- Name some very important organs that are not vital organs.
- List and functional description all the normal vital organs, including todayâ€™s exceptions.
- Is it possible to live without a vital organ? Why? Example?
- Distinction between assisting or substituting vital organs. Bioethical analysis.
- Do the following practices assist or substitute the vital organ? Why?
- Read ERD Part 5 Introduction and make a detail summary
- Unconscious state: Definition.
- Clinical definitions of different states of unconsciousness: Compare and contrast
- Benefit vs Burden bioethical analysis
ERD PART 5
Issues in Care for the Seriously Ill and Dying
Introduction Christâ€™s redemption and saving grace embrace the whole person, especially in his or her illness, suffering, and death.35 The Catholic health care ministry faces the reality of death with the confidence of faith. In the face of deathâ€”for many, a time when hope seems lostâ€”the Church witnesses to her belief that God has created each person for eternal life.36 Above all, as a witness to its faith, a Catholic health care institution will be a community of respect, love, and support to patients or residents and their families as they face the reality of death. What is hardest to face is the process of dying itself, especially the dependency, the helplessness, and the pain that so often accompany terminal illness. One of the primary purposes of medicine in caring for the dying is the relief of pain and the suffering caused by it. Effective management of pain in all its forms is critical in the appropriate care of the dying. The truth that life is a precious gift from God has profound implications for the question of stewardship over human life. We are not the owners of our lives and, hence, do not have absolute power over life. We have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the glory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome. Suicide and euthanasia are never morally acceptable options. The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure. Physicians and their patients must evaluate the use of the technology at their disposal. Reflection on the innate dignity of human life in all its dimensions and on the purpose of medical care is indispensable for formulating a true moral judgment about the use of technology to maintain life. The use of life-sustaining technology is judged in light of the Christian meaning of life, suffering, and death. In this way two extremes are avoided: on the one hand, an insistence on useless or burdensome technology even when a patient may legitimately wish to forgo it and, on the other hand, the withdrawal of technology with the intention of causing death.37 The Churchâ€™s teaching authority has addressed the moral issues concerning medically assisted nutrition and hydration. We are guided on this issue by Catholic teaching against euthanasia, which is â€œan action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated.â€â€Š38 While medically assisted nutrition and hydration are not morally obligatory in certain cases, these forms of basic care should in principle be provided to all patients who need them, including patients diagnosed as being in a â€œpersistent vegetative stateâ€ (PVS), because even the most severely debilitated and helpless patient retains the full dignity of a human person and must receive ordinary and proportionate care.