| Messages
| End of Life Decisions

This message was approved by the board of the
Division for Church in Society. It was adopted by the ELCA Church
Council on November 9, 1992.
With this message, the Church Council of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, upon the recommendation of
the Division for Church in Society, addresses some timely aspects of
end-of-life situations and encourages further deliberation on the
topic throughout this church. This message does not deal with the
full scope of these complex matters. It draws upon a relevant social
statement, "Death and Dying," of a predecessor church body
as basis for the guidance it offers. [1]
The Occasion
An elderly woman contemplates in terror the
possibility that she might be kept alive for months by means of
life-support systems. A son visits a nursing home weekly to see his
95 year-old mother, who is stricken with Parkinson's disease and who
wants to die. Family and friends share the slow, anguishing death of
a young man with AIDS. Parents agonize with their pastor over what
to do about their daughter who survives in a persistent vegetative
state after a car accident.
Increasingly, people know from their own experience
similar painful dilemmas. While the achievements of modern medicine
have been used to prolong and enhance life for many, they have also
helped create an often dreaded context for dying. Costly technology
may keep persons alive, but frequently these persons are cut off
from meaningful relationships with others and exist with little or
no hope for recovery. Many fearfully imagine a situation at the end
of their lives where they or their trusted ones will have no say in
decisions about their treatment.
In this context, new emphasis is being placed on the
rights of patients. Recent federal legislation, for example,
requires all health care facilities receiving Medicare or Medicaid
monies to inform patients of their right to make medical treatment
decisions. This includes the right to specify "advance
directives," [2]
which state what patients wish to be done in case they are no longer
able to communicate adequately.
We consider the legislation consistent with the
principle that "respect for that person [who is capable of
participating] mandates that he or she be recognized as the prime
decision-maker" in treatment. [3]
The patient is a person in relationship, not an isolated individual.
Her or his decisions should take others into account and be made in
supportive consultation with family members, close friends, pastor,
and health care professionals. Christians face end-of-life decisions
in all their ambiguity, knowing we are responsible ultimately to
God, whose grace comforts, forgives, and frees us in our dilemmas.
Which decisions about dying are morally acceptable
to concerned Christians, and which ones go beyond morally acceptable
limits? Which medical practices and public policies allow for more
humane treatment for those who are dying and which ones open the
door to abuse and the violation of human dignity? Proposals in
various states to legalize physician-assisted death [4]
point to renewed interest in these old questions. ELCA members,
congregations, and institutions need to address these questions
through prayer and careful reflection.
A Christian Perspective
Our faith as Christians informs and guides us in
approaching personal and public decisions about death and dying
today. Among the convictions that orient us are:
-
life is a gift from God, to be received with
thanksgiving;
-
the integrity of the life processes which God
has created should be respected; both birth and death are part
of these life processes;
-
both living and dying should occur within a
caring a community;
-
a Christian perspective mandates respect for
each person; such respect includes giving due recognition to
each person's carefully considered preferences regarding
treatment decisions;
-
truthfulness and faithfulness in our relations
with others are essential to the texture of human life; and,
-
hope and meaning in life are possible even in
times of suffering and adversity; a truth powerfully proclaimed
resurrection faith of the church. [5]
"Whether we live or whether we die, we are the
Lord's" (Rom 14:8). For those who live with this confidence,
neither life nor death are absolute. We treasure God's gift of life;
we also prepare ourselves for a time when we may let go of our
lives, entrusting our future to the crucified and risen Christ who
is "Lord of both the dead and the living" (Rom 14:9).
While these convictions do not give clear-cut
answers to all end-of-life decisions, they do offer a basic approach
to them.
Allowing Death and Taking Life
Withholding or Withdrawing
Artificially-administered
Nutrition and Hydration
Patients who once would have died because of their inability to
take food and water by mouth can today be kept alive through
artificially-administered nutrition and hydration. These measures
are often temporary and allow many to recover health. At other
times, however, they alone maintain life, and they do so
indefinitely. In those cases, is it ever permissible to withhold or
withdraw such measures?
Food and water are part of our basic human care.
Artificially-administered nutrition and hydration move beyond basic
care to become medical treatment. Health care professionals are not
required to use all available medical treatment in all
circumstances. Medical treatment may be limited in some instances,
and death allowed to occur. Patients have a right to refuse unduly
burdensome treatments which are disproportionate to the expected
benefits.
When medical judgment determines that
artificially-administered nutrition and hydration will not
contribute to an improvement in the patient's underlying condition
or prevent death from that condition, patients or their legal
spokespersons may consider them unduly burdensome treatment. In
these circumstances it may be morally responsible to withhold or
withdraw them and allow death to occur. This decision does not mean
that family and friends are abandoning their loved one.
