Terri

[Anna]

beng,

"Prolonging death" is a phrase you've been consistently using! Please define this phrase.

Death is the state that occurs when someone dies. You can't "prolong death."

However, you can prolong LIFE, and it is our duty to so, as long as a person is able to live. Even if a person isn't capable of being rehabilitated, he/she is still deserving of what LIFE he/she has.

Take a retarded person: there is no hope of ever getting over that condition. How about a diabetic: no chance of getting over that either...So, should we stop supplying food and water? Using your criteria, starvation could be imposed upon anyone who isn't going to enjoy a 100 % recovery and restoration to full health.

Where would you draw the line?

I'm glad to see, at least, that you are crediting your views to yourself, and not to the Church!!!!!!!!!

Pax Christi. <><

[foundsheep]

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.

Feeding someone is not a treatment and PVS does not mean you are die ing, as they say in those Brittanica commercials-Look it up Dear.

[Anna]

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

It's about defining the term dying.

By who's definition? Not the Church's!

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

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

And I suggest you brush up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches before you go ushering any of us to the door. In what document do you find any reference to "prolong(ing) death"?

Probably financial burden?

Isn't this the same excuse used to justify abortion? How is aborting a baby wrong, then, but removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube just?

However, in Terri's case, the feeding tube would not have been a financial burden, as she won a lawsuit for over a million dollars, and the courts ordered it to be placed in a trust for her and spent on her rehabilitative treatment. Her husband, however, ordered the medical professionals to withhold rehab, threatening lawsuits if they gave her any therapy, and has spent a huge portion from Terri's trust on his legal battle.

Well if she's in PVS then she is dying.

By who's definition? Not the Church's! Are we not all "dying," anyway? I prefer to look at her--and myself--as "living," but depending upon your perspective, we're both "dying" also. The present state of her brain does not indicate that she is dying, any more than you or I are, at present, dying. So, to hasten her death by depriving her of nourishment would be as wrong as hastening your or my death by withholding nourishment.

In fact because I believe it that I think we shouldn't prolong her death.

Once death occurs, it is forever. You cannot prolong death. This phrase you repeatedly use is a misnomer, intended to play upon the sympathies, emotions, ignorance, or prejudices of a certain side of this argument. Speaking correctly, one can prolong LIFE, but one cannot "prolong death." Life is passing, death is final. One cannot prolong the finality of death. One can do his utmost to prolong the Gift of Life, and as Catholics, this what we are called to do: preserve and protect innocent human life.

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

Project myself into her? Huh? My thinking is perfectly rational; I regard Terri as a human being, worthy of acts of kindness and consideration. (Ooooops! Aren't you demonizing the messenger here?!)

Too far fetched

Demonizing the opposing view. Come on, give us a real answer.

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

Firstly, the woman is NOT dying, any more than you or I are dying. If we refuse to provide food and water to her, it will result in her death, same as if you or I are deprived of food and water. The Church teaches that providing food and hydration are not extraordinary means, but are ordinary means! Terri isn't on life support. She is merely provided with food and water through a feeding tube, because due to ten plus years of no rehab, her sphincter muscles has atrophied and may not be capable of swallowing. (She was able to swallow when first admitted to the nursing home, according to three registered nurses' affidavits, who each attended her for a period of years. They fed her jello, and she spoke with them. But hubby wouldn't allow the least treatment for her. Neither will he allow religious objects in her room.)

Secondly, the Church would approve of discontinuing extraordinary measures disproportionate to the expected outcome. What is the expected outcome of feeding someone? That the person will be nourished. Period. Feeding a person doesn't cure him/her; it nourishes and keeps him/her alive. The feeding tube is A. Not an extraordinary measure, and B. Is fullfilling the expected outcome of nourishing Terri very well. Look at her pics; she isn't emaciated. She is being well nourished.

So the treatment is ordinary, not extraordinary, and it is fulfilling its expected outcome.

