A challenge to examine the meaning of living and dying.
The case of Paul Brophy, decided by a four-to-three vote of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, focused on the patient's right to terminate artificial nutrition and hydration. According to the majority opinion, artificial feeding is an "intrusive" procedure that one should be able to refuse without being accused of committing suicide. The court based its reasoning on the right to privacy and, in relation to that right, the state's interests in preserving life, protecting innocent third parties, preventing suicide, and maintaining the medical profession's ethical integrity. The majority could have been more persuasive, however, if it had considered Catholic moral tradition in developing its argument, especially the importance of judging a treatment's outcome and burden in relation to the individual patient's life. The Brophy opinion probably will leave many people dissatisfied because it fails to explore the values of the parties involved and the meaning of Catholic teaching. It should serve as a challenge, however, to the Catholic community to more fully articulate for a technologically oriented culture the meaning of living and dying.
D002410:Catholicism; D003128:Coma; D004750:Enteral Nutrition / Q000592:standards*; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D006761:Hospitals; D006801:Humans; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008297:Male; D008404:Massachusetts; D011788:Quality of Life; D012297:Right to Die / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D018570:Risk Assessment; D013315:Stress, Psychological; D028761:Withholding Treatment