Based on the ethical and religious directives listed by the USCCB, I would have to say that I agree with the majority of the directives listed. I agree that patients should be informed of all of their options regarding their illness and inevitable death which then would allow them to discuss options with their loved ones and express their choices on how and what treatments to accept so long as the treatment provides for a significant measure of comfort during their ordeal leading up to their death. I also agree that a person should not be required to have any burdensome treatments, if they so choose, that would cause undue stress (physically, emotionally, spiritually or financially) or pain on their loved ones or themselves. I also agree that a person should have the right to choose whether or not to continue with life-sustaining procedures since I believe that it is the full right of a person to choose how they would want to live out their last days or months. I agree with these directives because of the experience I have had with several family members living through painful and debilitating cancers; personally my mother. Through the experience of watching her illness take over her life and know how burdensome she felt to my brother and I she made sure that any decisions were mutually agreed upon and the easiest on my brother and I (as if any decision could be easy when watching this disease consume your mom)! I stand by the directive to encourage people to donate organs since there is such a shortage of organs today. My belief is that we should all be required to make a decision on organ donation at the time we apply for a driver's license. If there are religious beliefs that would keep a person from being able to donate then the application should allow for an opt-out due to religious beliefs, but any other person should have to decide when they apply for their license. I do not agree, however, that if someone is suffering and the pain cannot be alleviated, they should be forced to reconcile with the 'redemptive suffering' belief of the USCCB. That is outright torture to me, since I watched how much pain my mother was in and it wasn't until she was under the care of hospice that her pain was alleviated and she was able to function without crying daily! I believe in the human right to choose whatever a person thinks is best for themselves and their family regardless of religious belief and as long as that person is in a competent state of mind. I also believe that the person should discuss their choices with their loved ones so that there is no issue of confusion on what that person would want during their ordeal. Until you have walked a mile in someone's shoes you really can't say what or how you would behave until that moment is upon you!
Physician Assisted suicide and Euthanasia are the same in that the end result is a lifeless body. Quality of life is subjective what I consider a good quality of life my not be considered a good quality of life to someone else. Quantity of life is everyone life equally valued including those who have committed horrible crimes against society and humanity. Do they count too? Autonomy is practically preached all through nursing school, are we now to say the patient has autonomy up until a certain point of their illness? As a clinician I must also respect the patients rights and wishes even if I do not agree with them. Patients have the right to refuse the medication and treatment that’s keeping them alive anyway. Therefore, I would have to disagree with the directives of the catholic church. If the patient is deemed mentally competent and they can’t deal with their suffering any more then they have a right choose to leave this earth a little early.
I like the emphasis on providing all pertinent medical information to the patient. The “moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving his or her life” I feel is somewhat human nature. If there is a way to live comfortably then I do believe most rational people will make that choice. The directives also state that a person is able to refuse treatments that are deemed to not “offer reasonable hope of benefit or entail excessive burden”. This is something I also completely agree with. Number 59 also states that “informed judgment by a competent adult patient concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.” What this in particular means to me is that within reason, a person need not take part in treatments that will cause or prolong suffering and they do in fact have the right to refuse such treatments. I absolutely agree with the patient having the final say in what treatment they will receive. What I think provides somewhat of a gray area however is the aspect of “Catholic moral teaching.” Due to the subjective nature of this I cannot agree that it should be included as a standard of care.
What the Catholic church disagrees with is the idea of Euthanasia and the directives provide a clear definition, the definition supplied specifically indicates that the intent is to cause death as a means of alleviating suffering. Provided with this stance I don’t see where the church draws any distinction between quality or quantity of life as was earlier posted, I feel that the church holds all life sacred and therefore that argument seems irrelevant. As I completely agree that people are free to make their own choices, I have no problem with a person who is a victim of unrelenting suffering wishing to end it by any means necessary, however I also am not surprised by the church’s stance against it, I do not agree with the church. The directives also make an important distinction in number 61. “Medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain may be given to a dying person, even if this therapy may indirectly shorten the person’s life so long as the intent is not to hasten death.” Again the emphasis is on the intent of the treatment. I agree that comfort and dignity should be held as the highest priority, but if a patient wishes to die, then it should be up to them. The idea of organ donation seems like a no-brainer. Simple reasoning tells me that when I’m dead I don’t need my organs anymore…feel free to give them away.
Who has the right to tell someone that the quantity of their life is more important than the quality? The answer is no one. Every individual has the rights to his or her own body, and the choices they make are their own. I firmly believe that an individual with a terminal disease (clinically diagnosed with 6 months or less) should have the choice of assisted suicide. Why should someone be forced to spend his or her last days suffering in agonizing pain? Like the gentleman in the debate video, Randy Niedzielski, who was diagnosed with brain cancer but was, unfortunately, allergic to morphine. In his last weeks he suffered from a variety of symptoms varying from incontinence, to even being unable to shut his eyes. All he wanted to do was end his suffering and die with the little dignity he had left, but he never had the option. That is just one example, but there are thousands of terminally ill patients across the United States who suffer daily with pain, discomfort, deterioration, and much more. Not all people struggling from terminal diseases want to end their suffering through assisted suicide but for some the alternative is much worse. In the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, it states that “Patients should be kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity”, but for people like Mr. Niedzielski this would not be an option. He did not get to die free from pain and comfortable; he suffered till the end. Also the Directives state that, “Dying patients who request euthanasia should receive loving care, psychological and spiritual support, and appropriate remedies for pain and other symptoms so that they can live with dignity until the time of natural death.” Once more, this is another example of how people seem to value the quantity of life over the quality. Many people say that terminally ill patients only want to go through with assisted suicide because they are depressed or need “psychological support” as stated above. Of course they are going to be depressed, if your life was coming to an end would you not be unhappy? It should be understood that dying people are not looking for an easy way out; the pain they experience on a day to day basis is beyond what many people can even imagine. The option of assisted suicide should be available for those whom the pain has become to great. Some question whether or not assisted suicide is pious. Well is it pious to allow someone to suffer in their last months, weeks, or days? In the debate video, Dr. Susan Rutherford, an opponent of assisted suicide, stated “patients with severe uncontrolled pain can have their symptoms relieved, it’ll make them very very sleepy but they’ll still have their symptoms relieved.” This is another stance that those against assisted suicide often take. It does not make sense to forbid patients with terminal diseases to die peacefully, but instead drug them to the point where they are heavily sedated and almost non responsive. Ignoring the patient’s quality of life by forcing them to exist in an heavily sedated state, oblivious to their surroundings is not much better than being dead. In the end, assisted suicide is indeed ethical and there is no reason why we should dictate what a terminally ill patient should do with his or her body.
