October 22, 2017 - "On Death & Dying"

Last Monday Cardinal Wuerl celebrated the Funeral Mass for Msgr. Ralph Kuehner who had resided at St. Francis of Assisi from 1990 until last year when he moved to Sacred Heart Home in Hyattsville owing to health concerns.  Fr. Ralph had opted to return to Sacred Heart Home after a short stay in the hospital.  There he died very peacefully early on the morning of October 12, 2017.  He has given us all a great example of how to live well and how to die well.  May he rest in peace!
                Fr. Ralph’s death is a reminder of one of the themes of Respect Life month that many of us don’t like think about.  But it really is something that we have to bear in mind.  These are Catholic considerations for our earthly passing.  I am going to present some questions and answers from a document entitled “Comfort & Consolation: Q &A.”  This is a supplement to the Pastoral Letter Comfort and Consolation from the Catholic Bishops of Maryland.
 
Q. When should I accept or continue treatment?
God’s gift of human life is the foundation for all His other gifts.  The most basic right of each person includes the right to preserve his or her life.  When professional medical care is needed, we should consent to reasonable use of appropriate medical care and treatment out of respect for our God-given dignity and also so that we can meet our duties to God, our loved ones, and all who depend on us.  When a patient consents to medical interventions, they expect a cure, improvement, comfort, or life-sustaining help, but this does not mean that all such beneficial treatments are morally obligatory.
 
Q. When is it appropriate to deny or withdraw treatment?
No patient is obliged to accept or demand medical care or treatments that have no beneficial effect.  In addition, no one is morally obliged to employ every possible beneficial means. While the most basic principles of Christian morality oblige us to preserve human life, these same principles clarify that there is no obligation to accept interventions that impose serious risks, excessive pain, prohibitive cost, or some other extreme burden out of proportion to its anticipated benefit.  Furthermore, when death is imminent and inevitable despite the means used, it is permissible in conscience to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted.  Determining whether a particular treatment is excessively burdensome is not simply a matter of preference or merely a medical decision, but a reasoned judgment by the patient that often requires the advice of a priest or someone else well-trained in sound moral theology.
 
Q. What if I don’t want to burden my family by prolonging treatment?
A patient may make a morally correct decision to forgo a potentially beneficial medical treatment proposed by his or her doctor because the treatment itself is too burdensome or because it is useless.  However, no one—including the patient, family members, medical professionals, or members of the clergy—ever has the right to decide that a person’s life is useless. 
 
We should not stop medically useful interventions because we are tired of living, feel we no longer have a contribution to make, see ourselves as helpless or believe our dependency on others is too great a burden to them and, thus, would like to hasten the end of life.
 
Q. What does the Church teach about nutrition and
hydration?
Feeding tubes and other medically-assisted nutrition and hydration measures are available when patients can no longer take any, or indeed, sufficient food and fluid orally.  Such measures are rarely unduly burdensome.  While there is a clear presumption in favor of supplying food and fluids to patients, one can only determine what is morally required in light of the specific circumstances.  The tube is useful when it delivers nutrients to the patient who, in turn, absorbs them; it is useless if the patient becomes incapable of absorbing the nutrients the tube delivers.  It is both morally and medically inappropriate to make a universal statement that medically-assisted nutrition and hydration must be given to all who cannot feed themselves.  Likewise, it is misleading to make a medical statement that all gravely ill patients should not be provided with medically-assisted nutrition and hydration.  The moral decision is case specific.  The prudent course of action is to consider the facts of the particular case and to determine whether a patient’s need for nourishment and fluid can be met effectively through a medical intervention that does not impose excessive burdens on the patient.
 
Until next week
Fr. John