There are instances when relatives and friends undergo a period of serious agonizing as they watch there loved ones suffer from an ailment in which doctors have already ascertained that the survival chances are very small. The cost of maintaining the patient also goes up and may become unmanageable. In moral aspect, withholding of nutrition and allowing the patient to die is unethical and in disrespect of the human life and dignity.
Some people argue that this would be just the same case as mercy killing though here the patient is allowed to die d from dehydration and lack of food which is not basically considered as killing (Ashwanden 1990). Ethicists and Geriatricians argue that food and fluid are basic human needs and a form of therapy which can lawfully be withheld when the professionals have ascertained that the risk are much bigger than the advantages based on the evaluation of patients quality of living. The value of life is primarily based on the beliefs one’s religion.
The catholic followers have a beliefs that any one has a right to get food and this include those are seriously ill that they have to be given the medically assisted nutrition and fluids. However they insist that this belief only hold when the benefits the patient gets are far much greater than the expense of maintaining him/her. The decision makers are faced with a tough situation during the making of the best choice to handle a patient since there are just more than the medical ethics that apply because the religion come it too, National Conference of Catholic Bishops (1995).
For instance, the Jewish orthodox believe that life is sacred and has to be respected plus the fact that the will of God should be allowed to take place and giving medically assisted nutrition in this case is treated as a surrogate impediment to death which was designed by God. In the event where two specialist of different beliefs like the Catholics and the Jewish Orthodox, there would be a clash of what has to be done since each of them would strongly believe that their option is the best and would not want to do the contrary (Thelan et al 1990).
The catholic moral teachings require that the basic need to sustain life be offered to whoever need it regardless of the condition as long as they are not inflicting more suffering or are not of any other disadvantage to the patient. The primary responsibility of medical practitioners on the other hand is to improve the quality of life and restore the normalcy in their patient’s life. Ethicists argue that whether or not the patient would recover to health, the people around him/her have an absolute obligation to comfort the patient and reduce the suffering.
Regarding the moral and legal responsibility, the situation could be very difficult to determine based on the bland judgment and hence there is the need to differentiate between the primary healthcare and medical therapy. According to doctors in the catholic ethics tradition, a patient who appears to be stable and whose condition is not worsening can have his or her treatment withdrawn for the similar reason as not commencing it. For the same way the doctors said they could not allow especially those patients paralyzed for ventilation have it removed whereas the paralysis is still there.
This is viewed as a sure way of initiating if not causing death in a manner impossible to differentiate from the other ways used in mercy killings namely paralysis of breathing. Euthanasia in catholic beliefs is described as an action or omission that causes death by itself or has the intent of causing life on compassionate grounds, National Conference of Catholic Bishops (1995). A team of medical doctors from the catholic moral custom recognized the following conditions as those that the medical treatment terminated or withdrawal of food and fluids could be allowed;
In the event of a brain dead patient after an accepted criteria has been used; permanent vegetative condition- here medication can be stopped because of the expenses but food and fluids are part of primary care; the no purpose condition in which the patient ay survive but with serious mental damage, life could not be worth living; the no chance condition in which food and fluids delay death of the patient without notable reduction in ailment of the patient; and finally the unbearable situation when the family and doctor has a confirmed that the medical condition is progressive and irreversible (Moreland & Geiser 1990).