From my perspective, I believe that the majority of the directives are ethical. I agree with directive number 55 that says all patients have the equal right to be informed about their condition. It is really important for patients because if they don’t know their exact condition, they cannot make informed decisions about their health. In addition, euthanasia and assisted killing is not the ethical thing to do because it is similar to homicide. When the patients have terminal illnesses, they are also usually depressed, so these people are more likely to want to end their lives. Therefore, the physicians have the responsibility to help their patients control and alleviate depression, and give the best care to the patients, so that the patients can feel psychological and physical comfort. If the physician help the patients end their lives, the physicians are responsible for ending a life because their jobs are to help their patients feel better, not to end their lives. Even more, I also agree with what the directives that says about organ donation. I believe that it is the right thing to do because it can save other people’s lives. The only directive that I disagree with is directive 59. It says that the competent adult can make a decision about the withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures. It is really unethical because life is a really precious gift that God gives to us, and even in illnesses we cannot voluntarily end our lives. The patients are responsible for their health and their lives. They are also morally obligated with their decision about their health. Even with terminal illnesses, they cannot voluntarily kill themselves because it is against the natural death process. Terminal illness patients usually think that they have irreversible illnesses, and most of the time they are under extreme pain. Therefore, they think that the best decision is to end their lives, so that they can be free from pain, and their family can get rid of the financial and emotional burden. Regardless of any reason that these patients can come up with, they are still wrong. Dying is a natural process that everyone will eventually experience, so they have to follow the process. If everyone in this world who has a terminal illness can withdraw care, this world would be in chaos. When I was twelve, my grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer, and the physician told him that he could only live for 6 months. At that time, he was under a lot of pain because the cancer from his lung spread out all over the body. However, he still chose to live until his last minute because he believed that life is very precious, and he needed to follow the process. Because of these reasons, I think directive 59 is unethical. However, I believe that the majority of directives are ethical in helping the patients get their best treatment. The directives also help the physician know what they need to do to help their patients in critical times.
Based on the ethical and religious directives listed by the USCCB, I agree with most of the directive set out. They are simple guidelines in which they state their religious beliefs as far as care for the dying goes. For #55 on the directives list I fully agree that a person should be provided with the appropriate opportunities to prepare for death they should be treated with the utmost respect. This to me is the protection of a person’s free will as far as their final requests before they die and also their preference to religion, if they wish to receive a blessing before they die or perhaps go to church etc. #56 is simply a good directive as far as having a simple burial with absolutely no nonsense. A traditional funeral without this event of mourning looking like some sort of traveling circus event it will be handled with some type of dignity. This also protects the rights of the people and most importantly the stresses placed on the family as far as the expenses of a funeral go. #57 is the right to fight til the death for your life the church condones on the attempt to preserve your life and fight death. This I agree with most and very strongly because like a person is given the benefit of the doubt in trial, a person even though reaching near death should be allowed to make the attempt to fight for his/her life regardless of his/her condition. #58 is a rule that I would like to say basically states just because a person is dying doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to drink water or eat a reasonable meal. The patient should be taken care of til the end and be allowed all the basic necessities that are given to someone that is not dying in my opinion. The presumption of death shouldn’t change the fact that a person needs water and food to survive. #59 is a very reasonable yet questionable one as far as allowing a person to use or withdraw from life-sustaining procedures because I believe that it is a person’s own choice to refuse a feeding tube because they are going through extreme anguish (because we might not know what this person is experiencing and will have no knowledge of it ever). #60 ah yes, the debate over euthanasia I agree with this rule as far as killing someone goes but I do not agree with the fact that the only way a person is allowed to die is naturally. The fact that a death by euthanasia is considered undignified is very biased and very inconsiderate of people who have died through euthanasia. I must admit that a person who requests to be euthanized should be psychoanalyzed and be given loving care and “spiritual support.” They do in my case however don’t need to be canonized by choosing such an alternate way to pass. Sometimes those in pain make irrational decisions but I believe if they go through psychoanalysis and are determined perfectly “sane” they should be allowed to die whatever way they wish.
I believe directive 55 is ethical. In my opinion this allows the patient and their family members to become well informed of the patients medical condition and/or conditions and aware of the appropriate medical information pertaining to the choices that are available relating to the death of the patient. This allows the patient and their family an opportunity to due further research and to make a better decision about the patient in the case of death. The spiritual support is an added bonus; it will add an extra sense of peace to the already un-peaceful situation. I disagree with directive 56-58 because I don’t believe that the dying patient should even have to be concerned about things like finances or burdening the family or the community. Sometimes in life unexpected circumstances happen and people have to make scarifies for awhile. In directive 58 I agree with the presumptions for providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, but what I don’t agree with is the “but” that as long as by providing the nutrition and hydration it cannot cause to much burden on the patient and family. I disagree with directive 59. However I do agree with the position on a competent adult patient being able to make decisions concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures. What I disagree with is that the decisions have to be in accordance with the Catholic moral teachings. What if you’re not a Catholic and you believe something totally different. I don’t think it’s ethical to force your beliefs on someone else. I agree with directive 60 because to me Euthanasia is another way to say suicide. I don’t believe it is ethical to give a dying patient medication to give to themselves in hopes of dying. It would be ethical to use the appropriate remedies put in place for pain and other symptoms so that the patient will not have to suffer. To me directive number 61 is unethical because I don’t believe it is right to tell a dying patient that the reason why we are unable to alleviate your pain is due to “redemptive suffering”. This is the idea that human suffering can remit the just punishment for ones sins or the sins of another. To me this would be imposing someone elses beliefs on to another at the most inappropriate time ever. I believe directive 62 is unethical because it puts a mere human being in the position of a higher power giving them the right to determine if one lives or dies. The commonly accepted scientific criterion is all man-made, criteria that was researched by a man. Miracles do happen! Directives 63-65 are ethical because I don’t see the harm in opening up ones awareness on organ donation. This might make someone who is fearful of death feel a little better because they will be able to help other people in such a unique way. I agree with directive 65 also, because the infant or child cannot be taken advantage of because the parents or legal guardians have to give informed consent. I agree with directive 66 because of the strict belief of the Catholics regarding abortion. I believe they can do plenty of cutting edge research using the consenting adults or the children of consenting adults bodily organs and tissues.
I disagree with euthanasia, and I agree with the directives in this “Care for the Dying”. I especially agree with directive number sixty where it talks about natural death. Everyone, including the diseased, should appreciate natural death. Being terminally ill, in pain, or in vegetative state can be deceiving and make the person believe in euthanasia because they are in pain or depressed. Sometimes an ill person may feel like ending their life sooner because they feel they have no need to keep living if they are eventually going to die. These ill persons don’t have the hope or the support they need to change their mind about this “painless death”. I understand that an illness may bring unsupportable pain, depression, and sadness but nothing is worth dying for. On the other hand, ill patients have the right to refuse medication that keeps them alive, and I think its better than asking for medication to die. When a person discontinues medication, they still don’t know how much longer they will live without medication, which is still natural death when they do pass.
After reading the directives in part five of Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition, I have to agree that the majority of their standards are ethical. I believe, when caring for the dying every situation is different so not one set of rules can be applied to all persons. When I think of something being ethical, I relate it to the person and what their situation is. I look at death in many different ways and therefore I know of many different ways in handling death. What is ethical to me may not be what is ethical to someone else because my experiences are different from their own, and in the directives, I found that some standards were unethical to me. I was not raised Catholic or Christian and I do not know much about their moral teachings, but I have seen a lot of death and different ways that not only I have handled it but other people as well. In one section of the directives it says “The free and informed judgment made by a competent adult patient concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.” I agree that a competent adult should be in charge of what happens to him/ her medically if they are suffering. However, I do not agree with “unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching”, if you are Catholic and you believe in this that is your choice but I do not think that others should go by a moral teaching that they might not think is fair. Another part of the directives that is similar to the above is “Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.” Which pretty much says if they cant relieve your suffering you have to deal with the pain until you die of a natural death and that I believe is extremely unethical. Who are they to choose who can and who cannot suffer, shouldn’t all people die with dignity? I do agree with assisted suicide, I am part of a family that has used it before, and one of the directives is saying that everyone should wait for their natural death, no matter how much they are suffering and I do not think it is ethical to watch/ let someone suffer more than they have to. Lastly, “Catholic health care institutions should not make use of human tissue obtained by direct abortions even for research and therapeutic purposes.” Stem-cell research is on the rise, researchers have been able to clone animals that have been able to produce food, and there are many possibilities to what researchers can find out. I believe it is ethical to collect the human tissue as long as the person it is coming from agrees for it to be collected. These are the directives I believe to be unethical and the rest seem to fit into what I believe to be true and ethical.
