c. 2005 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) As the battle over what to do with brain-damaged Terry Schiavo illustrated, families often look to faith communities for moral guidance when injury or illness leaves a loved one unable to communicate.

These wrenching situations force people to deal with mortality, a challenging subject, said Rabbi Richard Address, director of the Jewish Family Concerns department of the Union for Reform Judaism, a New York-based umbrella organization for Reform Jews in the U.S.

“These things are rarely black and white,” Address said. “One of the great roles of religion is it can provide opportunity for these kinds of discussions.”

Below are summaries of guidance given by several faith traditions:

Roman Catholic Church

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” opposes “direct euthanasia,” when a doctor helps a person die, though medical professionals can alleviate pain even if it hastens a person’s death. Individual or family members are permitted to end “over-zealous” treatment that delays a natural death.

However, Pope John Paul II _ currently receiving nutrition through a nasal tube _ said at a March 2004 Vatican symposium that providing food and water to patients, including those in a vegetative state, is “a natural means of preserving life,” and “morally obligatory.”

Episcopal Church

In a 1991 resolution, “Principles with Regard to the Prolongation of Life,” the Episcopal Church’s General Convention determined it is “morally wrong and unacceptable” to end a person’s life to relieve pain caused by an incurable illness or injury. However, the Episcopal resolution also quotes the biblical book of Ecclesiastes in saying there is “a time to die,” and does not require individuals to “prolong the act of dying by extraordinary means.”

Evangelicals

Many evangelical churches are independent and non-denominatinal, with no hierarchical teaching authority. Nonetheless, some evangelical groups have grappled with end-of-life issues.

One example is the 1994 resolution “Termination of Medical Treatment,” by the Washington-based National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 52 denominations in the U.S.

The resolution comes down against physician-assisted suicide. It states it is “morally appropriate” for a custodian or family member to end “extraordinary” life support if a patient is brain-dead without chance of recovery _ which is different from being in a coma or a persistent vegetative state.

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

A 1993 resolution, “Christian Care at Life’s End,” has this bottom line: “In cases where it is not possible in any way to determine a patient’s own assessments concerning the burdens and benefits of the treatment, the wisest choice is to continue provision of nutrition and hydration.”

United Church of Christ

A 1991 General Synod resolution gives power to individuals and families to make decisions allowing a patient to “die with dignity,” though the church has no official position on physician-assisted suicide. Families may execute a living will or decide to end life support for a patient, the resolution states.

Eugene Ross, conference minister of the Central Pacific Conference, which includes the state of Oregon _ where it is legal for doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication to fully conscious patients _ said after careful consideration with clergy, it is moral for a terminally ill patient to “proactively” end his or her life.

Judaism

There are differing views on end-of-life treatment among the three main branches of Judaism _ Reform, Conservative and Orthodox _ said Courtney Campbell, a professor of philosophy at Oregon State University, who has done extensive research on end-of-life issues and religion.

For Orthodox Jews, “unless a person is deemed very imminent to death, within 48 hours, life sustaining measures should be utilized,” Campbell said.

The Conservative tradition allows for personal choice in choosing treatments, which “may include removing antibiotics, tube feedings, respiration,” Campbell said.

A Union for Reform Judaism 1995 resolution, “Compassion and Comfort Care at the End of Life,” affirmed “the right to refuse medical treatment that only prolongs the act of dying.”

Address, the spokesman for the Jewish Family Concerns department, said with patients in a persistent vegetative state,“Jewish tradition says you have to examine each case on its own merits.”

However, Address said, “across denominational lines” Jewish traditions reject physician-assisted suicide.

Buddhism

A belief in reincarnation, the soul being born again into a new body, guides the Buddhist perspective, Campbell said.

In order to gain spiritual insight as one goes through death and rebirth, Buddhists “believe it is absolutely critical that one is conscious as they approach the moment of death,” Campbell said. Many believers refuse pain medication at the end of life for that reason, he said.

However, Buddhists also highly value “compassion for people who are suffering,” Campbell said, and may choose to relieve pain at the end of life, even if death comes sooner because of pain medication. Compassion must be balanced with nonviolence, though, he said.

Care may be terminated for a person in a coma or persistent vegetative state, Campbell said, because the patient is not conscious enough to learn about the dying experience.

Hinduism

Hindus also believe in reincarnation, Campbell said, and seek to be conscious for their last days in order to be reborn with greater spiritual knowledge. The principle of nonviolence, famously upheld by Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, “rules out some resort to a hastened death,” he said.

Islam

Muslims, who have diverse perspectives on end of life care, believe the intention behind an act is critical in making decisions about dying, said Dr. Shahid Athar, president of the Islamic Medical Association of North America.

An act where the intention is to end a life is unacceptable, Athar said.

Patients in a vegetative state should not be denied food and water, Athar said. However, once a feeding tube is removed and the person is near death, the tube should not be reinserted, he said, because that would be taking a heroic measure to prolong life.

“We should not intervene in the process of death,” Athar said. “Our job is to comfort the person until that time is reached.”

Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, oppose euthanasia, as “a violation of the commandments of God,” said Campbell, a religious researcher and a Mormon himself. Ending life support beyond reasonable measures is allowed, he said.

MO/JL RNS END