As a follow-up to my previous posting, I am commenting on the relevant parts of the Pope's statement on providing food and water to those in a persistent vegetative state (PVS):

I cordially greet all of you who took part in the International Congress: "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas".

I quote this because it sets the scene for what caused the Pope's statement to come about — the treatment of those in a PVS.

I feel the duty to reaffirm strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a "vegetable" or an "animal".

I.e. those in a PVS have just as much human dignity and intrinsic value as any one-day old child, or any Pope, or any blogger.

The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.

That is the primary teaching contained in the Pope's statement as it applies to those in a PVS. It is exceptionally clear.

Then, two secondary statements are made, so as to clear up some confusions in this area. For some have said, in effect: "Surely the provision of food and water to those unable to do it for themselves is a medical act, and should be considered as one of the possible medical acts that may or may not be given to those in a PVS?" And the Pope says:

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.

Which settles that. And note that this secondary statement applies to more than just those in a PVS.

And then some have, in effect, said: "Surely the provision of food and water is sometimes an extraordinary act, not normal care, and thus not always morally obligatory." And the Pope clarifies the issues here, saying:

Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality …

Which says that the provision of food and water (provided that the purposes of food and water are actually being achieved) is always ordinary care, and thus morally obligatory. And this applies to more than just those in a PVS.

… which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.

And to give an example as it relates directly to those in a PVS, the Pope indicates the purposes ("finality") of food and water as being to provide nourishment (so as to maintain life and health) and to prevent suffering (which the removal of food and water would cause). So long as the food and water is achieving some of its purpose, it is ordinary and morally obligatory care.