What is ethical and who determines it? In general, I do believe most of the directives in part five are ethical according to myself and the USCCB. Directives sixty-three and sixty-four deals with the donation and/or research of human organs. Directive sixty-three states, “those who wish to do so may arrange for the donation of their organs and bodily tissue, for ethically legitimate purposes, so that they may be used for donation and research after death”. To me, this seems very ethical. Being able to assist someone else in a positive nature is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, one life is being taken because of unavoidable circumstances, however, another life may be saved. The organ(s) may be used directly to save an individual(s) and/or used for a study for future references to assist in the future. In my opinion, this is very ethical. Don’t get me wrong, it is horribly sad and sorrowful to see a loved one leave us, but knowing that their life gave life to others and future generations is a very phenomenal thing to do. Most if not all people would agree that it is ethical to make sure that any and all patients are being fed. It is only humane to do so. Not to feed someone because they are going to die anyways is clearly not ethical. Directive fifty-eight states, “There should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration”. One can clearly see that the intentions of the USCCB are ethical no matter what your religious background or position on this is. Feeding someone in need, in my opinion is truly ethical. No matter what your condition is, they will not discriminate against you. You may have 2 years to live or 2 weeks; they will treat you equally. That is truly ethical, in my opinion. However, one can clearly see that these are based on the ethical beliefs of the USCCB. There is one directive that I believe is ethically wrong. No Catholic health care institution would free their patients of pain and abide their wishes with the painless drug euthanasia which is used as a pain free killer. Directive sixty states, “ Catholic health care institutions may never condone or participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way”. If a human being is in their “right” mind and knows of their actions, and feels that there are no other choices, I believe they should have the right to end their life. The USCCB is committed to making sure their patients are happy and well prepared for death, however, if the patient would like to cease from living while being kept alive, they are not happy. They claim to keep their patients “free of pain as possible” with medicine, which is a wonderful thing but some people don’t like being drugged up everyday and then put back into bed. I believe there is little dignity in that. In my opinion, this is a clear violation of human rights
In reading the Ethical and Religious directives for the Catholic Health Care system, I found the majority of the directives to be ethical. I believe it is everyone’s individual right to determine and make their own choices as they are related to their medical health issues at anytime in their life. It is the patient’s divine right to make decisions in regards to the quality and quantity of their life regardless of what family members want, religious beliefs or public opinions. The majority of the directives are ethical because I believe they address choices or decisions any patient might make regardless of religious beliefs or practices in regards to how they handle and decide issues relating to their medical care when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness and facing death. Directive 59 is an unethical because it states that your choice regarding the use or withdrawal of life sustaining treatment and will be respected but it has to comply with the Catholic moral teachings. This directive is hypocritical because your choice will only be respected when it is in agreement with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. What if you are not Catholic? What if you are Catholic but do not believe in all the Church’s moral teachings? How can they say your choice is being respected? This is unethical. When facing death, only you can determine what you are willing to endure and how long you would want to prolong treatment to lengthen your life. This must ultimately always be your own choice because it is in regards to the quality and quantity of how you want to live out your remaining days. This directive is unethical because they are only accepting your choice when it falls in line with the Catholic Church’s teachings. Directive 60 is unethical because it states that if your pain cannot be manage then the patient should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering. No one can predict the amount of pain and suffering one might experience during the final days of their lives when battling an illness. Until you are in that position, you won’t know if treatments for pain management will work. How can extraordinary measures not be taken to reduce your suffering and pain. How can that be your only choice to make? This directive is being stated because of the religious teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church. This is not the only choice on how to deal with your pain during the final months or days of your life. If a patient’s pain cannot be managed with treatment, allowing that patient to suffer is inhumane. It is the patient’s choice on how they choose to deal with their pain. Directive 61 is unethical because I believe it is solely the patient’s right to choose euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. If the patient is diagnosed with an illness which is not going to allow them to die with dignity such as Mr. Niedzielski’s brain cancer, why should the patient not be allowed the right to choose how long he has to live? The simple fact is that there is no miracle; the patient is going to die. The illness is the culprit who determines how much pain and suffering the patient will endure. At some point there has to be enough suffering to be considered humane and only the patient can decide this. If they choose euthanasia or physician assisted suicide it is their decision alone to make and their right to make this choice regardless of religious beliefs. It is their choice to determine the parameters in which they are willing to endure to die with dignity. Directive 66 is also unethical because it is based on the Catholic Church moral stance on abortion. Anything relating to abortion can not be supported by the Church. Abortion is the choice of the person to make alone, therefore I support the use of human tissue to be used for medical research and therapeutic purposes. This is how medical advancement and cures are discovered. I believe directives which support the patient’s decisions and choices regarding their own death to be ethical.
I agree with the ethical and religious directives listed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. With that in consideration I am also a firm believer in the freedom of choice regarding our own body and fate. With the rise in cancer and other painful and debilitating diseases there should be options for terminal patients. Throughout our entire lives we make decisions affecting our futures, therefore in the final stages of life we should be able to choose our fate and the quality of life regarding the final days. Modern technology and the movement in life extensions have provided us with the ability to make decisions about our youth and virility. Improving the quality of life when we are in good health makes us feel or believe that we are indestructible. Death and our mortality or the quality of it should be based on one’s own free will. If someone chooses euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is a decision that a patient of sound mind should make. Ensuring the patient is making an informed and educated decision when all other alternatives are exhausted is, in the end, the decision of the patient. If euthanasia does not cross their own moral codes, why should they have to live up to someone else’s moral codes or standards such as the USCCB. I do not feel that an atheist, agnostic, or any other belief system should have to follow the Catholic moral guideline regarding Euthanasia or any other regulation. Being catholic myself I do maintain the pro-life belief system and firmly believe in the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, when my father was diagnosed with a severe case of terminal bone cancer it was disheartening and very painful to watch a loved one suffer the way he did. Spending his final days with him the hospital and caring for him was exceptionally painful. However, that was time that I greatly cherished. I would have felt robbed of time if he had made the decision to take the option of Physician Assisted suicide. If he had made that choice, I would have respected it.
I agree with the religious directives given by the USCCB committee about care for the dying in Catholic Institutions. I do agree with them because it gives ill, near death patients the aide they need to prepare them for a better natural death. It is right that the Catholic Church gives opportunities to the ill because many people do need this help given to them as many of the times these patients don’t have another way to go. It is moral that the patients are well informed of the situation and the challenges they may face later in life. I believe that it is moral for all patients in these institutions to receive the appropriate food and any other supplies that they need in order to live. And to aid the patients that cant by themselves feed themselves, this is the most appropriate thing to do even against their will because in no way should they not been given the nutrition because it’s the moral way to go in a Catholic institution. In no way should Euthanasia be allowed in these institutions because it goes against the Church belief, and as the Catholic believes by committing suicide or Euthanasia the soul is in purgatory. Even though they are beliefs of the Catholic Church then it should in all means be respected because not all people are in the same religion meaning that even if they are in another religion then their beliefs should as well be respected. Every religion has different ways of thinking when it comes to Euthanasia and suicide, but since in this case it’s the directives of this Catholic Church then it is moral because it goes with their believes and the ethics of death and dying. It is ethical that these institutions also try the most to keep all patients pain free, which is right because the patients don’t suffer and die painlessly. I also believe that it is really ethical that these Catholic institutions allows for organ donation for their patients. It is right and ethical because it allows further testing and researching after death. It is also moral that research and testing on abortion tissue not to be permitted. Abortions go against the church and these should in no way be permitted in these institutions. In conclusion, by viewing this on a Catholic Church standpoint I do agree that these directives go with their beliefs and it’s the right thing when it comes to this religion.
