Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics pp 425–441Cite as

A Catholic Approach to Withholding Medically Provided Food and Water

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((CSBE,volume 127))

Abstract

The refusal or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration to patients unable to provide it for themselves must not be tantamount to intentional killing, nor to bringing about death as a side-effect unless the decision not to help is fully justified morally so as to take proper account of that bad side effect. Moreover, the decision must not be tantamount to intentionally causing suffering or allowing it as a side effect unless the decision not to assist is fully justified morally so as to take proper account of this bad side-effect. Likewise the human solidarity offended by refusing to help to feed another, or to provide nutrition and hydration by way of medical actions must also be respected. The person denied must not be intentionally abandoned; the human good that binds those called to assist with those needing help must not be simply ignored. I will argue that applying these considerations to the variety of possible situations where there is some reason to refuse assistance shows that cases can arise in which refusing this assistance is permissible, but that there are also cases, thought by many to be permissible, that in fact are impermissible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Prominent among the negative factors of any medical treatment are the risks of harmful side effects it poses. Clearly this kind of risk magnifies the significance of likely harms.

  2. 2.

    This approach to comparing values is characteristic of utilitarian and decision-theoretic approaches to practical reason. These are not generally embraced by Catholic moralists, and obviously are subject to common-sense and theoretical criticisms, not least those based on the limits of the commensurability of goods; see Boyle (2005).

  3. 3.

    For a fuller account of the non-consequentialist understanding sketched here, see Finnis et al. (1989, pp. 261–7, 270–1, 288–94) and Grisez (1997, pp. 862–70).

  4. 4.

    In Boyle (2008, pp. 112-17), I provide a brief analytical summary and commentary on this important address. Tollefsen (2008) provides a useful compilation of the reactions of Catholic bioethicists to this important papal address.

  5. 5.

    In Boyle (2015, p. 67), I examine a 2004 study in the Netherlands of physician descriptions of their intentions in using terminal sedation, and in using it together with withholding nutrition and hydration; a tiny minority admits to intending death in terminal sedation and a slightly larger minority in withholding nutrition and hydration.

References

  • Boyle, J. 1981. The patient/physician relationship. In Moral responsibility in prolonging life decisions, ed. D. McCarthy and A. Moraczewski, 80–94. St. Louis: Pope John Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. A case for sometimes tube-feeding patients in persistent vegetative state. In Euthanasia examined: Ethical, clinical and legal perspectives, ed. J. Keown. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. Limiting access to health care: A traditional Roman Catholic analysis. In Allocating scarce medical resources: Roman Catholic perspectives, ed. T.H. Engelhardt Jr. and M. Cherry, 77–95. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Free choice, incommensurable goods and the self-refutation of determinism. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 50: 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Towards ethical guidelines for the use of artificial nutrition and hydration. In Artificial nutrition and hydration: The new Catholic debate, ed. C. Tollefsen, 111–122. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. The relevance of double effect to decisions about sedation at the end of life. In Sedation at the end of life: An interdisciplinary approach, ed. P. Taboada, 55–71. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF]. 1980. Declaration on Euthanasia. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html. Accessed 19 April 2016.

  • Finnis, J., J. Boyle, and G. Grisez. 1989. Nuclear deterrence, morality and realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisez, G. 1997. The way of the Lord Jesus: Volume 3: Difficult moral questions. Quincy: Franciscan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • John Paul II. 1995. Evangelium vitae. Origins 24: 690–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Address to the Participants in the International Congress on Life–sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040320_congress-fiamc_en.html. Accessed 19 April 2016.

  • Pius XII. 1958. The prolongation of life. The Pope Speaks 4: 393–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taboada, P. (ed.). 2015. Sedation at the end of life: An interdisciplinary approach. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefsen, C. (ed.). 2008. Artificial nutrition and hydration: The new Catholic debate. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Joseph Boyle

Authors
  1. Joseph Boyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Osteopathic Medicine, Marian University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

    Jason T. Eberl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boyle, J. (2017). A Catholic Approach to Withholding Medically Provided Food and Water. In: Eberl, J. (eds) Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine(), vol 127. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55766-3_28

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation