A QUESITI DELLA CONFERENZA EPISCOPALE STATUNITENSE CIRCA L’ALIMENTAZIONE E L’IDRATAZIONE ARTIFICIALI , 14.09.2007
CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI RESPONSA AD QUAESTIONES AB EPISCOPALI CONFERENTIA FOEDERATORUM AMERICAE STATUUM PROPOSITAS CIRCA CIBUM ET POTUM ARTIFICIALITER PRAEBENDA
1. Quaeritur: Estne moralis obligatio subministrandi cibum et potum – sive naturali sive artificiosa ratione – aegroto qui versatur in "statu vegetativo", excepto casu quo haec alimenta a corpore aegroti recepi nequeant seu solummodo cum gravi molestia physica ministrari possunt?
Respondetur affermative; quandoquidem cibi potusque subministratio, artificiali etiam methodo peracta, in linea principii, servandae vitae medium ordinarium et proportionatum evadit. Quapropter eiusdem procurandae moralis viget obligatio, quatenus consequi comprobetur finem suum proprium, nempe nutritionem et imbibitionem aegroti; qua quidem subministratione dolores et mors inanitionis et dysydrationis causa vitantur.
2. Quaeritur: Si cibus et potus methodis artificialibus aegroto in "statu vegetativo permanente" versanti procurantur, possunt cessare erogari ex idoneorum medicorum sententia, vi certitudinis moralis praedita, secundum quam aegrotus numquam conscientiam suam recuperaturum esse censetur?
Respondetur negative; etenim aegrotus in "statu vegetativo permanente" versans semper persona est, dignitate humana nullatenus destituta, cui ex hac ipsa ratione curae ordinariae et proportionatae debentur; inter quas, in linea principii, subministratio cibi et potus, etiam methodo artificiali obtinenda, connumeranda est.
* * *
Summus Pontifex Benedictus XVI, in Audientia infrascripto Cardinali Praefecto concessa, haec responsa in Sessione Ordinaria huius Congregationis deliberata, adprobavit et publici iuris fieri iussit.
Datum Romae, ex Aedibus Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei, die I mensis Augusti anno MMVII.
CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI RESPONSA AD QUAESTIONES AB EPISCOPALI CONFERENTIA FOEDERATORUM AMERICAE STATUUM PROPOSITAS CIRCA CIBUM ET POTUM ARTIFICIALITER PRAEBENDA
1. Quaeritur: Estne moralis obligatio subministrandi cibum et potum – sive naturali sive artificiosa ratione – aegroto qui versatur in "statu vegetativo", excepto casu quo haec alimenta a corpore aegroti recepi nequeant seu solummodo cum gravi molestia physica ministrari possunt?
Respondetur affermative; quandoquidem cibi potusque subministratio, artificiali etiam methodo peracta, in linea principii, servandae vitae medium ordinarium et proportionatum evadit. Quapropter eiusdem procurandae moralis viget obligatio, quatenus consequi comprobetur finem suum proprium, nempe nutritionem et imbibitionem aegroti; qua quidem subministratione dolores et mors inanitionis et dysydrationis causa vitantur.
2. Quaeritur: Si cibus et potus methodis artificialibus aegroto in "statu vegetativo permanente" versanti procurantur, possunt cessare erogari ex idoneorum medicorum sententia, vi certitudinis moralis praedita, secundum quam aegrotus numquam conscientiam suam recuperaturum esse censetur?
Respondetur negative; etenim aegrotus in "statu vegetativo permanente" versans semper persona est, dignitate humana nullatenus destituta, cui ex hac ipsa ratione curae ordinariae et proportionatae debentur; inter quas, in linea principii, subministratio cibi et potus, etiam methodo artificiali obtinenda, connumeranda est.
* * *
Summus Pontifex Benedictus XVI, in Audientia infrascripto Cardinali Praefecto concessa, haec responsa in Sessione Ordinaria huius Congregationis deliberata, adprobavit et publici iuris fieri iussit.
Datum Romae, ex Aedibus Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei, die I mensis Augusti anno MMVII.
Gulielmus Cardinalis Levada
Praefectus
Angelus Amato, S.D.B.
Archiepiscopus tit. Silensis
Secretarius
[01268-07.01] [Testo originale: Latino]
Vatican English Translation
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH RESPONSES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONCERNING ARTIFICIAL NUTRITION AND HYDRATION
First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a "vegetative state" morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?
Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.
Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a "permanent vegetative state", may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?
Response: No. A patient in a "permanent vegetative state" is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.
* * *
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these Responses, adopted in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 1, 2007.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
[01268-02.01] [Original text: Latin]
From the Press Release:
An English-language note accompanying the responses indicates that: "When stating that the administration of food and water is morally obligatory 'in principle,' the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not exclude the possibility that, in very remote places or in situations of extreme poverty, the artificial provision of food and water may be physically impossible, and then 'ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.' However, the obligation to offer the minimal treatments that are available remains in place, as well as that of obtaining, if possible, the means necessary for an adequate support of life. Nor is the possibility excluded that, due to emerging complications, a patient may be unable to assimilate food and liquids, so that their provision becomes altogether useless. Finally, the possibility is not absolutely excluded that, in some rare cases, artificial nourishment and hydration may be excessively burdensome for the patient or may cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.
"These exceptional cases, however, take nothing away from the general ethical criterion, according to which the provision of water and food, even by artificial means, always represents a 'natural means' for preserving life, and is not a 'therapeutic treatment.' Its use should therefore be considered 'ordinary and proportionate,' even when the 'vegetative state' is prolonged."
An English-language note accompanying the responses indicates that: "When stating that the administration of food and water is morally obligatory 'in principle,' the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not exclude the possibility that, in very remote places or in situations of extreme poverty, the artificial provision of food and water may be physically impossible, and then 'ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.' However, the obligation to offer the minimal treatments that are available remains in place, as well as that of obtaining, if possible, the means necessary for an adequate support of life. Nor is the possibility excluded that, due to emerging complications, a patient may be unable to assimilate food and liquids, so that their provision becomes altogether useless. Finally, the possibility is not absolutely excluded that, in some rare cases, artificial nourishment and hydration may be excessively burdensome for the patient or may cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.
"These exceptional cases, however, take nothing away from the general ethical criterion, according to which the provision of water and food, even by artificial means, always represents a 'natural means' for preserving life, and is not a 'therapeutic treatment.' Its use should therefore be considered 'ordinary and proportionate,' even when the 'vegetative state' is prolonged."
One question: two words : Terry Schiavo?
No comments:
Post a Comment