After reading the beliefs and directives of Catholic Health Care Institutions, I decided that it is unethical to not give dying patients the option to use euthanasia. I know that there are many different situations, when it comes to how we will spend our few moments on earth. Normally when somebody has been diagnosed with six months or less to live, is mainly because of a serious illness. Some people are able to take medication to help with the pain. After all “The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure”. But what if that person is allergic to the medication and unable to stop the horrible pain? Why live a longer life, if it’s just going to be lived in excruciating pain? Isn’t that basically the same thing as dying a slow painful death? I understand that euthanasia is not the answer to every scenario, but I believe that as a human right we should have that option. Just reassurance incase if everything goes wrong you have reassurance of being able to control your own death. I believe euthanasia should only be used when the patient is in its last days and in a lot of pain. If the patient is just depressed, they shouldn’t be allowed to use it. What I thought was interesting was directive 61, because it states that “Medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain may be given to a dying person, even if this therapy indirectly shorten the person’s life so long as the intent is not to hasten death”. Even though the purpose is not to hurry death, it is still doing it. So in the end you still didn’t die on your own. In my point of view isn’t like using small dosages of euthanasia.
I appreciate that the Catholic Church feels it’s important to “provide … appropriate opportunities to prepare for death”, and will provide “information necessary to help [the patient] understand their condition” and offer “spiritual support”. I find all these fundamental for the patient and their family. I also appreciate that the Catholic Church feels it important to permit a patient to decide if “extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life” is their choice. I agree whole heartedly that a patient should be “kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity, and in the place where they wish to die”. I am in favor of organ and tissue donation and believe that the patient (or family, if the patient is unable to make) should be the one to decide. I feel that this directives are reasonable and in line with my beliefs and the care that I would expect from a hospital for myself or my family. However, when stated in directive #59 “unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching” I paused to think about what that meant. I am not familiar with all of the Catholic Church’s moral teachings, and really do not know much about the structure of the church. Are these “moral teachings” interpreted differently by different authority figures? Does the Doctor interpret this based on his spiritual knowledge, and what if he isn’t Catholic? What if my interpretation is not the same as the person making that “moral” choice for me? Too many unanswered questions by this simple statement. That being said, I do not believe that a religion should force their morals on a patient, so long as the patient is using “free and informed judgment” and is a “competent adult patient” AND their choices are reasonable within the law. Likewise, I don’t believe that if a healthcare professional, for religious or moral reasons should not be forced to comply with a patient’s (again legal and reasonable) wishes. In other words, If a terminally ill patient wants to die and the healthcare professional caring for them finds in unethical or morally wrong they should not have to be the one to “pull the plug” or give the orders or write the prescription or be present at the time. It is never really easy to watch someone you love die. It’s not easy to watch them give up hope and just wish that everything would end and they could go “home” Fortunately for my family when it came time to let my father-in-law go “home” and take him off of life support, no one fought us and told us that it wasn’t morally right according to their beliefs. After reading through these directives I realized that choosing a hospital is just as important as choosing a spouse, a career maybe even a house. I don’t think I ever gave much thought to what if the hospitals ideas and moral beliefs are different from mine. Knowing this I will make a more informed decision on where myself and my family receive their health care.
2Are the directives ethical? Why or why not? When reading the directives I found myself becoming angry, how can the Catholic Church places rules on dying. I see directives as just rules; I can’t see how we can make people who are in the last stages of THEIR own life. Then they are expected to follow the rules that someone who has never been in their shoe have place for them to follow. Ethical I feel that it should be the persons’ choice. If you are competent, with go a mental evaluation you should beadle to determine if you want to live or die. After working in hospice for a few years I began to understand what a person goes though when he or she is face with dying and when a person is dying. As a person goes thought the stage of dying it may or may not become difficulty to live at all, which is when it should become the person choice. Quality or quantity how do they want to spend their last days? Now medical we have the power to keep a person alive with machines but what kind of a life is that, where you may be alive but your brain die or in a vegetative state. If left up to the Catholic Church we would all live very long lives but in reality things happen people get sick, car accident happen it should be a choice not a rule.
When reading the directives for the Catholic Health Care Services I notice it strictly goes by good morals (commandments and good ethics) in which I like because of my beliefs, putting my beliefs aside I don’t think this facility is for everyone. Reason is a lot of people are not religious, and if there in need of any health services they must attend another facility. On the other hand I support these directives fully. I like the fact that every decision made in this facility goes by good catholic moral principles. If medical research is to be done it must go by catholic morals. Even the staff who works there must respect and uphold the religious mission. In this facility the following things are never permitted: abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. I think these are not right anyway and it shouldn’t be done, I think the only way that abortion is acceptable is if the person was raped or if it was a little girl who made a big mistake and would literally be killed by her parents if they found out. As for physician assisted suicide I think it unethical and Initiative 1000 shouldn’t be passed I believe every human should die a natural death. From what I read it states that the patients have the right to know what illness their suffering from and the right to make their own decisions. The Catholic Institution cares more about the patient quality of life rather then the quantity.
I would say that most of the directives concluded by the USCCB are seemingly ethical; however, there are quite a few that are condemned by Catholic teachings and philosophies, such as suicide and euthanasia, and personally I don’t fully agree with the given reasons. For the most part, I agree that a person with terminal illness has options and needs to be informed about his/her situation. I agree that they should be given the liberty of choosing weather or not they wish to go on with life-sustaining procedures (if they become burdened by the treatment or if they can’t afford the expenses); to decide where they choose to die; to donate their functioning organs for life preservation or research after they die. Moreover, I support the notion that these people’s suffering should be alleviated using medication or technology to make it easier on their already difficult conditions: to help them die comfortably if it’s possible. On the other hand, I disagree on the claim that we are not owners of our own lives. According to their faith one person has the moral obligation of preserving his or her own life, even if that means a long-lasting and painful battle against the inevitable. In my opinion, each person has the right to do what they wish with their own life. Although it is well known that suicide is condemned in the Catholic religion, I see it as an option when a person just can’t take the pain. Suicide and euthanasia will always prove controversial but they should be seen as a last resort when medicine and prayers are not alleviating a person’s suffering; it needs to be seen as an act of compassion towards a loved one.
Several of these directives appear contradictory. Catholics have a belief that human life is sacred and have a social responsibility that the taking of a life can be against the fifth commandment of “thou shall not kill”. However, I find this statement to be only in the text of self-serving Catholic beliefs because Catholics serve in the military and sometimes have to fulfill their duty by taking a life. In directive 56, it says we have a moral obligation ordinary means of preserving life, which refers to maintaining life only if it has a useful benefit. Number 59 states you can withdraw sustaining procedures as long as its not against Catholic moral teachings, but as I mentioned earlier we have an obligation to continue life and only God has the right end it. Number 60 says euthanasia and assisted suicide is not allowed, but I believe that if an end is eminent then the person should have the right to choose to prolong the inevitable or end their life. I do not believe the information in number 55 is in the best interest of the individual because spiritual support and medical support should not discussed simultaneously. I think these directives are not ethical because it takes the choice away from the person alone and makes it a decision required between their priest and the individual. The priest has myopic focus of sustaining life so he looses objectivity to the best interest of the individual.
Posts
19 comments:
Based on the ethical and religious directives listed by the USCCB, I would have to say that I agree with the majority of the directives listed.