Do you realize that you are advocating taking a well nourished woman who is disabled from a brain injury, removing her food and water so that she will certainly die of de-hydration/starvation, and claiming that it's ok with the Catholic Church???? Despite the many corrections offered here, the full quotes within context from the Catechism, and explanation of your erroneous phrases and lack of knowledge of Terri's situation, you persist in thinking that YOU are right....

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

Correct. That is you.

Correction: That is you.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited December 24, 2003 by Anna

[beng]

I think we are going back and forth over many things but the important root is the definition of "dying"

Once we get this establish everything else will fall into pieces.

I will look more into it, and I suggest you all are.

[beng]

beng,

"Prolonging death" is a phrase you've been consistently using! Please define this phrase.

Death is the state that occurs when someone dies. You can't "prolong death."

However, you can prolong LIFE, and it is our duty to so, as long as a person is able to live. Even if a person isn't capable of being rehabilitated, he/she is still deserving of what LIFE he/she has.

Take a retarded person: there is no hope of ever getting over that condition. How about a diabetic: no chance of getting over that either...So, should we stop supplying food and water? Using your criteria, starvation could be imposed upon anyone who isn't going to enjoy a 100 % recovery and restoration to full health.

Where would you draw the line?

I'm glad to see, at least, that you are crediting your views to yourself, and not to the Church!!!!!!!!!

Pax Christi. <><

Well, maybe I should say prolong the dying process. This should clear you up.

Diabetic and retarded person can live normaly and not in the state of dying.

The view is of course myself, like your view is yourselves. However we both use the same measuring stick, that is the church.

[cmotherofpirl]

Well, maybe I should say prolong the dying process. This should clear you up.

Diabetic and retarded person can live normaly and not in the state of dying.

The view is of course myself, like your view is yourselves. However we both use the same measuring stick, that is the church.

Teri is no more dying than you or I, unless her husband getd permission to murder her.

Brain Damage does not equal dying.

Maybe you should studying dying a bit more.

[Anna]

Bear in mind, beng, that Terri was brought to medical professionals over ten years ago with her injuries (injuries of a suspicious nature, I might add, as the initial examining physician's reports show broken ribs and a rigid neck, which can be a result of attempted strangulation. Terri had suffered from domestic abuse previously, and had told her parents that she and her husband had had an argument earlier that day.)

This woman seems to have a tremendous will to live.

Why do you persist in claiming that she is "dying," when she is living?!!!!! (That is, unless you consider all the rest of us here on earth as "dying" also, in which case, it would be nice if you'd clarify...) You make it sound as though the rest of us are living, but Terri is dying. This is simply incorrect and opinion, and not a justifiable support for withholding nourishment, to be sure!

[Anna]

Well, maybe I should say prolong the dying process. This should clear you up.

Diabetic and retarded person can live normaly and not in the state of dying.

This doesn't follow any form of logic.

How is Terri dying, but a retarded person or person suffering some other disability is living?

From the moment we are born, we begin the dying process...Why do you insist upon hastening it for this innocent disabled woman by withholding her nourishment from her?

Pax Christi. <><

Edited December 24, 2003 by Anna

[beng]

By who's definition?  Not the Church's!

We will try to establish this

And I suggest you brush up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches before you go ushering any of us to the door.   In what document do you find any reference to "prolong(ing) death"?

2279 CCC. If you want a literal quote it's not there. But then again, if you want to take anything literal you might as well embrace Sola Scriptura.

Isn't this the same excuse used to justify abortion?  How is aborting a baby wrong, then, but removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube just?

However, in Terri's case, the feeding tube would not have been a financial burden, as she won a lawsuit for over a million dollars, and the courts ordered it to be placed in a trust for her and spent on her rehabilitative treatment.  Her husband, however, ordered the medical professionals to withhold rehab, threatening lawsuits if they gave her any therapy, and has spent a huge portion from Terri's trust on his legal battle.

