A Swedish woman who was paralysed died Wednesday after her respirator was unplugged, in the country’s first case of euthanasia since the law was relaxed last month, a Stockholm hospital said.
“The patient who asked the National Health Board to die, died at 5:33 pm (1533 GMT) after her respirator was unplugged,” Annakarin Svenningsson, a spokeswoman for Stockholm’s Danderyd hospital told AFP.
Sweden’s health authority last month authorised passive euthanasia, whereby patients may request the termination of their treatment knowing that this will lead to their death.
I’m pleasantly surprised that active euthanasia is prohibited in Sweden.
What is being permitted here is surely licit from a Christian perspective; it’s what informs the principles of hospice care.
I largely agree with No. 1.
From what is described in the article, I would not classify this case as euthanasia. Terminating extraordinary means is not what most Christian moral theology would classify as euthanasia. Euthanasia is taking an active step to kill the patient (drug overdose, gas, etc.) Simply removing something not present in nature is not technically euthanasia, at least as I understand traditional Christian moral theology.
However, basic things like food and water being witheld would be an act of killing. I won’t use the word euthanasia for it, because starvation and thirst are painful deaths, not merciful. That is what was done to Terri Schiavo and what is too often done to babies that survive attempted abortion. They are murdered by deprivation of food and water.
That is a horror and I fear that stories like this will continue to make it seem as though it is a good thing. I am uncertain how to characterize the witholding of air in this instance. For example, if the patient had not asked to be taken off the respirator, and a nurse did this…what would we consider the act? I think that most reasonable people would call it murder or at the least manslaughter. So, the action of the patient requesting this changes…what?
Also, did she receive end of life counseling prior to the action being carried out? Was she just clinically depressed? Was any psychiatric evaluation made prior to carrying out her request?
This is dangerous ground. It leaves me deeply troubled.
Sick and Tired,
I take your point, but wasn’t the central point of the Schiavo case that she was in no position to speak directly to her own situation? Most people wouldn’t choose to starve themselves to death.
Doctors are obliged to honor end-of-life directives about the extent of medical intervention and we generally accept the principle that you can’t force adults to undergo treatment. Consider the case of someone with a treatable cancer who refuses surgery/chemotherapy, perhaps because they can’t face that treatment. We might them wrong but should we – even from a Christian perspective – be arguing that they must undergo counseling before being allowed to decline treatment?
If someone declines active medical intervention – and they’re in their right mind – is it not as dangerous to human dignity to ignore that wish as to treat certain vulnerable populations (those not in their right mind, survivors of failed abortions) as counting for less than the rest of us?
Unplugging a person’s respirator when they are conscious is revolting. In the Netherlands, at least, they give you a speedball of a massive overdose of heroin combined with curare.
“and they’re in their right mind ”
That was my point. Was any determination made by competent personnel prior to the decision to carry out her instructions?
As for Terri Schiavo (the person), I believe that the relevant point is that someone that stood to gain by her death was allowed to voice a decision to kill her by starvation/dehydration, against the wishes of her family, without there being any written directives by her. In my opinion, the state assisted in her murder.
Back to the person in the article: As I stated, I am uncertain what to think about witholding air from the patient by unplugging her respirator. On the one hand, the respirator provided her needed assistance to breathe, and so might be considered “treatment”. On the other hand, she was denied the basics of life…oxygen. I just don’t know what to think about that. If this was done by another person under other circumstances, especially if the will of the patient were contrary or unknown, it would be considered murder or manslaughter. So, does consent make the act “right”?
Another disturbing thought occured to me. The patient requested that the respirator be unplugged during her sleep. As someone that suffers from severe sleep apnea, I can tell you first hand that it is a very distressing feeling to be awakened by the sudden loss of air, as occurred when we had a power failure and my CPAP stopped working. Further, I can tell you from first hand experience that I struggled to breathe…quickly removing the mask that had been providing me with air, but that had suddenly became an obstruction to my breathing.
It was a very rude awakening.