(no subject)

[electricland]

for raithen and any others interested:

Ethics of prolonging life differ depending on religious beliefs

By Manya A. Brachear
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 23, 2005

As the quest to sustain the life of a brain-damaged Florida woman commands the attention of the American public, people of all faiths are pondering if ancient tenets can resolve the moral quandaries posed by modern medicine.

With chemotherapy, respirators, feeding tubes and other artificial means possibly adding years to a human life, believers across the spectrum are challenged by the questions raised in the Terri Schiavo case.

But for Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Christian bioethicists, the debate hinges on criteria different from the legal technicalities and Roman Catholic theology argued in her situation.

Jewish scholars generally disregard brain activity as a legitimate sign of life. Christian ethicists point to the biblical principle that humans are made in God's image. Some Hindus make a distinction between death by fasting and death by suicide. In Islamic law, it is cruel to interrupt the process of dying once it has begun.

"A new measure to start the feeding again is unwanted," said Dr. Shahid Athar, chairman of the medical ethics committee of the Islamic Medical Association of North America. "We do not want to prolong life in a vegetative state because we Muslims feel that it's prolonging the misery rather than prolonging the life. The will of God should be taken into account."

Doctors say, short of a miracle, there is little chance that Schiavo, 41, will emerge from the persistent vegetative state in which she has been trapped for the last 15 years. Unable to eat or drink, her sustenance has flowed from a feeding tube. Last week, after a a judge's ruling, the tube was removed.

That plastic pipe is at the heart of the debate among Catholic theologians. Church teaching holds that "extraordinary means" of life support are not morally required for severely disabled patients. Last year, Pope John Paul II declared feeding tubes a form of ordinary care and their removal morally wrong. Schiavo's Catholic parents cling to that position.

Still, a majority of Catholic theologians disagreed. They and other Christian ethicists distinguish between removing a feeding tube and providing the means to end a patient's life, such as injecting drugs to speed up the process.

"It's never OK to do anything that would hasten death," said Aana Marie Vigen, a professor of Christian ethics at Loyola University. "The prevalent view in religious communities--Catholic and Protestant alike--is it's OK ... to disconnect the ventilator or withdraw nutrition as long as there's comfort care, as long as she's not going to be in any pain, as long as there's no hope for recovery."

Many evangelical Christians agree with the Vatican position, arguing the sanctity of humanity should be protected.

"The Bible isn't intended to be a medical textbook on 21st Century medical technology, but I still think it gives us some principles," said Richard Cizik, vice president of government affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. "Human dignity is indivisible from the unborn to those with disabilities."

But Athar said it is already too late. He believes that doctors should not have removed the feeding tube in the first place. But, he said, Schiavo has begun to die and that process should not be reversed.

"The right decision Islamically and ethically would be not to do any heroic new measures," he said. "To put the tube back would cause pain now."

Many of the same principles guide Jewish ethics in similar situations. Byron Sherwin, a professor of bioethics at Spertus Institute, said the case has been handled inappropriately from the start. According to Jewish law, the decision should rest in the hands of an objective decision-maker appointed by rabbis, not a parent or spouse with a vested interest.

"In American law, it's a concept of rights," he said. "In Jewish law, it's what you are obliged to do... not what are their rights, just what is right."

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

(Posted in response to a comment on fairoriana's journal. Seems it requires registration. I can't remember what I'm registered with any more...)

Also, who listened to The Current yesterday? They had an interesting bit with a Catholic theologian on the ethics of life support.

Comments

[fairoriana.livejournal.com]

Thanks -- the Islamic perspective is a new one for me.

[raithen.livejournal.com]

thanks - about to read!

segment from the Current avail in real audio here

[lietya.livejournal.com]

that is *fascinating.* especially the Islamic perspective.

another link

[raithen.livejournal.com]

another person on my friends lisst posted a link to the same Jesuit on MSNBC

Re: another link

[electricland.livejournal.com]

wow, that's a great interview!

Re: another link

[raithen.livejournal.com]

yes.

I am SO. in support of this section:

How does the stance of Schiavo supporters in the church reflect religious teaching about death?
Here’s the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit Christian context. Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1974 called “To Save or Let Die.” He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology—these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human.

Re: another link

[electricland.livejournal.com]

Another good article here: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=1173

The notion of “benefit” has traditionally been understood as a moral category, not merely a biological one. In other words, it is not self-evident that sustaining a person in PVS by artificial means is of benefit to that person. The mere prolongation of bodily functions where there is no hope of recovery and where the patient has no ability to realize any human or personal goods, is not obligatory. Some values transcend the mere prolongation of physical existence.

The article it links to in the body is also very good.