I agree that patients should be informed of all of their options regarding their illness and inevitable death which then would allow them to discuss options with their loved ones and express their choices on how and what treatments to accept so long as the treatment provides for a significant measure of comfort during their ordeal leading up to their death.
I also agree that a person should not be required to have any burdensome treatments, if they so choose, that would cause undue stress (physically, emotionally, spiritually or financially) or pain on their loved ones or themselves.
I also agree that a person should have the right to choose whether or not to continue with life-sustaining procedures since I believe that it is the full right of a person to choose how they would want to live out their last days or months.
I agree with these directives because of the experience I have had with several family members living through painful and debilitating cancers; personally my mother. Through the experience of watching her illness take over her life and know how burdensome she felt to my brother and I she made sure that any decisions were mutually agreed upon and the easiest on my brother and I (as if any decision could be easy when watching this disease consume your mom)!
I stand by the directive to encourage people to donate organs since there is such a shortage of organs today. My belief is that we should all be required to make a decision on organ donation at the time we apply for a driver's license. If there are religious beliefs that would keep a person from being able to donate then the application should allow for an opt-out due to religious beliefs, but any other person should have to decide when they apply for their license.
I do not agree, however, that if someone is suffering and the pain cannot be alleviated, they should be forced to reconcile with the 'redemptive suffering' belief of the USCCB. That is outright torture to me, since I watched how much pain my mother was in and it wasn't until she was under the care of hospice that her pain was alleviated and she was able to function without crying daily!
I believe in the human right to choose whatever a person thinks is best for themselves and their family regardless of religious belief and as long as that person is in a competent state of mind. I also believe that the person should discuss their choices with their loved ones so that there is no issue of confusion on what that person would want during their ordeal.
Until you have walked a mile in someone's shoes you really can't say what or how you would behave until that moment is upon you!
Physician Assisted suicide and Euthanasia are the same in that the end result is a lifeless body. Quality of life is subjective what I consider a good quality of life my not be considered a good quality of life to someone else. Quantity of life is everyone life equally valued including those who have committed horrible crimes against society and humanity. Do they count too? Autonomy is practically preached all through nursing school, are we now to say the patient has autonomy up until a certain point of their illness? As a clinician I must also respect the patients rights and wishes even if I do not agree with them. Patients have the right to refuse the medication and treatment that’s keeping them alive anyway. Therefore, I would have to disagree with the directives of the catholic church. If the patient is deemed mentally competent and they can’t deal with their suffering any more then they have a right choose to leave this earth a little early.
I like the emphasis on providing all pertinent medical information to the patient. The “moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving his or her life” I feel is somewhat human nature. If there is a way to live comfortably then I do believe most rational people will make that choice. The directives also state that a person is able to refuse treatments that are deemed to not “offer reasonable hope of benefit or entail excessive burden”. This is something I also completely agree with. Number 59 also states that “informed judgment by a competent adult patient concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.” What this in particular means to me is that within reason, a person need not take part in treatments that will cause or prolong suffering and they do in fact have the right to refuse such treatments. I absolutely agree with the patient having the final say in what treatment they will receive. What I think provides somewhat of a gray area however is the aspect of “Catholic moral teaching.” Due to the subjective nature of this I cannot agree that it should be included as a standard of care.
What the Catholic church disagrees with is the idea of Euthanasia and the directives provide a clear definition, the definition supplied specifically indicates that the intent is to cause death as a means of alleviating suffering. Provided with this stance I don’t see where the church draws any distinction between quality or quantity of life as was earlier posted, I feel that the church holds all life sacred and therefore that argument seems irrelevant. As I completely agree that people are free to make their own choices, I have no problem with a person who is a victim of unrelenting suffering wishing to end it by any means necessary, however I also am not surprised by the church’s stance against it, I do not agree with the church. The directives also make an important distinction in number 61. “Medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain may be given to a dying person, even if this therapy may indirectly shorten the person’s life so long as the intent is not to hasten death.” Again the emphasis is on the intent of the treatment. I agree that comfort and dignity should be held as the highest priority, but if a patient wishes to die, then it should be up to them. The idea of organ donation seems like a no-brainer. Simple reasoning tells me that when I’m dead I don’t need my organs anymore…feel free to give them away.
Who has the right to tell someone that the quantity of their life is more important than the quality? The answer is no one. Every individual has the rights to his or her own body, and the choices they make are their own. I firmly believe that an individual with a terminal disease (clinically diagnosed with 6 months or less) should have the choice of assisted suicide. Why should someone be forced to spend his or her last days suffering in agonizing pain? Like the gentleman in the debate video, Randy Niedzielski, who was diagnosed with brain cancer but was, unfortunately, allergic to morphine. In his last weeks he suffered from a variety of symptoms varying from incontinence, to even being unable to shut his eyes. All he wanted to do was end his suffering and die with the little dignity he had left, but he never had the option. That is just one example, but there are thousands of terminally ill patients across the United States who suffer daily with pain, discomfort, deterioration, and much more. Not all people struggling from terminal diseases want to end their suffering through assisted suicide but for some the alternative is much worse.
In the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, it states that “Patients should be kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity”, but for people like Mr. Niedzielski this would not be an option. He did not get to die free from pain and comfortable; he suffered till the end. Also the Directives state that, “Dying patients who request euthanasia should receive loving care, psychological and spiritual support, and appropriate remedies for pain and other symptoms so that they can live with dignity until the time of natural death.” Once more, this is another example of how people seem to value the quantity of life over the quality. Many people say that terminally ill patients only want to go through with assisted suicide because they are depressed or need “psychological support” as stated above. Of course they are going to be depressed, if your life was coming to an end would you not be unhappy? It should be understood that dying people are not looking for an easy way out; the pain they experience on a day to day basis is beyond what many people can even imagine. The option of assisted suicide should be available for those whom the pain has become to great.
Some question whether or not assisted suicide is pious. Well is it pious to allow someone to suffer in their last months, weeks, or days? In the debate video, Dr. Susan Rutherford, an opponent of assisted suicide, stated “patients with severe uncontrolled pain can have their symptoms relieved, it’ll make them very very sleepy but they’ll still have their symptoms relieved.” This is another stance that those against assisted suicide often take. It does not make sense to forbid patients with terminal diseases to die peacefully, but instead drug them to the point where they are heavily sedated and almost non responsive. Ignoring the patient’s quality of life by forcing them to exist in an heavily sedated state, oblivious to their surroundings is not much better than being dead.
In the end, assisted suicide is indeed ethical and there is no reason why we should dictate what a terminally ill patient should do with his or her body.
From my perspective, I believe that the majority of the directives are ethical. I agree with directive number 55 that says all patients have the equal right to be informed about their condition. It is really important for patients because if they don’t know their exact condition, they cannot make informed decisions about their health. In addition, euthanasia and assisted killing is not the ethical thing to do because it is similar to homicide. When the patients have terminal illnesses, they are also usually depressed, so these people are more likely to want to end their lives. Therefore, the physicians have the responsibility to help their patients control and alleviate depression, and give the best care to the patients, so that the patients can feel psychological and physical comfort. If the physician help the patients end their lives, the physicians are responsible for ending a life because their jobs are to help their patients feel better, not to end their lives. Even more, I also agree with what the directives that says about organ donation. I believe that it is the right thing to do because it can save other people’s lives.