When artificially-administered nutrition and
hydration are withheld or withdrawn, family, friends, health care
professionals, and pastor should continue to care for the person.
They are to provide relief from suffering, physical comfort, and
assurance of God's enduring love.
Refusal of Beneficial Treatment
Patients and health care professionals share a common concern
that medical treatment be beneficial. In most situations, they have
a common understanding of that benefit. When agreement exists,
patients generally are willing to receive treatment. There are
situations, however, when patients and health care professionals
disagree on what will benefit the patient, or on whether the
expected benefit is worth the risks and burdens involved. What is
morally responsible in these situations?
Because competent patients are the prime
decision-makers, they may refuse treatment recommended by health
care professionals when they do not believe the benefits outweigh
the risks and burdens. This is also the case for patients who are
incompetent, but who have identified their wishes through advance
directives, living wills, and/or conversation with family or
designated surrogates.
Health care professionals are obligated to inform
patients of medical treatment options and what in their best
judgment are the potential benefits and burdens of such options.
They are also obligated to obtain the consent of patients to provide
treatment. Where this consent is not given, they should accept the
desired limits of treatment, even when they do not agree with the
decision.
A patient's refusal of beneficial treatment does not
free health care professionals from the obligation to give basic
human care and comfort throughout the dying process which may
follow. Family, friends, and pastor need to accompany the person and
share the promise of God's faithfulness in life and death.
Physician-Assisted Death
An emphasis on patients' rights, a health care system
often unable to respond adequately to catastrophic illness, and the
emergence of disease processes (such as AIDS and Alzheimer's
disease) that threaten dramatic loss of human capacities are a few
of the realities that have converged to create an environment where
some patients ask that their life be ended. Is it ever
morally permissible for a physician to deliberately act or authorize
an action to terminate the life of a patient?
The integrity of the physician-patient relationship
is rooted in trust that physicians will act to preserve the life and
health of the patient. Physicians and other health care
professionals also have responsibility to relieve suffering. This
responsibility includes the aggressive management of pain, even when
it may result in an earlier death.
However, the deliberate action of a physician to
take the life of a patient, even when this is the patient's wish, is
a different matter. As a church we affirm that deliberately
destroying life created in the image of God is contrary to our
Christian conscience.(6) While this affirmation is clear, we also
recognize that responsible health care professionals struggle to
choose the lesser evil in ambiguous borderline situations -- for
example, when pain becomes so unmanageable that life is
indistinguishable from torture.
We oppose the legalization of physician-assisted
death, which would allow the private killing of one person by
another. Public control and regulation of such actions would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The potential for abuse,
especially of people who are most vulnerable, would be substantially
increased.
Caring treatment that allows death to occur within
the bounds of what is morally acceptable may help reduce the appeal
of physician-assisted death. Hospice care offers promise of more
humane treatment at the end of life. A more equitable health care
system that more effectively responds to catastrophic illness and
provides the needed follow-up care should also be a priority for
those concerned about end-of-life decisions.
Ministry in Preparation for the End of Life
Advance directives are welcome means to foster
responsible decisions at the end of life. Yet people are often
overwhelmed and frightened when thinking about medical treatment and
legal possibilities, and therefore do not take steps to prepare for
the end of their lives. People recognize their rights as patients
but at the same time feel unprepared to take on the responsibility.
Communities of faith should, can, and often do
provide holistic ministry to prepare people for end-of-life
decisions. Pastors can help people to deal with their fears and
hopes. Congregations can offer opportunities for conversation and
deliberation about the end of life. They can invite hospital
chaplains, hospice care-givers, social workers, attorneys, or others
knowledgeable about advance directives to help them consider the
topic's many dimensions.
Church-related hospitals, nursing homes and other
social ministry organizations are also encouraged to provide for
continuing conversation and deliberation about their ministry at the
end of life. The staff of these organizations need to understand the
ethical principles that are to guide the care they provide. Ethics
committees can play an important role in dealing with unresolved
conflicts about treatment decisions.
We rejoice in the faithful and compassionate
congregations, pastors, health care professionals, and church
institutions who minister with persons who are dying and their
families and friends. We give thanks for family and friends who
minister to their loved ones. In the midst of often agonizing
end-of-life decisions, we are reminded of the God-given mystery of
both life and death. May the Holy Spirit grant to us all loving
wisdom and confident hope in the Gospel's promise of eternal life.
Copyright © 1992
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Produced by the Department
for Studies, Division for Church in Society. Permission is granted
to reproduce this document as needed, providing each copy displays
the copyright as printed above.
|