Terri

[foundsheep]

Thats weird,in my catechism I have right in front of me it is split up into sections with each section having a title in Bold.

Under the whole section,not feeding her would not be a choice. This is strictly for cases for people being kept alive by other means, she is living on her own.

[foundsheep]

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.

BAM! I should have posted the whole thing earlier cmom.

[Anna]

beng,

You seem to be trying to equate PVS with a terminal disease such as cancer.

You may find many death certificates listing cancer as the cause of death, but I defy you to find one with PVS as a cause of death. PVS may be a condition without much hope of recovering the full potential of a "normal" life, but it isn't terminal.

Specifically regarding Terri Schindler Schiavo, doctors don't even agree equivacally that she is in a PVS.

While you're willing to throw her fate to the recommendations of the general consensus, which could be right or wrong in this case, I would always prefer to err on the side of LIFE.

Since when is providing food and hydration "extraordinary," "burdensome," or "dangerous"?

Since when is providing food and hydration "disproportionate to the expected outcome," if the expected outcome is to preserve human life and make the patient as comfortable as possible? I suggest you go without food tomorrow, and tell us all how comfy you feel on Wednesday!

Finally, you are missing a huge chunk of the picture. You treat Terri Schindler Schiavo like she was a rotting piece of flesh. No, beng, she is a human being with an eternal soul.

God only knows what suffering she is offering up for mankind, in union with the sufferings of Christ, as she lays in that hospital bed, being refused the slightest act of kindness and compassion from most of her caretakers, at the direct orders of her husband. Yes, he even refused to allow a nurse to put a cloth in her hand, which would have kept her nails from digging into her palm. He considered that rehabilitative therapy, and refused to allow it! That's how compassionate he is toward his spouse.

This woman is a suffering soul, and should be treated no less kindly than Mother Teresa treated the maggot-covered lepers she rescued from the sewage ditches of Calcutta.

This is America's chance to redeem ourselves and show reverence for the Gift of Life.

You gravely misinterpret the teachings of the Church when you say the Church approves of removing food and hydration from a non-dying woman, in order to cause her death. Oh, it would put her to rest alright. So would a gunshot. But that is murder, also.

Pax Christi. <><

[beng]

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

In PVS she's dying, there's no chance of recovery. And the term "starvation" really have no meaning in such state. With that said, yes I would say it is legitemate to discontinue the treatment.

[beng]

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

No arguement here.

[beng]

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.

Me and foundsheep already discussed this. Read for yourselves

[beng]

Thats weird,in my catechism I have right in front of me it is split up into sections with each section having a title in Bold.

Under the whole section,not feeding her would not be a choice. This is strictly for cases for people being kept alive by other means, she is living on her own.

I wouldn't know where to get CCC that has, "not feeding, shouldn't be an option"

Thus, I don't know what you mean.

[beng]

BAM! I should have posted the whole thing earlier cmom.

2278 and 2279 doesn't contradict.

2278 talks about extraordinary measures disproportionate with expected outcome.

2279 talks about ordinary measures that (I think) should result in some palliative outcome

[beng]

beng,

You seem to be trying to equate PVS with a terminal disease such as cancer.

You may find many death certificates listing cancer as the cause of death, but I defy you to find one with PVS as a cause of death. PVS may be a condition without much hope of recovering the full potential of a "normal" life, but it isn't terminal.

The analogy's central point was not about which could be the cause of death.

It's about defining the term dying.

Specifically regarding Terri Schindler Schiavo, doctors don't even agree equivacally that she is in a PVS.

Well, if she's not. She should live. Didn't I make this clear?

While you're willing to throw her fate to the recommendations of the general consensus, which could be right or wrong in this case, I would always prefer to err on the side of LIFE.

Once or twice you could do this. But if this practice continue (siding with minority no matter how small) just because that the majority could be false, then the practice become a bad precedent. Because you could always find differing opinion, no matter how small, somewhere.

Since when is providing food and hydration "extraordinary," "burdensome," or "dangerous"?

Probably financial burden? I don't even know how the treatment she undergoes now actually works. Is it just feeding and that's it? However if she's in PVS then even feeding would serve no purpose other than prolonging her death

Since when is providing food and hydration "disproportionate to the expected outcome," if the expected outcome is to preserve human life and make the patient as comfortable as possible? I suggest you go without food tomorrow, and tell us all how comfy you feel on Wednesday!

