0
PARIS, March 31: Pope John Paul, now being fed through a nasal tube because of his throat problems, effectively wrote his own ?living will? last year in a speech declaring some life-extending treatments a moral duty for Roman Catholics. The ailing Pontiff sharply narrowed Catholic guidelines for treating patients nearing death in March last year when he described tube-feeding as a normal treatment rather than an extraordinary measure that can be stopped if all hope of recovery fades.
This indicates he would want to be kept alive by artificial means even if he fell into a coma or a persistent vegetative state, such as the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo in the United States whose feeding were removed after 15 years.
?The Pope?s statement would have to be considered the equivalent of his living will,? said Father Thomas Reese S.J., editor of the Jesuit weekly America in New York. ?It would be very difficult to unplug him if it came to that.?
Increasingly popular in the United States, a living will is a written statement adults make to indicate whether they want doctors to use all means possible to keep them alive at life?s end or to let them die if all hope of recovery seems lost.
As the Schiavo case shows, modern medicine can extend basic body functioning for years ? a worrying prospect for the world?s largest church if that means its elected-for-life leader is incapacitated indefinitely.
The Catholic Church has traditionally taught that doctors and families could end artificial life-extending measures in good conscience if a dying patient?s prospects seemed hopeless.
AGAINST ?CULTURE OF DEATH?: John Paul, who has long railed against a ?culture of death? he saw in abortion and artificial birth control, surprised moral theologians in the speech last year by insisting Catholics can no longer make such decisions even in extreme cases.
?The intrinsic value and the personal dignity of every human being does not change no matter what the concrete situation of his life,? he told doctors and ethics experts attending a Rome conference about patients in a vegetative state.
?The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act,? he said. Denying them this treatment would amount to ?euthanasia by omission.?
?Reuters
This indicates he would want to be kept alive by artificial means even if he fell into a coma or a persistent vegetative state, such as the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo in the United States whose feeding were removed after 15 years.
?The Pope?s statement would have to be considered the equivalent of his living will,? said Father Thomas Reese S.J., editor of the Jesuit weekly America in New York. ?It would be very difficult to unplug him if it came to that.?
Increasingly popular in the United States, a living will is a written statement adults make to indicate whether they want doctors to use all means possible to keep them alive at life?s end or to let them die if all hope of recovery seems lost.
As the Schiavo case shows, modern medicine can extend basic body functioning for years ? a worrying prospect for the world?s largest church if that means its elected-for-life leader is incapacitated indefinitely.
The Catholic Church has traditionally taught that doctors and families could end artificial life-extending measures in good conscience if a dying patient?s prospects seemed hopeless.
AGAINST ?CULTURE OF DEATH?: John Paul, who has long railed against a ?culture of death? he saw in abortion and artificial birth control, surprised moral theologians in the speech last year by insisting Catholics can no longer make such decisions even in extreme cases.
?The intrinsic value and the personal dignity of every human being does not change no matter what the concrete situation of his life,? he told doctors and ethics experts attending a Rome conference about patients in a vegetative state.
?The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act,? he said. Denying them this treatment would amount to ?euthanasia by omission.?
?Reuters
