When Food and Water are Withheld. . .

by Julie A. Grimstad, Mary Senander

Nutrition (food), hydration (water) and air are the most basic necessities for sustaining life. It does not matter whether a patient can feed himself, is spoon-fed by others or receives his meals through a feeding tube, the result of withholding food and fluids is universally the same.

If a person is unable to swallow food and fluids, a tube is often used to deliver nourishment. A nasogastric (NG) tube is inserted through the nose and passed down the esophagus into the stomach. If tube feeding is needed over a long period, a gastrostomy (G) tube is surgically inserted through the abdomen directly into the stomach. After the initial surgery, there is rarely discomfort. The nourishment provided through feeding tubes is real food and water. It is not "artificial nutrition and hydration" as it is called by those who would dupe us into believing that tube-feeding is optional "medical treatment" rather than a patient's meals. Tube feeding may be administered by any trained person, including the patient himself or family members; the cost is minimal.

In recent years, numerous court decisions and Living Will-type laws have authorized the dehydration and starvation to death of disabled (not terminally ill) patients, such as Paul Brophy. Mr. Brophy, a Massachusetts firefighter, lapsed into a coma after surgery for a ruptured brain aneurysm in early 1983. He had permanent brain damage, but was not dying. On 10/3/86, he died — eight days after medical personnel stopped his G-tube feedings with approval from the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. Three of seven justices dissented from that decision.

In his dissent, Justice Lynch described "the [likely] various effects from the lack of hydration and nutrition" as follows:

Brophy's mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material. His lips would become parched and cracked. His tongue would swell, and might crack. His eyes would recede back into their orbits and his cheeks would become hollow. The lining of his nose might crack and cause his nose to bleed. His skin would hang loose on his body and become dry and scaly. His urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder. The lining of his stomach would dry out and he would experience dry heaves and vomiting. His body temperature would become very high. His brain cells would dry out, and the thick secretions that would result could plug his lungs and cause death. At some point within five days to three weeks his major organs, including his lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and he would die." (Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, No. 85E0009-G1,10/21/85:28-29)

The Court said Mr. Brophy's G-tube could be removed or clamped, yet neither was done. The tube remained in place, but food was withheld. When he began having seizures, anticonvulsant medication was administered via the tube, as were antacids to prevent hemorrhaging and laxatives to make him more "comfortable" as he died.

Apparently the feeding tube itself was not considered burdensome or invasive. Were food and fluids burdensome "medicine" for Paul Brophy? That is a ridiculous notion since real medicines — anticonvulsants, antacids and laxatives—were administered through the G-tube in order to treat problems that would not have afflicted this man had tube feeding simply been continued. The obvious reason Mr. Brophy was made to die was that he was considered the "burden. " Is history repeating itself? The Nazis called patients targeted for death by starvation "useless eaters." The Brophy decision cracked open the doors of American nursing homes and hospitals to permit what was once denounced as a "crime against humanity" — deliberate starvation and dehydration of a person. Nazi doctors were sentenced to death for this crime.

New England Sinai hospital, where Brophy was a patient, refused to stop his feedings. Dr. Lajos Koncz, the staff physician responsible for the hospital's decision, refuted the idea that approval should be granted to remove the feeding tube since it was "artificial." Koncz grew up in Germany after the war and recalled seeing concentration camp survivors. He stated, "I don't think it [a G-tube] is any more artificial than a fork. Will there come a day when we take away the spoons?" (Am. Medical News, 2/14/86)

Some proponents of imposed death suggest that, because death by dehydration and starvation is painful to suffer, ugly to watch and takes so long, it would be more "merciful" to reach the same deliberate end via lethal injection. They speciously frame the debate in terms of choosing the lesser of two evils: dehydration or lethal injection (in essence, death or death—some choice!)

In fact, the issue is whether we will choose the evil of killing or the good of caring.

© Human Life Alliance of Minnesota Education Fund, Inc., 3570 Lexington Ave. N, Suite 205, St. Paul, MN 55126

This item 832 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org