Yes. "When the God-given powers of the body to sustain its own life can no longer function and doctors in their professional judgement conclude that there is no real hope for recovery even with life support instruments, a Christian may in good conscience 'let nature take its course'" ("Report on Euthanasia" 1993: 5) "Disagreement exists within the synod over whether artificially administered nutrition and hydration constitute 'ordinary' (necessary) or extraordinary care for someone in a persistent vegetative state. The validity of both positions can be demonstrated by the LCMS. In such an instance, individual conscience is respected" (Abbott and Nelson, 2003: 18).

"The terms "passive" or "negative" euthanasia . . . are sometimes used incorrectly-to refer to the discontinuance or avoidance of extraordinary means of preserved life when there is no prospect of recovery. This practice does not, in a proper medical sense, signify euthanasia. Instead, it nominally belongs to the responsible care that medical personnel exhibit toward patients that appear to have irrevocably entered the process of dying" ("Report on Euthanasia" 1993: par. 7).

"Extraordinary treatment refers to the use of artificial means to prolong a patient's life once his vital processes have ceased their spontaneous functions. Furthermore, this term also embraces those measures which are very dangerous, difficult, painful or even costly, whose good effects are not deemed to be proportionate to the difficulty and inconvenience involved. They may, therefore, be refused" ("Report on Euthanasia" 1993: par. 44).

"A more difficult kind of case appears in situations in which not everyone would agree whether provision of food and water is a mode of care disproportionate to the burdens it brings. . .The problem for a Christian lies in determining whether provision of food and water by tube in this man’s case disproportionately burdens him and prolongs his dying, or whether such provision constitutes ordinary care that neither he nor any one else should consider optional" ("Christian Care at Life's End" 1993: 12).

"Some argued that decisions regarding removal of nutrition and hydration in cases of persistent vegetative state might, in appropriate circumstances, be defended on the basis of the Guiding Principles contained in the report. Others argued that providing food and water, by whatever means, should always be considered 'ordinary' care and therefore, in light of the Guiding Principles, should always be required" ("Christian Care at Life's End" 1993: 21, footnote 37).

Citations