Terri

[beng]

WE do not have the right to kill someone in PVS.

THat is the whole point.

WE do not decide someone else should die because they do not meet our standards of living.

If someone is ALREADY dying then food and water is a moot point. But until that point is reached we take care of them.

First we need to clarify the term dying.

It seems that your definition of dying is when someone doesn't need food and water. But this is absurd. Any terminally ill dying patient always need food and water. it's the source of nutrition. So are you saying that we should prolong death of a terminal cancer patient by all means so he/she could receive nutrition. This practice is obviously against church teaching of not to prolong a person death.

[beng]

If you feel I'm demonizing you or your position, then consider the company you're in.

I also "demonize the message" of abortionists and Planned Parenthood!  (A.K.A. murderers for hire.) 

Pax Christi. <><

Abortionist movitivation is completely wrong and ignorant. They only defend the right of one party, the mother. They don't consider the right of the unborn. In fact they're not really defending the right of the woman to the fullest by allowing abortion, but that's for another discussion.

In short abortionist's motive is tainted (inconsiderate of the unborn's right)

However for me and any other who agree to discontinue the treatment, we are really looking for the interest of the patient.

Thus, you can't put us in the same league as abortionist.

If you continue to do so then you're being a bigot by demonizing the opossing view.

[beng]

... for the goodness of the victim..

you are  talking about KILLING her.

And I point that out and I am "demonizing the opposition."

:D

It's not killing if you choose to not unecessarily prolong death.

If you say that 'stop to unecessarily prolong death' is killing then I suggest you leave the Catholic church, because it's in the teaching of the church.

Glad to know that you admit being a bigot, and proud of it.

Edited December 22, 2003 by beng

[cmotherofpirl]

Someone in a PVS is not dying, they are simply not living up to your standards. People in PVS can live for years, unless of course, you kill them.

Their body is not shutting down, their breathing and heart are not stopping, they are not dying UNLESS you stop feeding them. Dying is when everything stops.

If you STOP feeding them, THEN they start to die, because you are KILLING them.

bigot:: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

So I am obstinate becaused I don't believe in murder. And I am intolerant because I don't like murderers. WOW.

[foundsheep]

Heres what the Catechism says:

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

[beng]

First, read this:

2278

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

From Cathecism of the Catholic Church.

Someone in a PVS is not dying, they are simply not living up to your standards. People in PVS can live for years, unless of course, you kill them.

People in terminal condition also not living up to standard. Should we perform overzealous treatment to prolong thier life? Read the Cathecism.

Their body is not shutting down, their breathing and heart are not stopping, they are not dying UNLESS you stop feeding them. Dying is when everything stops.

Look at the terminally ill argument above.

If you STOP feeding them, THEN they start to die, because you are KILLING them.

No it is NOT killing.

When it reaches the point that overzealous and diproportionate treatment can not bring sufficient outcome, then to discontinuing the overzealous/ddisproportionate treatment is legitimate.

bigot:: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Correct. That is you.

You keep accusing me, and many others, as murder when it is supported by the same rule of faith that govern you and me.

So I am obstinate becaused I don't believe in murder. And I am intolerant because I don't like murderers. WOW.

You should hate murderer. It's a grave sin.

What makes you a bigot is the fact that you lump epopel have opossing view as murder which clearly they are not. And that is your "wow". Congrat.

Edited December 23, 2003 by beng

[beng]

Heres what the Catechism says:

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Yes, this is a case for Euthanasia.

However it seems that it's not. This is best explained by this:

2278

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

[foundsheep]

Terri does not need a machine to keep her alive. Not feeding her is not diproprtianate to the outcome. Using a machine to keep her alive would be.

[foundsheep]

Heres what the Catechism says:

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Euthanasia is the Title of that entire section of the catechism. Notice again how it says:

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

This would be an act of ommiting her food. If she can still be fed the church teaches she be fed.

[foundsheep]

2278

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected

------------------------

Have you really thought it over. Lets starve some one to death, it might take a month but do it.

VS

Hit the switch and it over immediately.

---------

Is this being followed by starvation?

[beng]

Terri does not need a machine to keep her alive. Not feeding her is not diproprtianate to the outcome. Using a machine to keep her alive would be.

I'm not saying, and never was saying "LET'S CUT HER OFF NOW!!"

I'm just saying that IT'S OK to do so if one wishes too. It is legitemate.

And actually, if she's in PVS then there's no beneficial outcome in the future. So, in a sense feeding her would do no good but prolonging her rightful death.

[foundsheep]

But that strays off of it. Do you beng think it is ok to let Terri die from starvation?

[foundsheep]

What my point is, each case should be looked at individually and in some cases, yes it is legitamate.

[beng]

Euthanasia is the Title of that entire section of the catechism.  Notice again how it says:

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

The title euthanasia doesn't mean that the whole section is talking about what Euthanasia is. In 2278 specifically, the CCC talks about what is NOT a Euthanasia.

This would be an act of ommiting her food. If she can still be fed the church teaches she be fed.

But the act (feeding) result in no outcome whatsoever (if she's in PVS). Then according to 2278 it is legitemate to discontinue it, give her a peaceful rest.

[cmotherofpirl]

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.