ASK DEACON MIKE

      I recently received a note from one of our elderly parishioners who has been living with cancer for nearly four years while the spouse is in “questionable” health. They wrote: “We do not want to be deprived of food or water, but we do not wish to be kept alive with a feeding tube or mechanical respiration and we do not want to be resuscitated. Could you set our minds at ease as to what is the Catholic thing to do?”

      This is a wonderful question. All of us would benefit from a clearer understanding of what the Church teaches about these end-of-life issues. I interpret this question to ask: what is the difference between ordinary means of preserving life and those extraordinary means that prolong imminent death.

According to an article in AmericanCatholic.org we must be very clear in our understanding of ordinary and extraordinary means. ORDINARY MEANS are those medicines and/or treatments that offer reasonable hope of benefit without excessive expense or pain. EXTRAORDINARY MEANS are those medicines and/or treatments that do not offer reasonable hope of benefit while incurring excessive expense or pain. But for any of this to make sense, we must be clear on the meaning of “hope of benefit”. 

      Obviously, we are talking about life, human life. Human life is God’s gift to us to enable us to participate in His Divine Life. Regardless of the quality of that life, as long as life exists it is never our option to decide when that life will end. That is only for God to decide. There is a difference between preserving life and prolonging imminent death. We must always ask what reasonable hope for the benefit of life do these measures offer? If life can be preserved, then they must be employed. If the existence, not just the mere quality of life can be sustained then we are morally bound to do so. However, if there is organ failure, cessation of brain function or some other catastrophic event that causes life to end, then there is no obligation to prolong a death that is imminent.

      Based on these principles, Catholics are bound to accept all means possible to preserve life as long as life can benefit. Even though the quality of life may be less that desirable, life

must be preserved. As Catholics, we believe that God always works in and through us. As long as there is hope we cannot deprive God of His desire to be the source of our life. If there is no hope of sustaining life then extraordinary treatment may be withheld if the person or their family in consultation with their doctors so desire.

      I know that these are difficult issues. Emotions, suffering and financial burden are all important concerns. Quite often families are split in their options when facing these challenging issues. We all remember the controversy concerning Terri Schiavo a few years ago. According to the teachings of the Church it was wrong to deprive her of nutrition and hydration. While the quality of her life was minimal, she still possessed life. She was not in imminent danger of death. Her condition did not kill her. Certainly she was not able to sustain herself. But the denial of food and water deprived her of the basic needs for life.

To do that was wrong.

      I know that regardless of what I write here, the debate will go on. I hope this has brought at least some clarity to the issue. Please continue sending your questions. You can reach me by going to our parish website, www.spnparish.org and clicking on the ASK DEACON MIKE link. You can also send me an e-mail direct at deaconcmikefranks@comcast.net or you can drop an anonymous note in the collection basket or mail it to the parish office.

God bless you and I love you all!