The dissenting opinions: biting the hands that won't feed.
The three dissenting opinions in Brophy focus on concerns about the majority's decision to allow the withdrawal of food and water from a comatose patient. According to Justice Joseph Nolan, who disagrees that food and liquids should be considered medical treatment, the decision "affronts logic, ethics, and the dignity of the human person." Justice Neil Lynch, basing his argument on the state's interest in preserving life, says that the decision flouts the common law prohibition of suicide. Justice Francis O'Connor also suggests that the majority relied not on Mr. Brophy's evaluation but on their own evaluation of the quality of his life. A review of the Catholic literature to which the dissenting justices, all Catholic laypersons, may have been exposed shows that relatively few Catholic writers are challenging the morality or appropriateness of withdrawing nutrition and hydration. While many contemporary Catholic theologians have indicated their approval of this action in certain cases, there is opposition to this view from other Catholic sources that may be more reflective of the views of the magisterium. This apparent growing support for withdrawing nutrition and hydration raises questions, however, about the uncertainty of a prognosis of irreversibility in comatose patients, the extent to which economic issues are influencing such decisions, and the categories of patients for whom such decisions are believed appropriate.
D002410:Catholicism; D003128:Coma; D004750:Enteral Nutrition / Q000592:standards*; 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*; D026712:Value of Life; D028761:Withholding Treatment