It’s No Longer Human Life, at a Point; It’s Metabolism : Ethics: A diverse group of theologians argues that there must come a point when government may not require that a patient be kept alive.

We have met to discuss the implications of the new powers conferred on us by advances in medical technology, giving special attention to the case of Nancy Cruzan, currently before the Supreme Court.

The rapid advances in medical technology have presented us with a multitude of blessings. The machines, drugs, diagnostic techniques and therapies developed in our lifetimes have enabled us to prevent and cure disease and forestall death in an unprecedented way. We celebrate the pioneering, dedicated work of the men and women whose discovery, development and application of medical skills and technology have given us this benign power.

This power has, however, another side. In a number of cases, such as that of Nancy Cruzan, we have been able to sustain the metabolism of patients having no capacity for communication or any conscious experience. Such cases present us with difficult ethical problems.

Cruzan, the victim of an auto accident, has been in a persistent vegetative state for six years. Although she has respiration and circulation, she is fed through a tube and, in the words of the Missouri Supreme Court, is “oblivious to her environment.” Further, medical experts testified that she could live another 30 years. Her parents have asked that she be removed from artificial life support and allowed to die. The Missouri court, in a 4-3 decision, has refused, saying that “the state’s interest is not in quality of life. The state’s interest is an unqualified interest in life.”

We profoundly disagree with the Missouri court’s decision. A patient in a persistent vegetative state has neither present nor future interests in having that state artificially sustained. Parents or legal guardians, in consultation with competent care-givers, have the right to demand cessation of all life-sustaining treatment, including intubation. We hope that the Supreme Court will reverse the decision.

We affirm the basic value of life as a necessary condition for the realization of the full array of human potential, the fulfillment of human interest, and indeed for any experience whatsoever. But we are convinced that artificially sustaining metabolism in the permanent absence of consciousness and the ability to engage in human interaction is not in anyone’s best interest, including the patient’s. It is not required by a faithful reading of the Bible as a whole, and it is not mandated by the application of any widely accepted ethical theory. Indeed, we believe that religiously informed ethical reflection mandates the opposite.

This is not the first time, and it will not be the last, that technological advance has strained our ethical and legal capacities. Medical advances will continue to present us with painful decisions for which traditional thinking has not prepared us. We urge medical providers to widen and deepen their dialogue with patients and policy-makers. Only a common commitment to serious and compassionate dialogue will enable us to confront these decisions wisely.

John C. Bennett, president emeritus, Union Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio.

John B. Cobb, Jr., professor of theology; David Griffin, professor of philosophy of religion; Joseph C. Hough Jr., professor of Christian ethics; Allen Moore, academic dean; Mary Elizabeth Moore, professor of theology and education and Dan Rhoades, professor of Christian ethics, School of Theology at Claremont.

Margaret Farley, professor of Christian ethics, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Conn.

Nancy R. Howell, associate director, Center for Process Studies, Claremont.

Clark A. Kucheman, professor of Christian ethics, Claremont McKenna College.

Helga Kuhse, Center for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

David R. Larson and James W. Walters, associate professors of Christian ethics, Loma Linda University School of Religion.

William M. Miller, professor emeritus of chemistry and James M. Smith, professor of philosophy, Cal State Fresno.

Robert Wennberg, professor of philosophy, Westmont College, Santa Barbara.