"Wait! I Don't Want To Die After All!"

On the heels of the tragic death of Trisha Duguay after no hydration or food for 58 days, I decided it's time to work on educating people of the truths scientifically and spiritually of euthanasia. Having "been there, done that" with my mom and dad under my full time care in my home, and with a hospice nurse later, I have learned a few things that some might benefit from. Just this evening, I came across this article, "Wait! I Don't Want To Die After All!" written by Jimmy Akin, published in the National Catholic Register. I wish to share this with you, followed by links to the story of Trisha Duguay.

++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/wait-i-dont-want-to-die-after-all/

"Wait! I Don't Want To Die After All!"

I’ve been thinking about writing a book to help people dealing with end-of-life situations. Between the deaths of my wife and my parents and other family members, I’ve been through enough of them that I’ve had to think hard about the spiritual, moral, and evangelistic aspects of these situations.

If I am able to write such a book, one aspect that I will definitely cover is the need for humility and caution in assessing the sick person’s will to live.

Very frequently these days people end up in situations where they cannot speak for themselves and clearly communicate what kind of care they want or whether they even want care. In such situations, family members are typically consulted, and this can cause a rift inside the family as they try to figure out what their loved one would want.

This is one of the most painful kinds of conversations for family members to have, and it if goes the wrong way, it can permanently injure relations in the family. “You killed Dad!” or “You wouldn’t let Mom die with dignity!” are things that can haunt families for years after the event, permanently turning people against each other. (I am very thankful to say, however, that my own family was able to get through the difficult days without such damage being done—and in spite of the fact that I’m the only Catholic in my immediate family.)

Sooner or later the “Do you want to pull the plug?” question is going to be presented to virtually every family, and it’s good to be prepared for it.

In some cases the patient may have left explicit instructions, but often not. Sometimes family members will remember (or think they remember) things the patient said in conversation about what they would want if something terrible happened. Other times they won’t have such memories and will simply rely on their feeling of what the loved one would want.

Regardless of which of these is the case, there is reason for great caution here. The stakes are, after all, life and death.

But there is another reason for caution: None of these things—from explicit written instructions to the vague feeling of what someone would want—is a good indicator of what they actually would want now that they are in the situation.

Certainly, pre-written instructions are a better indicator than a gut feeling assessed in a moment of crisis. If someone has taken the trouble to write instructions in advance then those instructions are more likely to reflect the settled views of person in question. But the thing is . . . views change. Particularly when we’re put in a dramatically different life situation.

There is also a danger of the loved ones, without fully realizing it, simply taking the easy way out—regardless of what that easy way is for them.

For some people the easy way would be for the loved one not to want to continue treatment. Under the pressure of watching a loved one dying they are emotionally worn out and in pain and they are ready for it to be over. It’s not that they want their loved one to die. But they can’t stand seeing the loved one suffer and want the mutual agony to be done with.

This is a human response.

But it poses a danger of leading the relative to believe what is convenient rather than what is true. In this case what is convenient would be for the loved one to want to discontinue treatment, and so the relative starts feeling certain that the loved one would never want to live this way. That would be preposterous. Of course they would just want to let go and die in peace.

And if there are a few dimly-remembered conversations that might support this view then they will be taken as proof positive. There even might be a little exaggeration used to help convince doubtful relatives who are also being consulted.

But even if that isn’t the case. Even if the person clearly expressed a preference, that preference may no longer apply.

A good illustration of that is the case of the British man in this news story from July:

Richard Rudd was paralyzed and brain damaged after being injured in a motorcycle accident last October and suffering subsequent medical complications. Treated in Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England his family thought they knew he would not want to live.

“We said that knowing Richard, there was no way in a million years that he would want to live with his injuries,” his father told the Daily Telegraph. Rudd had told his daughter that if he suffered a severe injury in an accident like a car crash, he “wouldn’t want to go on,” Rudd’s father reported.

Rudd’s father gave permission for treatment to be withdrawn. As hospital staff gathered around Rudd’s bed, they noticed he was able to blink his eyes for the first time in several weeks.

The doctors asked Rudd three times whether he wanted to continue to live. He blinked “yes” in reply to each of their three questions.

Rudd was lucky, to say the least. No doubt there are vast numbers of people who aren’t.

But his case is illustrative of the fact that someone—when feeling able and healthy—could decide that they don’t want to live if it means the kind of existence Rudd is facing, yet when they’re actually in that situation they decide that they do want to live after all.

Rudd’s case is thus a valuable cautionary tale: We must recognize that past statements are not a good guide to what someone would actually want in this kind of situation. And especially we must not allow ourselves to believe what is convenient for us—the relatives— and what will help ease our own suffering.

This goes both ways, though.

Just as a person can change his mind about wanting to die, so he can change his mind about wanting to live.

There may be—and no doubt are—many people who when healthy and active think, “I’d want them to do everything to keep me alive, no matter what shape I’m in.” Yet, when they get down to the end of live, they may change their mind and say, “You know, I’m ready to go. I’m ready for this suffering to be over.”