I have explained why abortion is an entirely different case (disregarding the right of the unborn). You can't put them on the same term.

If there's no burden whatsoever it's OK to continue the treatment. IN fact maybe they should. as long as the treatment that will prolong the life would not deteriorate the quality of life.

By who's definition?  Not the Church's! Are we not all "dying," anyway?  I prefer to look at her--and myself--as "living," but depending upon your perspective, we're both "dying" also.  The present state of her brain does not indicate that she is dying, any more than you or I are, at present, dying.  So, to hasten her death by depriving her of nourishment would be as wrong as hastening your or my death by withholding nourishment.

You and me are different. We're not in PVS.

PVS patient has brain activity. Your point is moot.

Once death occurs, it is forever.  You cannot prolong death.  This phrase you repeatedly use is a misnomer, intended to play upon the sympathies, emotions, ignorance, or prejudices of a certain side of this argument.  Speaking correctly, one can prolong LIFE, but one cannot "prolong death."  Life is passing, death is final.  One cannot prolong the finality of death.  One can do his utmost to prolong the Gift of Life, and as Catholics, this what we are called to do: preserve and protect innocent human life.

The phrase I used is probably have conotation to you so that you try to demonize the phrase (is this a habit).

Anyway, you could use the phrase "prolong her dying process" to make you feel comfortable

Project myself into her?  Huh?  My thinking is perfectly rational; I regard Terri as a human being, worthy of acts of kindness and consideration. (Ooooops! Aren't you demonizing the messenger here?!)

You project yourselves into her means that you are emphatyzing with her. That is not a bad thing (for most) even Christ told as to do so.

But you can't project yourselves toward her and then start to build your thought from there.

And where did I demonize the messanger?

Demonizing the opposing view.  Come on, give us a real answer.

Saying "too farfethche" is not demonizing the oppossing view. Accusing of the opossing view as murderer is

Firstly, the woman is NOT dying, any more than you or I are dying.  If we refuse to provide food and water to her, it will result in her death, same as if you or I are deprived of food and water.  The Church teaches that providing food and hydration are not extraordinary means, but are ordinary means!  Terri isn't on life support.  She is merely provided with food and water through a feeding tube, because due to ten plus years of no rehab, her sphincter muscles has atrophied and may not be capable of swallowing.  (She was able to swallow when first admitted to the nursing home, according to three registered nurses' affidavits, who each attended her for a period of years.  They fed her jello, and she spoke with them.  But hubby wouldn't allow the least treatment for her.  Neither will he allow religious objects in her room.)

Secondly, the Church would approve of discontinuing extraordinary measures disproportionate to the expected outcome.  What is the expected outcome of feeding someone?  That the person will be nourished.  Period.  Feeding a person doesn't cure him/her; it nourishes and keeps him/her alive.  The feeding tube is A.  Not an extraordinary measure, and B. Is fullfilling the expected outcome of nourishing Terri very well.  Look at her pics; she isn't emaciated.  She is being well nourished.

So the treatment is ordinary, not extraordinary, and it is fulfilling its expected outcome.

Do you realize that you are advocating taking a well nourished woman who is disabled from a brain injury, removing her food and water so that she will certainly die of de-hydration/starvation, and claiming that it's ok with the Catholic Church????  Despite the many corrections offered here, the full quotes within context from the Catechism, and explanation of your erroneous phrases and lack of knowledge of Terri's situation, you persist in thinking that YOU are right....

We have already gone through this. Putting it in different words isn't going to make the argument change substance.

Correction: That is you.

Do you see how many times I agree with you?

I realize fully that we're not on the opossing side.

I never demonize any of the opossing view.

Yet you and, that other person (can't remember the strange nick, but it's a she) continue to bear accuse the opossing view of comitting murder.

[beng]

This doesn't follow any form of logic.

How is Terri dying, but a retarded person or person suffering some other disability is living?

