A moral dilemma.

Paul Lauritzen's article on end-of-life care was a timely one for me. Just last September I faced a difficult moral dilemma during the quick illness and subsequent death of my father, a retired doctor who had composed a living will. Per his instructions, he did not receive artificial hydration or nutrition, but he was provided with oxygen through a "nasal cannula." After a while he tried to remove the device, but since he was unable to speak to us, and since his living will did not say anything about this kind of treatment, we were unsure what to do. Would removing the device be a failure to provide basic care, and a violation of church teaching? Eventually we decided to remove it. Our parish priest, who was with us, said, "Good. He's wanted that off for a while now."

Still, in the months following my father's death, I was troubled by what had transpired. I found it difficult to reconcile what I considered to be the dictates of Catholic moral teaching with the action we had taken, even if it did seem to be in accord with our father's wishes. Lauritzen's article helped me to see that Catholic theology on end-of-life care is much more complex than I had thought. My father was very well versed in these matters, and this article gave me insight into his thinking. So, thank you, Commonweal. By the way, I have now taken over my father's fifty-plus year subscription to the magazine. With each issue I feel his presence.

SUSAN PORTZ

Milford, Del.