You may or may not have noticed this, but during several of the AP’s stories, it was reported that Ruth Graham, had requested her feeding tube be removed during the last several days of her life.
Jeffrey Weiss has a great piece in the DMN today about the situation. He’s also blogged additional quotes that didn’t fit the print version of the paper.
Why is it that no one is upset that Ruth Graham, or even Pope John Paul II requested their feeding tubes be removed before death yet outcry is heard everywhere over the Terri Schiavo case?
From the DMN:
The dignified, semi-public passing of Ruth Graham showed a family struggling with end-of-life issues that affect many American families: private home, hospital or nursing home? Aggressive treatment to the end or comfort care? When is it time to let go?
Mrs. Graham, who died Thursday, was not merely the wife of a famous person. Her husband, Billy, is among the best-known religious leaders in the world, and Mrs. Graham carried her own moral and religious reputation. Who she was drew particular attention to the moral decisions associated with the end of her life.
Weiss offers additional quotes on the DMN Religion blog:
Dr. Art Caplan, quoted in the story, is one of the world’s best known medical ethicists. He offered an interesting observation that I had no room for there:
Ironically for all the protest that took place around the removal of a feeding tube from Terri Schiavo by those such as Tom Delay and the current Pope who said food and water cannot ever be stopped no one has said a word about what was done in the Ruth Graham case. This strikes me as more then a bit hypocritical even though I think what happened in her case was ethical and in accordance with her express wishes.
Dr. Tom Mayo, of SMU and the UT Southwestern med school is another top medical ethicist — famous far beyond local zip codes. Among his thoughts that did not make the story: That sometimes for the dying, food or water can actually kill them faster and/or make them uncomfortable. As the body shuts down in the days or hours before death, it stops being able to deal with nutrition and even water. The effects can even be rather gruesome, as he explained in some medical detail I will not share. So those who would insist on feeding — even tube feeding — may not be offering any blessing. Depends on the case, though. And if you’re really interested in how ethicists such as Dr. Mayo explore these sorts of broad questions, Google up “trolley problem” and “ethics” and “double effect.”
In the end, the idea of a feeding tube or life sustaining machines may have a lot more to do with the patient’s wishes and their consent, along with the wisdom and sincerity of their physician.
In the Schiavo case, there was no living will, no confirmed writings or thoughts of Schiavo as to her wishes. It was simply a case of he-said, she-said.
In the Graham case, it was apparent from the family spokesman that it was Ruth’s wishes and eventually the family decided to follow those wishes.
Either way – it’s an interesting moral comparison between the two individuals.
Thanks for the kids words and thank you for being a reader!
Jeffrey Weiss
The Dallas Morning News
Thanks for the kids words and thank you for being a reader!
Jeffrey Weiss
The Dallas Morning News
When I read the news story on Ruth Graham’s death and saw that line about the feeding tube, the medical ethics question came to my mind immediately.
I’m a Baptist. I spent ten years in overseas missions (Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, the Pacific, and shorter stints in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Nepal). I’ve worked as a counselor at an abortion alternatives clinic.
I think we look for theological clarity in America beyond what’s actually available to us. That’s okay; that search is what makes us “Berean” in our Christianity (Acts 17:11 – “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”). But I think there is often a lack of humility. We arrive at absolute or extreme views and insist upon their value at the expense of discussion and further growth.
The pro-life positions on various issues provide the classic examples. Where does the Bible ever talk about God knitting us together in our mother’s test tube? I saw a blog recently that talked about the Old Testament’s emphasis on blood and breathe as indications of life – and a frozen embryo has neither. But pro-life people think those embryos are single cell babies – think they have God’s personal word on that in a way that, if you don’t see it, seems almost gnostic to you.
Ruth Graham’s death is being compared to Terri Schiavo. But unlike Schiavo, there aren’t divided groups of relatives standing around arguing about whether Ruth Graham should be allowed to die. Unlike Schiavo, Ruth Graham had a hand in the decision about her own death. I suppose time and media interest were also factors: the Schiavo case drug on forever while we watched on TV; Ruth Graham’s death had taken place before the issue was even mentioned.
Of course Schiavo’s husband, Michael, had a few flaws in his life and a conflict of interested in the form of a relationship with another woman when he decided to have Terri’s tube removed. Who wants to stand up and accuse Billy Graham of anything of that nature? Not me…
I’m not sure I agree with pro-life people who would say that removing a feeding tube in and of itself constitutes is wrong. Is signing your own DNR order a form of suicide? At the age of 87 and given Graham’s medical problems, is a feeding tube a “heroic measure” being used to prolong her life?
I know that many in the Evangelical world are allergic to this color, but perhaps some gray does exist on the issue.
When I read the news story on Ruth Graham’s death and saw that line about the feeding tube, the medical ethics question came to my mind immediately.
I’m a Baptist. I spent ten years in overseas missions (Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, the Pacific, and shorter stints in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Nepal). I’ve worked as a counselor at an abortion alternatives clinic.
I think we look for theological clarity in America beyond what’s actually available to us. That’s okay; that search is what makes us “Berean” in our Christianity (Acts 17:11 – “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”). But I think there is often a lack of humility. We arrive at absolute or extreme views and insist upon their value at the expense of discussion and further growth.
The pro-life positions on various issues provide the classic examples. Where does the Bible ever talk about God knitting us together in our mother’s test tube? I saw a blog recently that talked about the Old Testament’s emphasis on blood and breathe as indications of life – and a frozen embryo has neither. But pro-life people think those embryos are single cell babies – think they have God’s personal word on that in a way that, if you don’t see it, seems almost gnostic to you.
Ruth Graham’s death is being compared to Terri Schiavo. But unlike Schiavo, there aren’t divided groups of relatives standing around arguing about whether Ruth Graham should be allowed to die. Unlike Schiavo, Ruth Graham had a hand in the decision about her own death. I suppose time and media interest were also factors: the Schiavo case drug on forever while we watched on TV; Ruth Graham’s death had taken place before the issue was even mentioned.
Of course Schiavo’s husband, Michael, had a few flaws in his life and a conflict of interested in the form of a relationship with another woman when he decided to have Terri’s tube removed. Who wants to stand up and accuse Billy Graham of anything of that nature? Not me…
I’m not sure I agree with pro-life people who would say that removing a feeding tube in and of itself constitutes is wrong. Is signing your own DNR order a form of suicide? At the age of 87 and given Graham’s medical problems, is a feeding tube a “heroic measure” being used to prolong her life?
I know that many in the Evangelical world are allergic to this color, but perhaps some gray does exist on the issue.
When death is imminent the body cannot use the food. When someone is spoon-fed and they stop eating we don’t force-feed them. I can’t comment on Mrs. Graham, but if she had pneumonia and other complications death was probably imminent.
I had the tube removed from my father when he was days from death because his body was shutting down. If he were being spoon fed he would have stopped eating for the same reason. Would anyone force-feed such a one? Of course not. But I strongly opposed removing Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube because she was not dying. Pick up books by good Christian bioethicists such as Gilbert Meilaender and they explain the issues quite well. Many Christians (and Christian bioethicists) are misguided on both sides. Some think feeding tubes can be removed if someone loses consciousness, and others think it can never be removed. Both are extremes. We must rigorously do Christian theological ethics, but it won’t remove hard cases. But T. Schiavo wasn’t a hard case. She was a cognitively impaired young woman dehydrated to death.