Lurkmeister’s sad thread about his wife’s illness ( )and his decision to remove her feeding tube got me to wondering…
I am a supporter of euthanasia and feel all states should adopt a system to free terminally ill people from the pain and humiliation of a drawn-out death. No one wants to have to make the decision, but it is one many of us may have to face.
I have to ask, how is removing a feeding tube different from a lethal injection? Other than the fact that it is a longer process, you are, in effect, terminating a person’s life. How do the laws distinguish between the two.
I’m speaking as a son who was part of the decision making process (facilitated by a well done living will and power of attorney: health care) to withhold a feeding tube from my mother during her final weeks a year ago.
Pragmatically speaking, there is no difference. The end result is death, and the intentions of the people involved are motivated out of deep love and concern.
Philosophically speaking, there is a world of difference. One action is passive and the other is active. One is natural, and the other is unnatural.
Speaking as one who also had to face that decision (at the end, we left the feeding tube in) we saw withdrawing the feeding tube as a reversible decision. My father would still have a chance to rally, and we could go from there. A lethal injection, even if the hospital would have considered it, would have ended his (admittedly almost non-existent) chances.
Interestingly, I had two family members who, at the end, simply refused to eat, which almost certainly hastened their deaths. So perhaps removing the feeding tube is a more “natural” way of letting someone go.
I see virtually no difference in the two, yet everyone gets their bowels in an uproar over the injection. It’s not TOTALLY passive, as you have to actually remove the tube from someone who is incapable of putting it back in. But I agree it is more natural to stop feedings.
My dad put his will together a couple years ago, and I am the decision-maker on the issue of sustaining life. We’ve talked about it a lot, and he’s very clear that he doesn’t want to just “survive.” I’m glad we agree on this point.
I apologize Kalhoun for not reading your OP closely enough.
Removing a feeding tube (your OP) is a lot different than not inserting a feeding tube (my response). My whole active/passive distinction falls by the wayside.
Either way it’s a difficult and painful decision, yet somehow, for reasons I can’t articulate, removing a feeding tube would be easier for me than a lethal injection. Maybe it’s the immediacy of the consequences.
I think that it is the difference between halting unnatural activities which are sustaining someone’s life (by removing the medical intervention) and halting the natural activities which are sustaining someone’s life (by injecting chemicals).
From my recent experience on this subject, let me say the following:
At the time my wife’s feeding tube was installed, she was suffering, at least in part, from malnutrition caused by the inability to swallow. Attempts to provide needed nutriments through an IV were insufficient. When I was asked for permission to install the feeding tube it was thought to be a temporary measure, although the possibility that it would be permanent was made clear to me. It was only later, after further medical procedures, that the extent of her mental incapacity was confirmed and the option to discontinue feeding was discussed.
When I made the decision to discontinue feeding, her condition had deteriorated to the point where she was all but comatose. Her blood sugar was uncontrollably high, her blood pressure was extremely low, and she was unresponsive to attempts to communicate with her. Her “quality of life” was nonexistant, and there was little point in prolonging her suffering.
The feeding tube was not actually removed, and was used to administer painkillers and other medication to keep her as comfortable as possible. I was told that it was not unknown for patients with her level of inactivity to survive up to two weeks after feeding was stopped; she lasted a little over three days before her breathing stopped.
Euthanasia is not an option in Illinois. If it were, I believe I would have used it, particularly if she had appeeared to be in pain (which, fortunately, was not the case). I have on my desk a packet of documents given to me by the cremation society concerning living wills, medical power of attorney, etc. I will be filling them out as I can decide who to name as my agent. I urge everyone to do the same.
First of all, Kalhoun, let me say that I absolutely agree with you that euthanasia should be legal. The fact that it isn’t is shameful. But I can point out the legal difference between the two things: when a feeding tube is removed (or life support turned off, etc.), we are simply letting nature take it’s course (by ceasing to do for the invalid what the invalid cannot do for themselves). When we administer lethal injections, etc., we are hastening the course of nature. That, I believe, is the crucial distinction.
Lurkmeister, I think I speak for most of us when I say that you’re a really good guy. I know if I was in your wife’s situation, I would want Mr. Kalhoun to do the right thing – the kind thing – and let me go. I’m in Illinois as well, and I’m just horrified that euthanasia isn’t an option. My husband and son are aware of my wishes and I hope there won’t be an argument or change of heart when the time comes.
)and his decision to remove her feeding tube got me to wondering…