The only directive that I disagree with is directive 59. It says that the competent adult can make a decision about the withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures. It is really unethical because life is a really precious gift that God gives to us, and even in illnesses we cannot voluntarily end our lives. The patients are responsible for their health and their lives. They are also morally obligated with their decision about their health. Even with terminal illnesses, they cannot voluntarily kill themselves because it is against the natural death process. Terminal illness patients usually think that they have irreversible illnesses, and most of the time they are under extreme pain. Therefore, they think that the best decision is to end their lives, so that they can be free from pain, and their family can get rid of the financial and emotional burden. Regardless of any reason that these patients can come up with, they are still wrong. Dying is a natural process that everyone will eventually experience, so they have to follow the process. If everyone in this world who has a terminal illness can withdraw care, this world would be in chaos. When I was twelve, my grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer, and the physician told him that he could only live for 6 months. At that time, he was under a lot of pain because the cancer from his lung spread out all over the body. However, he still chose to live until his last minute because he believed that life is very precious, and he needed to follow the process. Because of these reasons, I think directive 59 is unethical. However, I believe that the majority of directives are ethical in helping the patients get their best treatment. The directives also help the physician know what they need to do to help their patients in critical times.
Based on the ethical and religious directives listed by the USCCB, I agree with most of the directive set out. They are simple guidelines in which they state their religious beliefs as far as care for the dying goes.
For #55 on the directives list I fully agree that a person should be provided with the appropriate opportunities to prepare for death they should be treated with the utmost respect. This to me is the protection of a person’s free will as far as their final requests before they die and also their preference to religion, if they wish to receive a blessing before they die or perhaps go to church etc.
#56 is simply a good directive as far as having a simple burial with absolutely no nonsense. A traditional funeral without this event of mourning looking like some sort of traveling circus event it will be handled with some type of dignity. This also protects the rights of the people and most importantly the stresses placed on the family as far as the expenses of a funeral go.
#57 is the right to fight til the death for your life the church condones on the attempt to preserve your life and fight death. This I agree with most and very strongly because like a person is given the benefit of the doubt in trial, a person even though reaching near death should be allowed to make the attempt to fight for his/her life regardless of his/her condition.
#58 is a rule that I would like to say basically states just because a person is dying doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to drink water or eat a reasonable meal. The patient should be taken care of til the end and be allowed all the basic necessities that are given to someone that is not dying in my opinion. The presumption of death shouldn’t change the fact that a person needs water and food to survive.
#59 is a very reasonable yet questionable one as far as allowing a person to use or withdraw from life-sustaining procedures because I believe that it is a person’s own choice to refuse a feeding tube because they are going through extreme anguish (because we might not know what this person is experiencing and will have no knowledge of it ever).
#60 ah yes, the debate over euthanasia I agree with this rule as far as killing someone goes but I do not agree with the fact that the only way a person is allowed to die is naturally. The fact that a death by euthanasia is considered undignified is very biased and very inconsiderate of people who have died through euthanasia. I must admit that a person who requests to be euthanized should be psychoanalyzed and be given loving care and “spiritual support.” They do in my case however don’t need to be canonized by choosing such an alternate way to pass. Sometimes those in pain make irrational decisions but I believe if they go through psychoanalysis and are determined perfectly “sane” they should be allowed to die whatever way they wish.
I believe directive 55 is ethical. In my opinion this allows the patient and their family members to become well informed of the patients medical condition and/or conditions and aware of the appropriate medical information pertaining to the choices that are available relating to the death of the patient. This allows the patient and their family an opportunity to due further research and to make a better decision about the patient in the case of death. The spiritual support is an added bonus; it will add an extra sense of peace to the already un-peaceful situation.
I disagree with directive 56-58 because I don’t believe that the dying patient should even have to be concerned about things like finances or burdening the family or the community. Sometimes in life unexpected circumstances happen and people have to make scarifies for awhile. In directive 58 I agree with the presumptions for providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, but what I don’t agree with is the “but” that as long as by providing the nutrition and hydration it cannot cause to much burden on the patient and family.
I disagree with directive 59. However I do agree with the position on a competent adult patient being able to make decisions concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures. What I disagree with is that the decisions have to be in accordance with the Catholic moral teachings. What if you’re not a Catholic and you believe something totally different. I don’t think it’s ethical to force your beliefs on someone else.
I agree with directive 60 because to me Euthanasia is another way to say suicide. I don’t believe it is ethical to give a dying patient medication to give to themselves in hopes of dying. It would be ethical to use the appropriate remedies put in place for pain and other symptoms so that the patient will not have to suffer.
To me directive number 61 is unethical because I don’t believe it is right to tell a dying patient that the reason why we are unable to alleviate your pain is due to “redemptive suffering”. This is the idea that human suffering can remit the just punishment for ones sins or the sins of another. To me this would be imposing someone elses beliefs on to another at the most inappropriate time ever.
I believe directive 62 is unethical because it puts a mere human being in the position of a higher power giving them the right to determine if one lives or dies. The commonly accepted scientific criterion is all man-made, criteria that was researched by a man. Miracles do happen!
Directives 63-65 are ethical because I don’t see the harm in opening up ones awareness on organ donation. This might make someone who is fearful of death feel a little better because they will be able to help other people in such a unique way. I agree with directive 65 also, because the infant or child cannot be taken advantage of because the parents or legal guardians have to give informed consent.
I agree with directive 66 because of the strict belief of the Catholics regarding abortion. I believe they can do plenty of cutting edge research using the consenting adults or the children of consenting adults bodily organs and tissues.
I disagree with euthanasia, and I agree with the directives in this “Care for the Dying”. I especially agree with directive number sixty where it talks about natural death. Everyone, including the diseased, should appreciate natural death. Being terminally ill, in pain, or in vegetative state can be deceiving and make the person believe in euthanasia because they are in pain or depressed. Sometimes an ill person may feel like ending their life sooner because they feel they have no need to keep living if they are eventually going to die. These ill persons don’t have the hope or the support they need to change their mind about this “painless death”. I understand that an illness may bring unsupportable pain, depression, and sadness but nothing is worth dying for. On the other hand, ill patients have the right to refuse medication that keeps them alive, and I think its better than asking for medication to die. When a person discontinues medication, they still don’t know how much longer they will live without medication, which is still natural death when they do pass.
After reading the directives in part five of Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition, I have to agree that the majority of their standards are ethical. I believe, when caring for the dying every situation is different so not one set of rules can be applied to all persons. When I think of something being ethical, I relate it to the person and what their situation is. I look at death in many different ways and therefore I know of many different ways in handling death. What is ethical to me may not be what is ethical to someone else because my experiences are different from their own, and in the directives, I found that some standards were unethical to me.
I was not raised Catholic or Christian and I do not know much about their moral teachings, but I have seen a lot of death and different ways that not only I have handled it but other people as well. In one section of the directives it says “The free and informed judgment made by a competent adult patient concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.” I agree that a competent adult should be in charge of what happens to him/ her medically if they are suffering. However, I do not agree with “unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching”, if you are Catholic and you believe in this that is your choice but I do not think that others should go by a moral teaching that they might not think is fair. Another part of the directives that is similar to the above is “Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.” Which pretty much says if they cant relieve your suffering you have to deal with the pain until you die of a natural death and that I believe is extremely unethical. Who are they to choose who can and who cannot suffer, shouldn’t all people die with dignity? I do agree with assisted suicide, I am part of a family that has used it before, and one of the directives is saying that everyone should wait for their natural death, no matter how much they are suffering and I do not think it is ethical to watch/ let someone suffer more than they have to.
Lastly, “Catholic health care institutions should not make use of human tissue obtained by direct abortions even for research and therapeutic purposes.” Stem-cell research is on the rise, researchers have been able to clone animals that have been able to produce food, and there are many possibilities to what researchers can find out. I believe it is ethical to collect the human tissue as long as the person it is coming from agrees for it to be collected. These are the directives I believe to be unethical and the rest seem to fit into what I believe to be true and ethical.
