Personally, I'd be interested to hear the natural law position on treatment for people who have little quality of life and require extensive medical intervention. I certainly don't support euthanasia or assisted suicide, but sometimes it is implied the pro-life position requires everything always to be done to maintain life. Dr. Feser seems to imply otherwise though at one point (he mentions that it isn't necessarily the case that increasingly invasive procedures need be sought if they have little hope of giving the patient reasonable hope of a proper life, or something like that, I believe).

​Indeed, I'd be interested in exploring the role of death. The pro-life sometimes talk about our culture of death, and I'm largely in agreement. But sometimes what is implied seems to be that we should always be doing everything we can to avoid death, including increasingly invasive medical procedures for people who have a significantly diminishing quality of life. Is it permissable for the pro-life to believe that death is an inevitable part of human life and that we shouldn't necessarily always look to artificial means to prolong life as much as possible? especially after people reach advanced old age and require a great, ongoing dependence on invasive medical technology which still fails to arrest a falling quality of life. I know that Ivan Illich and Martin Lings (who you would take to be morally and culturally conservative, in a sense at least), for example, have made arguments on this line.