This is what America Life League wrote concerning this matter:
Ordinary/Extraordinary Means:
As a general principle, a person has an obligation to try to live the entire life span given by God. Therefore, he/she must not kill him/herself by intentional act or omission. When it comes to specific decisions regarding medical treatment, this obligation requires the patient to use all "ordinary means" to preserve his/her life.
"Ordinary means" include any treatment, medication, procedure and operation which offer a reasonable hope of benefit without requiring heroic virtue, that is, virtue above and beyond the ordinary. For example, an effective treatment which does not cause pain, expense or other burden that is grave or too excessive for the patient himself/herself to bear is ordinary means.
On the other hand, life on earth for everyone will end, even when everything possible to be done is done. Thus, while the responsibility to avoid deliberately causing one's own death is absolute, the responsibility to preserve and prolong life is not. Because the constitution of the person, the ability of the person and the burdens of medical treatment differ from person to person, the obligation to obtain medical treatment varies, and there is no general obligation to obtain every treatment all the time.
The burden of medical treatment could be extremely great, that is, beyond what would be expected of human beings in general, or even for this particular human being under certain circuмstances. Therefore, some treatments, medications, procedures and operations are optional, and these have been classified by ethicists as "extraordinary means."
"Extraordinary means" (sometimes called disproportionate means) include any treatment, medication, procedure and operation that would be gravely burdensome for the patient to bear or otherwise would require heroic virtue. Here we are emphasizing that it is the means, that is, the treatment, medication, procedure or operation, which is gravely burdensome or otherwise requires heroic virtue.
By using strong language we wish to make clear that the burden must be extremely great or the virtue required must be beyond ordinary virtue, before the means can be classified as extraordinary. In brief, the means must involve an excessive hardship, tremendous effort, suffering, excessive cost for the individual(unreasonable expense)- -more than moderately difficult to obtain or to use. For example, personal fear, horror or repugnance on the patient's part about a particular means could cause it to be considered extraordinary.
Generally speaking, the patient is not obligated to use extraordinary means; he/she may decide to do so. Such a course could constitute an act of heroic virtue. Examples might include a treatment that requires travel to a distant location in a very weakened condition. Also, some types of chemotherapy could cause overwhelming malaise and fatigue so that the treatment, from the patient's perspective, would be far worse than the disease.
Note, however, that medical progress may render today's extraordinary means tomorrow's ordinary means. For example, renal dialysis, a method of clearing the patient's blood of nitrogenous waste products and other toxins, was unknown when several of the co-authors were in medical school; today it is available in virtually all urban areas.
In the ethical construct of ordinary versus extraordinary means, extraordinary means are limited to treatments, medications, procedures and operations that may or may not be employed by a patient himself/herself to preserve his/her own life. It should not be implied by an extraordinary means that such means must not be used. A decision not to use an extraordinary means does not foreclose other treatments, and certainly all ordinary means must still be used.
A diagnosis of an irremediable illness does not make it acceptable, within the ethical construct of ordinary/extraordinary means, to withhold treatment that is effective and not gravely burdensome. Moreover, extraordinary means cannot be withheld or withdrawn in order to kill the patient or to advance other immoral ends. A physician may not encourage a patient to violate his or her moral obligations, help him/her to do so, or refuse a patient's request for treatment that is obligatory. The physician and the hospital are obliged to try to provide an extraordinary means of treatment when the patient wishes it.
Although generally optional, extraordinary means would become morally obligatory for the patient if he or she is not reconciled with God or if the lives of others depend on the life of the patient. Alternatively, the patient may not use an extraordinary means if it would cause him/her to fail in some more serious duty.
In sum, not to commit ѕυιcιdє is always required and expected. One should live a virtuous life in all ways, including taking care of one's own health. To obtain the ordinary means of medical treatment and to take good care of one's health is virtuous. If the medical means are gravely burdensome or if they otherwise would require heroic virtue, the means generally are optional. There is no requirement to obtain such means; in other words, one is dispensed from an obligation to obtain them.
Topic: Life Support (Read 791 times)