In the same way, if they can’t speak for themselves, their relatives may make the same mistake of believing what is convenient rather than what is true. There are people—not as many as their used to be given our society’s growing death ethic—for whom the easy thing would be to keep the loved one alive as long as possible, for any number of reasons. They may find themselves thinking, “Of course this person would want to live! They would want everything done to keep them alive!” And perhaps the person even said this in the past, though now the person would say differently.

The point is that people’s minds can change and that we must cross examine our feelings when we are being asked these questions. We must make sure we are not just choosing what is easy and convenient for us to believer rather than focusing on what is true.

I’m afraid that I don’t have a magic solution, here. I wish I did!

Obviously, committing an immoral procedure—such as deliberately killing the patient or withholding nutrition and hydration that they would be capable of assimilating—is off the table. And, if the patient can’t speak for himself then previously written instructions are the best available guide, followed by clear memories of what the patient said, followed by fuzzy ones, followed by gut instincts. And the default should be in favor of preserving life.

But there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the question of when to end treatment. All too often a judgment call is involved.

The case of Mr. Rudd from England highlights the fact that people’s opinions can change and that we need to be cautious—and prayerful—in making these decisions.

What are your thoughts? (end of article)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And now for links so that you may read about Trisha.

The first the world heard about Trisha came from the Atlanta Journal http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/update-bride-in-coma-596116.html

An update on Trisha http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/update-bride-in-coma-596116.html

Notice of her death http://networkedblogs.com/8j7BN

And the final episode http://www.ajc.com/news/bride-in-coma-27-620657.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although painted by the Atlanta Journal as a romance novel, the facts are that there is no real dignity in starving to death or in dehydration. There is much to learn about this whole area and it behooves each and every one of us to know all the facts, not to run on emotion. This touches everyone's life.

Brain Death Criteria -- Really? Or Maybe Not.

By Hilary White - Rome correspondent

ROME, February 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - If a patient is able to process oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream, maintain a normal body temperature, digest food and expel waste, grow to normal adult size from the age of four to twenty, and even carry a child to term, can he or she be considered dead? Can a person who is "dead" wake up and go on later to finish a university degree? Can a corpse get out of bed, go home and go fishing? Can he get married and have children?

These are among the real-life stories of patients declared "brain dead" presented by medical experts at the "Signs of Life" conference on "brain death" criteria held near the Vatican in Rome last week. Ten speakers, who are among the world's most eminent in their fields, sounded a ringing rebuke to the continued support among medical professionals and ethicists for "brain death" as an accepted criterion for organ removal.

Dr. Paul Byrne, the conference organizer, told LifeSiteNews.com he was delighted with the success of the conference, that he hopes will bring the message that "brain death is not death" inside the walls of the Vatican where support for "brain death" criteria is still strong.

Dr. Byrne, a neonatologist and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, compared the struggle against "brain death" criteria with another battle: "I'm sure that slavery was at one time well-accepted in the United States, and that people saw big benefits to slavery. And yes, it was difficult to go away from that but it was absolutely essential."

"Slavery was doing evil things to persons. This issue of 'brain death' was invented to get beating hearts for transplantation. And there is no way that this can go on. It must get stopped."

Participants came from all over the world to attend the Signs of Life conference, with speakers from Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, Germany, Poland, the US, Brazil and Italy. The conference hall was packed to standing-room only with physicians, clergy, students, journalists, and academics. Clergy included two senior officials of the Vatican curia: Francis Cardinal Arinze, the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sergio Cardinal Sebastiani, the President Emeritus of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. Two senior members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were also present. Conference organizers told LifeSiteNews.com that they had expected no more than a hundred to attend and were surprised but very pleased with the crowd of over 170 for the one-day event.

Conflicting voices on "brain death" criteria are still battling in the Church. In February 2005, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) refused to publish the findings of its own conference after the speakers roundly denounced "brain death" as a cynical invention to further the monetary interests of organ transplanters. The speakers said that using "brain death" for the purpose of organ harvesting results in the death of helpless patients. The PAS convened a second conference in 2007 with different speakers who, with only two dissenting, supported "brain death" for organ transplants. Papers from the 2005 conference that opposed "brain death" were excluded without explanation to their authors.

During a Vatican-sponsored conference last November on organ transplantation, at which not a single speaker raised their voice against "brain death," Pope Benedict XVI warned in an address that "the removal of organs is allowed only in the presence of his actual death." But on the Monday following the Friday organ transplant conference, only the PAS conference report in favor of "brain death" was posted to the Vatican website and not the Pope's warning.

Dr. Byrne said that a major function of the Signs of Life conference was "to support Pope Benedict," whose address in November, he said, had started to turn the Church against "brain death."

"It's here to demonstrate clearly that 'brain death' never was true death. What we're trying to do is come back to the truth and protect and preserve the life that comes from God.

"When there are attacks on life, then we, as physicians, defend it and that is what this conference is for."

The Signs of Life conference, sponsored privately by various pro-life organizations, including Human Life International, the Northwest Ohio Guild of the Catholic Medical Association, American Life League and the Italian organization Associazione Famiglia Domani, stood in opposition to the second PAS conference, which was titled, "The Signs of Death."