photosynthesis Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 so... this is kind of a sad story, but here goes... My best friend Peter (who died last year) really struggled with the temptation to end his life. He said it never would have been that way if his father didn't make this choice... So my friend's father was diabetic, in his early 50's, and had been on dialysis for a few years due to end-stage renal failure. He had a wife, a daughter and a son that he was supporting, and a career as a lawyer. While the illness he had made life difficult, he certainly had a lot to live for. He ended up making the decision to end dialysis and "die naturally." Legally, the man had a right to refuse medical treatment, and he signed a form saying that he wanted to end dialysis and that he would accept the consequences. Now, a person with 100% kidney failure cannot survive without dialysis, and the man ended up dying over the course of about a week. Peter was also diabetic and had been on dialysis for a long time as well... Seeing his father choose to end dialysis always made him wonder why he put up with his own life. Thankfully, Peter never chose to throw in the towel and he persevered to the end... he later became Catholic, and it was his illness that took him at the age of 21. my question is... is choosing to stop dialysis, or another lifesaving medical treatment, suicide? Peter's dad's death certificate didn't say "suicide," it said uremia or toxemia or some medical term... But Peter always said his dad committed suicide, since he made a conscious choice to end the medical treatment. Other people in his family claimed that it was not suicide, since he was "allowing the disease to take its course." What do you think? Was it suicide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 you are not obliged to seek extraordinary means of sustaining your life. you can refuse extreme medical treatment. the line is often really hard to draw. something like food and water, even through a feeding tube, is always ordinary means of sustaining people's lives, thus that cannot morally be refused.t dialasis... I really don't know how to classify that. the line is really hard to draw, but if something is viewed as extraordinary means of sustaining your life it is not a sinful action to refuse it even if the double-effect of refusing it will be your death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 10 2005, 02:11 AM']dialasis... I really don't know how to classify that. the line is really hard to draw, but if something is viewed as extraordinary means of sustaining your life it is not a sinful action to refuse it even if the double-effect of refusing it will be your death. [right][snapback]784677[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Dialysis is a way of cleansing wastes and toxins from the bloodstream when a person's kidneys fail. Usually the kidneys just do that, and the toxins/wastes come out in the form of urine. so dialysis is basically a process where a machine does the peeing for you. at least that's how Peter described it to me. he spent many hours in dialysis, it takes a lot of time. however, a lot of people can be on dialysis and still lead relatively normal lives. his father was still able to continue his law practice and support his family. I'm not sure if it's suicide, but I think the decision he made was a bad one, because it set a bad example for his son, who also had the same medical problems, along with several other ones. Not to mention the fact that he abandoned his wife and children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I'd call dialysis extraordinary, and therefore optional. Anything that ghastly expensive has [i]got[/i] to be extraordinary. But then I hate hospitals, so I might be biased. It's certainly not a clear-cut suicide, like failing to take a simple medicine, or starving yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 I don't think money was an issue. Peter said that Social Security often covers what health insurance does not cover, and that was the case for their family. I don't like hospitals either. Peter did the kind where you don't have to go to the hospital though, although it involves having a tube in your belly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 it's not about whether it's about money or not, it's about whether it's extra-ordinary or not. It seems extra-ordinary to me.. I don't know though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filiusMariae Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I would have to agree with others in saying that dialysis is extraordinary means. The only ones that I know are not extraordinary are food and water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatty07 Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Another crucial consideration is the man's motive. Refusal of extraordinary means is okay, but not for all reasons. If your disease and the treatment recieved add up to a lot of suffering and hardship, and you'd really rather just go meet your God, then extraordinary means can be declined. It's a completely different thing if you're fed up with life in general, or are depressed for other reasons, or all the other motivations that go into suicide. That's not an okay reason. I hate to speculate knowing so little, but it does seem strange that a father and husband would consider dialysis an unacceptable price to pay to prevent widowing his wife and leaving his kids fatherless. I suppose it might depend on how crippling his condition was. Anyway, hope this helps a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 10 2005, 02:51 AM']it's not about whether it's about money or not, it's about whether it's extra-ordinary or not. It seems extra-ordinary to me.. I don't know though... [right][snapback]784697[/snapback][/right] [/quote] here are some websites about dialysis: [url="http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/198_dial.html"]http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/198_dial.html[/url] [url="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003421.htm"]http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003421.htm[/url] [quote name='beatty07' date='Nov 10 2005, 10:59 AM']Another crucial consideration is the man's motive. Refusal of extraordinary means is okay, but not for all reasons. If your disease and the treatment recieved add up to a lot of suffering and hardship, and you'd really rather just go meet your God, then extraordinary means can be declined. It's a completely different thing if you're fed up with life in general, or are depressed for other reasons, or all the other motivations that go into suicide. That's not an okay reason. I hate to speculate knowing so little, but it does seem strange that a father and husband would consider dialysis an unacceptable price to pay to prevent widowing his wife and leaving his kids fatherless. I suppose it might depend on how crippling his condition was. Anyway, hope this helps a little. [right][snapback]784778[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yeah, I think the intent matters a lot. I know that my friend's father was suffering. Dialysis patients tend to feel tired all of the time and I know that trying to support his family as a lawyer AND do hemodialysis was very taxing. Peter said he would spend most of the 4-5 hours he'd spend in dialysis doing legal research even though it was hard for him to stay conscious. His illness was somewhat debilitating, but he was still able to work and he was nowhere near as sick as his son, who had the same illnesses along with some other ones. I'm not sure how depressed or hopeless he felt. Men tend not to be as open about depression and emotions in general as women. It's possible that he was very depressed but never said anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I think only God is qualified to decide this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 10 2005, 05:54 PM']I think only God is qualified to decide this question. [right][snapback]785123[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Of course! However, most of the time He lets the Magisterium know what He thinks This is a decision that real people often have to make and I'm sure the Church has something wise to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StatingTheObvious Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 10 2005, 06:54 PM']I think only God is qualified to decide this question. [right][snapback]785123[/snapback][/right] [/quote] oxygenfromgreenleaves, i think the Mother was trying to say that only God can know for sure what the motives situations are. i don't think the church has ever said somebody's gone to hell. it does say stuff like 'if you do X for Y reasons, your going to hell.' only God knows for sure and can judge somebody on the Y reasons. chill out dude and accept the fact you can't know for sure until you get to his new neighborhood and truy to look him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 I don't think it was suicide. Only the Father and Peter's dad know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 In all fairness what I view as ordinary is anything which would have been providable for someone since the beggening of time. A dialysis is not something that was available in the garden of Eden. Food was, water was, oxygen was. No one, no matter what their reason, is morally bound to try to save their life. Everyone is morally bound to not take their life. Whatever the reason for not taking dialysis treatment, even if it were depression, cannot be called morally incorrect. Why? Because dialysis is extraordinary. Depression is something seperate and evne if it wer ethe cause to stop receiving treatment cannot be connected with suicide since the man was as good as dead had it not beed for extraordinary means anyway. Whether it was "right" or "wrong" to leave his faimly is something that is not of mortal proportions because he did nothing but let nature run her course and stopped trying to stop her. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now