
most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the
experimental stage and are not without a certain risk. By accepting
them, the patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity.
--It is also permitted, with the patient's consent, to interrupt
these means, where the results fall short of expectations. But for
such a decision to be made, account will have to be taken of the
reasonable wishes of the patient and the patient's family, as also of
the advice of the doctors who are specially competent in the matter.
The latter may in particular judge that the investment in instruments
and personnel is disproportionate to the results foreseen; they may
also judge that the techniques applied impose on the patient strain or
suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he or she may gain
from such techniques."
Source: DECLARATION ON EUTHANASIA
Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith May 5, 1980, hosted by cin.org:
http://www.cin.org/vatcong/euthanas.html
Also see:
"...the February 1992 draft text stated in the introduction that
'life-sustaining technology, including respirators, antibiotics,
artificial feeding and hydration, must be judged in light of the
Christian meaning of life, suffering and death.' By drawing a parallel
between a respirator and artificial feeding and hydration, it was
thought that the argument about the persistent vegetative state could
proceed from the universally held opinion that a lucid and conscious
person could legitimately remove a respirator to the more doubtful
position that a person who would never regain consciousness could have
nutrition and hydration withdrawn or withheld. This reasoning was
supported further in a directive which stated, 'although life is
sacred, it is not an absolute good; hence life need not be maintained
by the use of all available technology. . . . The condition of the
person, especially those who are dying, e.g. persons in the final
stages of Alzheimer’s, cancer or renal failure, or in the state
commonly called a persistent vegetative state must be considered in
decisions to discontinue or forego life sustaining treatment"
(Directive 50). The subsequent text of July 1992 specified 'those
persons who were dying" as those "who have no reasonable hope of
recovery" and made explicit that 'rational reflection on the meaning
of human life in all its dimensions is indispensable for formulating a
moral judgement of the use of technology to maintain life.' None of
the texts, then, could support the argument that nutrition and
hydration should be provided simply because it kept the person alive.
The use of any technology is to take into account all dimensions of
human living. The physical good of life cannot be exaggerated but must
be balanced with the other goods humans pursue."
source: Health Progress, hosted by chausa.org
http://www.chausa.org/PUBS/PUBSART.ASP?ISSUE=HP0005&ARTICLE=E
Additional sources:
Ethical and Religious Directives
for Catholic Health Care Services,
Fourth Edition
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cached by Google
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:w6mdEqyg1yAC:www.nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.htm#partfive+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=googlet
"Development of Church Teaching on Prolonging Life," hosted by
domcentral.org:
http://www.domcentral.org/study/kor/korlife.htm
"Assisted Suicide and the Distinction Between Killing and Letting
Die," hosted by catholicdoctors.org.uk
http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/Indiv_Articles/suicide_lettingdie.htm
search terms:
catholic, ethics, doctrine, "end of life", "life sustaining",
respirator, respirators
I hope this helps. |