What is ethical and who determines it? In general, I do believe most of the directives in part five are ethical according to myself and the USCCB.
Directives sixty-three and sixty-four deals with the donation and/or research of human organs. Directive sixty-three states, “those who wish to do so may arrange for the donation of their organs and bodily tissue, for ethically legitimate purposes, so that they may be used for donation and research after death”. To me, this seems very ethical. Being able to assist someone else in a positive nature is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, one life is being taken because of unavoidable circumstances, however, another life may be saved. The organ(s) may be used directly to save an individual(s) and/or used for a study for future references to assist in the future. In my opinion, this is very ethical. Don’t get me wrong, it is horribly sad and sorrowful to see a loved one leave us, but knowing that their life gave life to others and future generations is a very phenomenal thing to do.
Most if not all people would agree that it is ethical to make sure that any and all patients are being fed. It is only humane to do so. Not to feed someone because they are going to die anyways is clearly not ethical. Directive fifty-eight states, “There should be a
presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including
patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration”. One can clearly see that the intentions of the USCCB are ethical no matter what your religious background or position on this is. Feeding someone in need, in my opinion is truly ethical. No matter what your condition is, they will not discriminate against you. You may have 2 years to live or 2 weeks; they will treat you equally. That is truly ethical, in my opinion.
However, one can clearly see that these are based on the ethical beliefs of the USCCB. There is one directive that I believe is ethically wrong. No Catholic health care institution would free their patients of pain and abide their wishes with the painless drug euthanasia which is used as a pain free killer. Directive sixty states, “ Catholic health care institutions may never condone or participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way”. If a human being is in their “right” mind and knows of their actions, and feels that there are no other choices, I believe they should have the right to end their life. The USCCB is committed to making sure their patients are happy and well prepared for death, however, if the patient would like to cease from living while being kept alive, they are not happy. They claim to keep their patients “free of pain as possible” with medicine, which is a wonderful thing but some people don’t like being drugged up everyday and then put back into bed. I believe there is little dignity in that. In my opinion, this is a clear violation of human rights
In reading the Ethical and Religious directives for the Catholic Health Care system, I found the majority of the directives to be ethical. I believe it is everyone’s individual right to determine and make their own choices as they are related to their medical health issues at anytime in their life. It is the patient’s divine right to make decisions in regards to the quality and quantity of their life regardless of what family members want, religious beliefs or public opinions. The majority of the directives are ethical because I believe they address choices or decisions any patient might make regardless of religious beliefs or practices in regards to how they handle and decide issues relating to their medical care when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness and facing death. Directive 59 is an unethical because it states that your choice regarding the use or withdrawal of life sustaining treatment and will be respected but it has to comply with the Catholic moral teachings. This directive is hypocritical because your choice will only be respected when it is in agreement with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. What if you are not Catholic? What if you are Catholic but do not believe in all the Church’s moral teachings? How can they say your choice is being respected? This is unethical. When facing death, only you can determine what you are willing to endure and how long you would want to prolong treatment to lengthen your life. This must ultimately always be your own choice because it is in regards to the quality and quantity of how you want to live out your remaining days. This directive is unethical because they are only accepting your choice when it falls in line with the Catholic Church’s teachings. Directive 60 is unethical because it states that if your pain cannot be manage then the patient should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering. No one can predict the amount of pain and suffering one might experience during the final days of their lives when battling an illness. Until you are in that position, you won’t know if treatments for pain management will work. How can extraordinary measures not be taken to reduce your suffering and pain. How can that be your only choice to make? This directive is being stated because of the religious teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church. This is not the only choice on how to deal with your pain during the final months or days of your life. If a patient’s pain cannot be managed with treatment, allowing that patient to suffer is inhumane. It is the patient’s choice on how they choose to deal with their pain. Directive 61 is unethical because I believe it is solely the patient’s right to choose euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. If the patient is diagnosed with an illness which is not going to allow them to die with dignity such as Mr. Niedzielski’s brain cancer, why should the patient not be allowed the right to choose how long he has to live? The simple fact is that there is no miracle; the patient is going to die. The illness is the culprit who determines how much pain and suffering the patient will endure. At some point there has to be enough suffering to be considered humane and only the patient can decide this. If they choose euthanasia or physician assisted suicide it is their decision alone to make and their right to make this choice regardless of religious beliefs. It is their choice to determine the parameters in which they are willing to endure to die with dignity. Directive 66 is also unethical because it is based on the Catholic Church moral stance on abortion. Anything relating to abortion can not be supported by the Church. Abortion is the choice of the person to make alone, therefore I support the use of human tissue to be used for medical research and therapeutic purposes. This is how medical advancement and cures are discovered. I believe directives which support the patient’s decisions and choices regarding their own death to be ethical.
I agree with the ethical and religious directives listed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. With that in consideration I am also a firm believer in the freedom of choice regarding our own body and fate. With the rise in cancer and other painful and debilitating diseases there should be options for terminal patients. Throughout our entire lives we make decisions affecting our futures, therefore in the final stages of life we should be able to choose our fate and the quality of life regarding the final days.
Modern technology and the movement in life extensions have provided us with the ability to make decisions about our youth and virility. Improving the quality of life when we are in good health makes us feel or believe that we are indestructible.
Death and our mortality or the quality of it should be based on one’s own free will. If someone chooses euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is a decision that a patient of sound mind should make. Ensuring the patient is making an informed and educated decision when all other alternatives are exhausted is, in the end, the decision of the patient.
If euthanasia does not cross their own moral codes, why should they have to live up to someone else’s moral codes or standards such as the USCCB. I do not feel that an atheist, agnostic, or any other belief system should have to follow the Catholic moral guideline regarding Euthanasia or any other regulation. Being catholic myself I do maintain the pro-life belief system and firmly believe in the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, when my father was diagnosed with a severe case of terminal bone cancer it was disheartening and very painful to watch a loved one suffer the way he did. Spending his final days with him the hospital and caring for him was exceptionally painful. However, that was time that I greatly cherished. I would have felt robbed of time if he had made the decision to take the option of Physician Assisted suicide. If he had made that choice, I would have respected it.
I agree with the religious directives given by the USCCB committee about care for the dying in Catholic Institutions. I do agree with them because it gives ill, near death patients the aide they need to prepare them for a better natural death. It is right that the Catholic Church gives opportunities to the ill because many people do need this help given to them as many of the times these patients don’t have another way to go. It is moral that the patients are well informed of the situation and the challenges they may face later in life. I believe that it is moral for all patients in these institutions to receive the appropriate food and any other supplies that they need in order to live. And to aid the patients that cant by themselves feed themselves, this is the most appropriate thing to do even against their will because in no way should they not been given the nutrition because it’s the moral way to go in a Catholic institution. In no way should Euthanasia be allowed in these institutions because it goes against the Church belief, and as the Catholic believes by committing suicide or Euthanasia the soul is in purgatory. Even though they are beliefs of the Catholic Church then it should in all means be respected because not all people are in the same religion meaning that even if they are in another religion then their beliefs should as well be respected. Every religion has different ways of thinking when it comes to Euthanasia and suicide, but since in this case it’s the directives of this Catholic Church then it is moral because it goes with their believes and the ethics of death and dying. It is ethical that these institutions also try the most to keep all patients pain free, which is right because the patients don’t suffer and die painlessly. I also believe that it is really ethical that these Catholic institutions allows for organ donation for their patients. It is right and ethical because it allows further testing and researching after death. It is also moral that research and testing on abortion tissue not to be permitted. Abortions go against the church and these should in no way be permitted in these institutions. In conclusion, by viewing this on a Catholic Church standpoint I do agree that these directives go with their beliefs and it’s the right thing when it comes to this religion.
