I was told that Michelle Finn was under some distress because she was getting all kinds of arguments from certain members of our Church, who said that she basically was committing murder. And it was suggested that I write to her, and I did. My intent was to say to her, "Michelle, the course of action you're proposing" -- that is, to withdraw food and liquid from your husband who's in a vegetative state, and it is a permanent vegetative state -- "that is within the course of acceptable theological opinion in the Catholic Church." I didn't mean to say that it was my opinion or the Church's opinion she should do this. It was her choice. That's very important to remember. She's the responsible one for her husband, and she knew what he would've wished done. I just wanted to reassure her that she wasn't getting into any trouble with the Church.
I think we're all reaching for the truth. That's why I'm not able to say, "The Church says this is right or wrong," here. I'm only able to say what is in the realm of possibility, the freedom of the one who is to make the choice.
Some say that, according to the pope, the bias must always be toward feeding the person; that this is elemental comfort care.
I'm familiar with that quotation, and that bias prevails. But when the treatment becomes decisively burdensome, it can be withdrawn. We have not heard the Holy Father say anything contrary to that.
What would you recommend for people facing a situation similar to Michelle Finn?
The first thing I would say to everybody is get your wishes in writing. Get your wishes in writing. Put them down. Put somebody in charge of executing your wishes. It should be a family member, but it can also be a doctor or a lawyer or anyone who's a close enough friend to make sure that your wishes are followed. That's the first thing. Now, your wishes have got to be legitimate; but, as I say, if the treatment becomes burdensome in the judgment of the doctors, then that is sufficient reason to withdraw.
And what are the consequences when those wishes are not known or followed?
Clearly, somebody can be kept alive in a permanent vegetative state for a very long time. Systems don't begin to break down until you're well along in years, but it is not necessary to preserve life to that extent. We don't have to go that far. I certainly agree, though -- obviously, I agree with the Holy Father. Bias is always toward life.
But?
But we get to a certain point, to a contrary presumption. If the treatment becomes burdensome, it's not necessary to continue it.
Read the related R&E cover story "