From the moment we are born, we begin the dying process...Why do you insist upon hastening it for this innocent disabled woman by withholding her nourishment from her?

Pax Christi. <><

She's in PVS

[beng]

From Florida Bishop Conference

STATEMENT ON

THE LIFE, DEATH AND THE TREATMENT

OF DYING PATIENTS

 

April 27, 1989

PROVISION OF SUSTENANCE

    Regarding the artificial provision of sustenance, i.e. nourishment and hydration, the question arises whether it is always required or is a course of treatment that can be withdrawn like other life prolonging procedures. This issue raises important questions under the general principles that we have previously discussed. Clearly it is wrong to intentionally cause the death of anyone; we have an obligation to take all ordinary means to protect and preserve our own life and the lives of others; we are not obligated to use extraordinary means, or means that are either useless or unduly burdensome.

    In most cases there is not an excessive burden in the artificial administration of nutrition and hydration. The total care of such patients may be a burden, but it is the burden of this particular treatment that must be judged, not the burden of the person's life itself. We can never justify the withdrawal of sustenance on the basis of the quality of life of the patient.

    ...Because human life has inherent value and dignity regardless of its condition, every patient should be provided with measures which can effectively preserve life without involving too grave a burden. Since food and water are necessities of life for all human beings and can generally be provided without the risks and burdens of more aggressive means for sustaining life, the law should establish a strong presumption in favor of their use. (Statement on Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, NCCB Committee for Pro-Life Activities, June, 1986, Origins, Vol. 16, Page 222.)

    Clearly, nourishment or hydration may be withheld or withdrawn where that treatment itself is causing harm to the patient or is useless because the patient's death is imminent, as long as the patient is made comfortable. In general the terms "death is imminent" and "terminally ill" imply that a physician can predict that the patient will die of the fatal pathology within a few days or weeks, regardless of what life prolonging methods are utilized.

    A treatment is judged excessively burdensome if it is too painful, too damaging to the patient's bodily self and functioning, too psychologically repugnant to the patient, too suppressive of the patient's mental life, or prohibitive in cost. Moral certainty of excessive burdensomeness is required to justify withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition.

    The application of these principles to a patient who has been diagnosed with medical certainty to be permanently comatose, but whose death is not imminent, has aroused controversy. As stated, the strongest presumption must be given to continuing artificial sustenance. While the benefit is greatly reduced due to the lack of consciousness, human life itself is a good, and the life of comatose persons must be accorded respect. By the same token, the burdens of this treatment are limited, there being no, or very little, pain, discomfort or psychological repugnance. The cost of artificial nutrition and hydration is usually minimal, not much more than the cost of ordinary feeding. Thus we can say as a general rule that artificial sustenance should not be withheld or withdrawn from these patients.

    It has been argued that to keep such persons alive through artificial sustenance involves serious financial burdens. On the other hand, we would point out that it is a financial burden to keep alive other classes of persons, such as those with severe mental illnesses or retardation or those with long-term disabilities. As the Church stated in its 1981 document for the International Year of Disabled Persons, "The respect, the dedication, the time and means required for the care of handicapped persons, even of those whose mental faculties are greatly affected, is the price that a society should generously pay in order to remain truly human."

      The conclusions we have made in this paper are based on responsible stewardship of human life. We must take normal means to protect and preserve our own life and the lives of others. We are not obliged to use means that are useless or unduly burdensome. The question of whether we are obliged to provide artificial sustenance depends on whether particular circumstances would render such provision useless or excessively burdensome. It is necessary to note that the judgment made here is not that the person's life is useless or excessively burdensome. If the judgment made is that the particular means used to preserve life are useless because death is imminent or the means are excessively burdensome, there is no moral duty to provide them.

