Last week, the news broke that the Vatican issued a ruling that “clarified” the Catholic Church’s position on artificial nutrition and hydration in regard to individuals diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. There will be more on this blog about this next week – mostly about some of the “the sky is falling” comments from some ethicists in news stories, and whether or not anything will really change in Catholic health care facilities when it comes to the removal of feeding tubes from people diagnosed with PVS.
But what really caught my eye right off the bat was how fast Kelly Hills posted the Reuters story on the Vatican ruling to the AJOB Bioethics Blog and the Women’s Bioethics Blog. The Reuters article has a really glaring inaccuracy, which doesn’t get a comment from the “experts” at these two blogs. Remembering that the Vatican ruling clearly is making statements about the treatment of people in PVS, see if you can spot what’s wrong with the closing of the Reuters article:
Bioethicists opposed to the unconditional use of feeding tubes argue that such nourishment can keep the bodies of brain-dead patients functioning even though the person is effectively dead. They say this is wrong for both the patient and the family.
The article confuses “brain death” with “vegetative state.” Shouldn’t that be something that the public should be clear on if we are to discuss these issues? I guess maybe Hills and the other folks at the bioethics blogs didn’t bother to read the article. The alternative explanation is that they don’t mind the public getting “brain death” and “vegetative state” confused. –Stephen Drake