After reading the beliefs and directives of Catholic Health Care Institutions, I decided that it is unethical to not give dying patients the option to use euthanasia.
I know that there are many different situations, when it comes to how we will spend our few moments on earth. Normally when somebody has been diagnosed with six months or less to live, is mainly because of a serious illness. Some people are able to take medication to help with the pain. After all “The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure”. But what if that person is allergic to the medication and unable to stop the horrible pain? Why live a longer life, if it’s just going to be lived in excruciating pain? Isn’t that basically the same thing as dying a slow painful death?
I understand that euthanasia is not the answer to every scenario, but I believe that as a human right we should have that option. Just reassurance incase if everything goes wrong you have reassurance of being able to control your own death. I believe euthanasia should only be used when the patient is in its last days and in a lot of pain. If the patient is just depressed, they shouldn’t be allowed to use it.
What I thought was interesting was directive 61, because it states that “Medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain may be given to a dying person, even if this therapy indirectly shorten the person’s life so long as the intent is not to hasten death”. Even though the purpose is not to hurry death, it is still doing it. So in the end you still didn’t die on your own. In my point of view isn’t like using small dosages of euthanasia.
I appreciate that the Catholic Church feels it’s important to “provide … appropriate opportunities to prepare for death”, and will provide “information necessary to help [the patient] understand their condition” and offer “spiritual support”. I find all these fundamental for the patient and their family. I also appreciate that the Catholic Church feels it important to permit a patient to decide if “extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life” is their choice. I agree whole heartedly that a patient should be “kept as free of pain as possible so that they may die comfortably and with dignity, and in the place where they wish to die”.
I am in favor of organ and tissue donation and believe that the patient (or family, if the patient is unable to make) should be the one to decide.
I feel that this directives are reasonable and in line with my beliefs and the care that I would expect from a hospital for myself or my family. However, when stated in directive #59 “unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching” I paused to think about what that meant. I am not familiar with all of the Catholic Church’s moral teachings, and really do not know much about the structure of the church. Are these “moral teachings” interpreted differently by different authority figures? Does the Doctor interpret this based on his spiritual knowledge, and what if he isn’t Catholic? What if my interpretation is not the same as the person making that “moral” choice for me? Too many unanswered questions by this simple statement. That being said, I do not believe that a religion should force their morals on a patient, so long as the patient is using “free and informed judgment” and is a “competent adult patient” AND their choices are reasonable within the law. Likewise, I don’t believe that if a healthcare professional, for religious or moral reasons should not be forced to comply with a patient’s (again legal and reasonable) wishes. In other words, If a terminally ill patient wants to die and the healthcare professional caring for them finds in unethical or morally wrong they should not have to be the one to “pull the plug” or give the orders or write the prescription or be present at the time.
It is never really easy to watch someone you love die. It’s not easy to watch them give up hope and just wish that everything would end and they could go “home” Fortunately for my family when it came time to let my father-in-law go “home” and take him off of life support, no one fought us and told us that it wasn’t morally right according to their beliefs. After reading through these directives I realized that choosing a hospital is just as important as choosing a spouse, a career maybe even a house. I don’t think I ever gave much thought to what if the hospitals ideas and moral beliefs are different from mine. Knowing this I will make a more informed decision on where myself and my family receive their health care.
2Are the directives ethical? Why or why not?
When reading the directives I found myself becoming angry, how can the Catholic Church places rules on dying. I see directives as just rules; I can’t see how we can make people who are in the last stages of THEIR own life. Then they are expected to follow the rules that someone who has never been in their shoe have place for them to follow. Ethical I feel that it should be the persons’ choice. If you are competent, with go a mental evaluation you should beadle to determine if you want to live or die.
After working in hospice for a few years I began to understand what a person goes though when he or she is face with dying and when a person is dying. As a person goes thought the stage of dying it may or may not become difficulty to live at all, which is when it should become the person choice. Quality or quantity how do they want to spend their last days? Now medical we have the power to keep a person alive with machines but what kind of a life is that, where you may be alive but your brain die or in a vegetative state. If left up to the Catholic Church we would all live very long lives but in reality things happen people get sick, car accident happen it should be a choice not a rule.
by Monica
When reading the directives for the Catholic Health Care Services I notice it strictly goes by good morals (commandments and good ethics) in which I like because of my beliefs, putting my beliefs aside I don’t think this facility is for everyone. Reason is a lot of people are not religious, and if there in need of any health services they must attend another facility. On the other hand I support these directives fully. I like the fact that every decision made in this facility goes by good catholic moral principles. If medical research is to be done it must go by catholic morals. Even the staff who works there must respect and uphold the religious mission. In this facility the following things are never permitted: abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. I think these are not right anyway and it shouldn’t be done, I think the only way that abortion is acceptable is if the person was raped or if it was a little girl who made a big mistake and would literally be killed by her parents if they found out. As for physician assisted suicide I think it unethical and Initiative 1000 shouldn’t be passed I believe every human should die a natural death. From what I read it states that the patients have the right to know what illness their suffering from and the right to make their own decisions. The Catholic Institution cares more about the patient quality of life rather then the quantity.
I would say that most of the directives concluded by the USCCB are seemingly ethical; however, there are quite a few that are condemned by Catholic teachings and philosophies, such as suicide and euthanasia, and personally I don’t fully agree with the given reasons.
For the most part, I agree that a person with terminal illness has options and needs to be informed about his/her situation. I agree that they should be given the liberty of choosing weather or not they wish to go on with life-sustaining procedures (if they become burdened by the treatment or if they can’t afford the expenses); to decide where they choose to die; to donate their functioning organs for life preservation or research after they die. Moreover, I support the notion that these people’s suffering should be alleviated using medication or technology to make it easier on their already difficult conditions: to help them die comfortably if it’s possible.
On the other hand, I disagree on the claim that we are not owners of our own lives. According to their faith one person has the moral obligation of preserving his or her own life, even if that means a long-lasting and painful battle against the inevitable. In my opinion, each person has the right to do what they wish with their own life. Although it is well known that suicide is condemned in the Catholic religion, I see it as an option when a person just can’t take the pain. Suicide and euthanasia will always prove controversial but they should be seen as a last resort when medicine and prayers are not alleviating a person’s suffering; it needs to be seen as an act of compassion towards a loved one.
Several of these directives appear contradictory. Catholics have a belief that human life is sacred and have a social responsibility that the taking of a life can be against the fifth commandment of “thou shall not kill”. However, I find this statement to be only in the text of self-serving Catholic beliefs because Catholics serve in the military and sometimes have to fulfill their duty by taking a life. In directive 56, it says we have a moral obligation ordinary means of preserving life, which refers to maintaining life only if it has a useful benefit. Number 59 states you can withdraw sustaining procedures as long as its not against Catholic moral teachings, but as I mentioned earlier we have an obligation to continue life and only God has the right end it. Number 60 says euthanasia and assisted suicide is not allowed, but I believe that if an end is eminent then the person should have the right to choose to prolong the inevitable or end their life. I do not believe the information in number 55 is in the best interest of the individual because spiritual support and medical support should not discussed simultaneously. I think these directives are not ethical because it takes the choice away from the person alone and makes it a decision required between their priest and the individual. The priest has myopic focus of sustaining life so he looses objectivity to the best interest of the individual.
Post a Comment