Having practiced medicine for over 30 years, I am well aware that it is often difficult to achieve a natural death, devoid of tubes, a ventilator and the hospital environment. Despite the positive influence of the hospice movement, many dying patients are subjected to unnecessary and fruitless medical and surgical intervention. At times it is in response to the expressed wishes of the patient, though often confused by the emotional interpretation of family members. At other times it is due to the overzealous efforts of attending physicians, conscious of potential litigation and determined not to fail in their quest to prolong life.
This week, the Supreme Court of Italy is hearing arguments regarding the right of a family to withdraw nutritional support from a comatose relative. They are being challenged by the government and the Vatican which, of course, have their own political and religious agendas. In such cases, opponents of removing life support generally invoke the position that "we have no right to play God." I would argue that it is the medical establishment, under the direction of the patient, family or court that is attempting to forestall a natural event; and while the patient and his family certainly have the right to make this choice, the government and the Church have no place in the discussion.
There is a certain irony that religious institutions, with their expressed mission of preparing us for the afterlife, should take such a strong stand against efforts to withdraw artificial life support. In their opinion, we are obliged to use our God-given talents to sustain human life, no matter the circumstances. In my opinion, we often treat our pets more humanely than we do our fellow man.
