Ordinary Care, Human Dignity, and the Protection of Life
When a loved one is ill, incapacitated, or nearing the end of life, families are often faced with difficult decisions. In these moments, it is essential to remember that every person deserves basic care, dignity, and respect, regardless of age, disability, or prognosis.
Nutrition and hydration, food and water are not optional acts of kindness. They are basic human care.
Ordinary Care vs. Extraordinary Means
In medical ethics, a distinction is often made between ordinary care and extraordinary medical interventions.
- Extraordinary means (complex or burdensome medical procedures) may be morally optional and should be evaluated with trusted medical professionals.
- Ordinary care, however, includes providing food, water, basic hygiene, and comfort.
Everyone is entitled to ordinary care, even during the most vulnerable stages of life.
Tragically, many patients are unable to express hunger, thirst, or discomfort. In these cases, family members must serve as advocates to ensure their loved one’s most basic needs are met.
The Danger of a “Quality of Life” Ethic
A growing “quality of life” mentality, promoted by pro-euthanasia and assisted-suicide advocates, has become increasingly accepted in American healthcare. This mindset places subjective judgments on whether a person’s life is worth continuing.
This creates a dangerous situation for:
- The elderly
- The disabled
- The cognitively impaired
- Those who cannot speak for themselves
Under this ethic, vulnerable people are placed at risk, not because they are dying, but because others decide their lives lack value.
The Terri Schindler Schiavo Story
A National Wake-Up Call
The tragic and highly publicized case of Terri Schindler Schiavo brought national attention to the moral and legal dangers of withdrawing nutrition and hydration.
Terri suffered brain damage following a cardiac event, but was not dying. She was cared for in a medical facility by devoted staff and family. Years later, her husband petitioned the courts to remove her feeding tube, an action that would inevitably cause her death.
Despite her parents’ willingness to care for her and continue providing food and water, the courts ultimately granted the husband authority to have Terri’s feeding tube removed.
After a prolonged legal battle through:
- Florida courts
- Federal courts
- The U.S. Supreme Court
Terri’s parents were barred from visiting or caring for her during her final days.
Once nutrition and hydration were withdrawn, Terri lived 13 days without food or water, dying in March 2005 from starvation and dehydration.
To learn more about Terri’s life and legacy, visit the Life and Hope Network, founded by her family:
https://lifeandhope.com/
Her death forced the nation to confront a critical question:
Is food and water basic care, or merely medical treatment that can be withdrawn?
The Withholding of Food and Water Today
Since Terri’s death, the removal of nutrition and hydration from incapacitated, but not dying, patients has become increasingly common.
Many medical institutions and courts now define food and water as “medical treatment,” allowing them to be withdrawn even when families object.
This practice leads to avoidable deaths through starvation and dehydration, deaths that are both tragic and unnecessary.
Two Critical Questions Families Must Ask
When a recommendation is made to withhold nutrition and hydration, families should ask:
What will be the cause of death?
If death will occur due to starvation or dehydration, and the body can still assimilate food and water, then withholding them constitutes a form of euthanasia.
Has the dying process truly begun?
When death is imminent, and the body can no longer process nutrients, artificial nutrition may no longer be appropriate. In such cases, death is caused by the underlying illness, not starvation.
Special Situations: Disability and Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome
This discussion often involves patients diagnosed with what was once called a “persistent vegetative state.” Many experts now prefer the term Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome (UWS), a more accurate and humane description.
Human beings are not “vegetables.” Diagnoses should never imply diminished human worth.
Individuals with UWS:
- Are awake but unable to respond
- May not be terminal
- Deserve food, water, hygiene, and care
Denying nutrition and hydration to such individuals guarantees death, even if it takes days or weeks.
Common Ethical Questions About “Artificial Feeding”
What is “artificial feeding”?
It is not a medical term. It typically refers to providing food and fluids through a tube when a person cannot swallow.
Isn’t removing food and water just “letting them die”?
No. Withholding food and water causes death. A person deprived of hydration will die within 5–21 days.
For more information on what happens when hydration is withheld:
(link)
Are painkillers enough to prevent suffering?
Pain medication may dull symptoms, but it does not change the fact that the suffering is caused by deprivation, not by disease.
Is removing food and water euthanasia?
Yes, if the intention is to cause death, regardless of how food and water are provided.
Must food and water always be provided?
No. When a person is imminently dying and cannot assimilate nutrition, providing fluids may be burdensome or futile. In such cases, comfort care, lip moisturization, and pain management are appropriate.
But these situations are far different from withdrawing care from people who are disabled, unwanted, or considered a “burden.”
Feeding Tubes: Ordinary Care, Not Extraordinary Treatment
Tube feeding is:
- Over 100 years old
- Widely available
- Inexpensive
- Comparable to oral nutrition
It is not an extraordinary medical treatment.
The real ethical question is not about technology; it is about whether society will continue to feed the vulnerable or abandon them.
Resources & Further Reading
- U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
- National Right to Life Committee:
https://nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/LifeCycle1997April.pdf
Closing Reflection
Starving or dehydrating a human being to death is not compassion.
It is not dignity.
It is not care.
A culture of life must protect the unborn, the disabled, the elderly, and the dying by ensuring that no human being is denied the most basic necessities of life.
More About TRL
Get Involved
Newsletter
Volunteer
Upcoming Events