    However, there is a grave danger that laws permitting the withdrawal of artificial sustenance will be construed in the context of euthanasia. If statutes or court decisions look upon the withdrawal as an act causing death and then permit such an act, then the door is opened for legal justification of other acts which more directly and immediately cause death. If the law is to permit the withdrawal of sustenance in limited circumstances, it should allow this, not as an act justifiably causing death because of the diminished quality of life of the patient, but rather as an act withholding useless or excessively burdensome means of prolonging life.

    Hence one must not advocate the withdrawal of sustenance in a context or with reasoning which leads to euthanasia, a moral evil that is to be condemned.

Another one also from the same site

Some Principles to Consider in

Making the Decision to End Life Support

Each case must be considered separately.

Decisions should be made in consultation with the patient's family, physician, and priest or minister.

There exists a moral obligation to use ordinary care in preserving our lives. There is a responsibility to seek necessary medical care from others.

A decision to forego treatment and/or life support may be made, if (in the patient's judgment) the treatment: (a) does not offer reasonable hope or benefit; (b) would entail an excessive burden; or © impose excessive expense.

There is not a requirement to use every possible remedy in every circumstance; we are not obligated to use means that are useless or unduly burdensome.

It is appropriate to take more than just strictly necessary steps to preserve life and health, as long as one does not fail in some more serious duty.

The determination of what is unduly burdensome should be made by the patient; the judgment of the patient should be respected and normally complied with unless contrary to Catholic moral teaching.

Decisions made by a patient, if he/she is competent and able (or if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient), must be respected.

There is a significant moral difference between causing death and allowing one to die.

Different patients will make different decisions based on their own "physical and moral resources."

When extraordinary means are withdrawn, thus allowing a patient to die, the death must be causally linked to the underlying pathology or injury, not to the withdrawal of extraordinary treatment.

Moral certainty of excessive burdensomeness is needed to justify withdrawal of treatment.

From Florida Bishops statement I concluded that Terry should not be deny nourishment UNLESS

1. Giving the nourisment that prolong her dying process will also prolong her suffering in the current satte.

2. If the nourishment is discontinued, the cause of death wouldn't be the discontinuacion of the nourishment.

3. Giving the nourisment doesn't stop the inevitable death that would occur in days or weeks (I'm puzzle by the arbitrary time interval and there's no argument for the length of time)

[foundsheep]

Thanks for the info.

[cmotherofpirl]

So the Church nourishment can be withheld when she is dying.

But Terri is not dying.

She can live another 20 -30 years.

Unless her husband decides to kill her.

[Anna]

So the Church nourishment can be withheld when she is dying.

But Terri is not dying.

She can live another 20 -30 years.

Unless her husband decides to kill her.

a moral evil that is to be condemned

[jasJis]

beng,

I live in Florida, in the same Diocese that Terri is in. There are two specific issues that the Bishop has to tread between.

1.) He has stated quite clearly that it is his opinioin that Terri has the right to be fed as a fundamental right that belongs to all humans. Terri is not in danger of immenent death from her injuries.

2.) By Florida law, the spouse has great say in determining the emotional burden and the will of the spouse. This is a temendous boon to Catholic morality when applied properly. In Terri's case, the motives of the husband are higly suspect and do not seem to be in Terri's best interests.

If the Bishop is too enthusiastic about the State legal system usurping the husbands rights, he runs the danger of pro-euthanasia activists using that to push legislation that would allow children, siblings, or the State to pursue involuntary euthanasia over the wishes of the spouse if a written 'Living Will' does not exist. In Florida, a Living Will is not required to continue extrodinary life support measures. Simple testimony from a spouse supercedes any other party from saying it's too expensive, harsh, extreme, etc.

Catholic (and most Christian denominations) theology is that God makes two people as one. One spouse speaks for another. This is a tragic case where the spouse that can speak does not seem to have the best wishes of his wife in mind. If you legally take away the rights of this probably wicked man, would that then be used to weaken the rights of loving and loyal spouses. The Devil must be laughing like hell at this quandry he helped create.