I really can’t understand how anyone could argue with the logic or intention of this. I suppose if someone has a living will that decrees they should not receive food and water under these circumstances it should be honored.
However, it is apparent in the Schiavo case that many were just a little too excited about wishing to see her go.
BTW, What is the Catholic position when someone is on total life support?
"What is the Catholic position when someone is on total life support?" If you're interested in Catholic medical ethics in context, you'll want to look into Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services --- then scroll down and click on "PART FIVE, Issues in Care for the Dying."
The short answer boils down to these principles, which make a distinction between "ordinary care" and "extraordinary care":
- The patient always has the right to refuse "extraordinary" forms of treatment, which would mean treatment which is disproportionately painful, burdensome, futile, experimental, "heroic," etc.
- The patient has a right to opt for these measures, too, if he's weighed the costs and benefits and judges that he'd derive some proportionate benefit despite the burdens and costs.
- EVERY patient, no matter how old, disabled, poor, terminal, etc. and without exception, has the right to "ordinary care" til natural death. That includes nutrition and hydration (if his body can still assimilate them to prevent hunger and thirst, starvation/dehydration); hygienic care, clothing and bedding, pain medication, comfort care, and "accompaniment" (human presence: not being personally abandoned.)
Plus, no act or omission should ever deliberately and directly intend death.
Does that cover what you wanted to know?