Well if she's in PVS then she is dying. So the term comfortable would be inaccurate. And, again, if she's in PVS the term preserving human life just might as well mean prolonging death.

Finally, you are missing a huge chunk of the picture. You treat Terri Schindler Schiavo like she was a rotting piece of flesh. No, beng, she is a human being with an eternal soul.

I never miss this piece.

In fact because I believe it that I think we shouldn't prolong her death. If she's saved (heh, what am I doing using popular Protestant word) then eternal life awaits her.

God only knows what suffering she is offering up for mankind, in union with the sufferings of Christ,

What suffering does she experince? If she's in PVS she won't feel a thing.

as she lays in that hospital bed, being refused the slightest act of kindness and compassion from most of her caretakers, at the direct orders of her husband. Yes, he even refused to allow a nurse to put a cloth in her hand, which would have kept her nails from digging into her palm. He considered that rehabilitative therapy, and refused to allow it! That's how compassionate he is toward his spouse.

This is the spouse's own inconsideration. It has nothing to do with Terry.

Think rational and stick to Terry, don't project yourself into her.

This woman is a suffering soul, and should be treated no less kindly than Mother Teresa treated the maggot-covered lepers she rescued from the sewage ditches of Calcutta. [/qupte]

That's a differnt scenario entirely.

Too far fetched

You're putting words in other's mouth. And again you demonize the opossing view (the gunshot comment)

Church aprove discontinuing disproportionate measures to the expected outcome. Meaning the woman is dying.

[foundsheep]

Once again beng, being in a vegatative state doesnt neccassarily mean you are dyeing,starving her would make her die. That is intent on killing that that is not dieing on its own.

[foundsheep]

And i would like you to refute 2279 of the catechism.

[the_rev]

I only read the story, and I say let her live!!!

[cmotherofpirl]

In PVS she's dying, there's no chance of recovery. And the term "starvation" really have no meaning in such state. With that said, yes I would say it is legitemate to discontinue the treatment.

Coma and Persistent Vegetative State

A coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. The affected individual is alive but is not able to react or respond to life around him/her. Coma may occur as an expected progression or complication of an underlying illness, or as a result of an event such as head trauma.

A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

Is there any treatment?

Once the patient is out of immediate danger, although still in coma or vegetative state, the medical care team will concentrate on preventing infections and maintaining the patient's physical state as much as possible.

Such maintenance includes preventing pneumonia and bed sores and providing balanced nutrition. Physical therapy may also be used to prevent contractures (permanent muscular contractions) and orthopedic deformities that would limit recovery for the patients who emerge from coma.

What is the prognosis?

The outcome for coma and vegetative state depends on the cause and on the location, severity, and extent of neurological damage: outcomes range from recovery to death. People may emerge from a coma with a combination of physical, intellectual, and psychological difficulties that need special attention.

Recovery usually occurs gradually, with patients acquiring more and more ability to respond. Some patients never progress beyond very basic responses, but many recover full awareness. Patients recovering from coma require close medical supervision. A coma rarely lasts more than 2 to 4 weeks. Some patients may regain a degree of awareness after vegetative state. Others may remain in a vegetative state for years or even decades. The most common cause of death for a person in a vegetative state is infection such as pneumonia.

Terri could live to a ripe old age., unless her husband kills her.

[MrsFrozen]

First, avoid "over zealous treatment;" for example, initiating or continuing medical procedures that are "burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome..." The Church does not hold a "vitalist" approach to medicine as if one's "body" must be kept alive at all cost. Eternal life with God is our ultimate goall the preservation of life is thus, not absolute but relative.

I believe this is wrong. If the Church doesn't hold the thinking that one's body must be kept alive at all cost, then we might as well be for euthanasia and abortion, too! I don't agree with this article at all. Furthermore, I have seen video of this woman and have read that there IS hope for her, but her "husband" keeps denying her therapy! So if there is hope for her, then she's not in a permanent vegetative state!

[MrsFrozen]

In PVS she's dying, there's no chance of recovery. And the term "starvation" really have no meaning in such state. With that said, yes I would say it is legitemate to discontinue the treatment.

Beng, if she's already dying, as you claim, then why should her food and drink be discontinued? If you're so content on allowing her to die, then she's already dying, right?

And by "treatment," do you mean her food and drink?