Happy Easter!!
Christ is Risen!!
He is risen indeed!!
-----------------------------------
As almost every knowledgable American knows by now, a woman named Terri Schiavo is dying because her feeding tube has been removed in a Florida hospice care. It is a complex case which is being hotly debated for many reasons.
I want to address the ethical issue of removing the feeding tube, and welcome all of your comments and questions. Terri has as much of a right to life as you and I have. She is a human being who has inherent dignity just like you and me. Those who are pro-euthanasia seem to neglect that point.
Is removing the feeding tube euthanasia? Yes, euthanasia by omission. As an excerpt from what the Pope wrote last year about a situation such as hers explains below, removing nutrition and hydration (food and water) will result in the death of the person. This, if done knowingly and willingly, is morally unacceptable because it is the killing of an innocent human person.
When a person is in a physical condition where she is only kept alive by extraordinary means (special medication or machines, e.g.), then there is not a moral obligation to continue using these extraordinary means. But, when the person is being kept alive by ordinary means (food and water, e.g.), then there is a moral obligation to continue using these ordinary means. For Terri Schiavo, her feeding tube represents ordinary means for living because it provides her normal nourishment of food and water.
The Church argues for nutrition and hydration to be provided for someone like Terri because it is necessary to sustain and promote human life. Removing her tube only promotes her death. Those who see her as a human being will fight for keeping her tube; those who see her as less than human (a 'vegetable', i.e.) will argue for removing it.
What are your thoughts??
---------------------------------------
"I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act...
Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their (nutrition and hydration) withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.
In this regard, I recall what I wrote in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, making it clear that 'by euthanasia in the true and proper sense must be understood an action or omission which by its very nature and intention brings about death, with the purpose of eliminating all pain'; such an act is always 'a serious violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person' (n. 65)".
-Pope John Paul II, address to participants in the International Congress, March, 2004
5 comments:
Very well said. I totally agree with your points. I guess some people think that if she is unable to feed herself, she does not deserve to live or perhaps her "quality" of life does not measure up to someones opinion. Who are we to judge the quality of life? Life is a gift from God! She would be loved and cared for. Her parents have argued that.
This "quality of life" issue raises it ugly head here and in abortion cases (eg. when the unborn child is determined to have a mental or physical handicap).
Prayers and action are needed!!
dear brother GREG ,
I gave in my last comment under PURGATORY an excerpt of EVANGELIUM VITAE concerning the protection of life.
I was thinking about TERRI SCHIAVO.
We have this duty to protect life.
We are a nation under GOD where the culture of life should be mandatory.
Look what is happening in EUROPE are we going in the same way?
are we going to select human beings according to their conformity to a standard and deny to the weak ones the right to live?
are we going right to a form of social Darwinism where only a type of human being considered as viable and ideal would survive?
I don 't want to make any inappropriate historical parallel but a society which tolere such act is losing ground about the importance to respect life because life is precious and the consequences of its transgression could be terrible.
there was no certitude that she was in vegetative state, no evidence beyond doubt about her so-called will to remove feeding tubs,a bigamist is not the right person who could talk about love when his act is lethal while the siblings are committed to care and cherish their relative.
it 's a crime to starve an animal to death so why so much contempt for a youg woman?
We need a reevaluation of the way our " modern" world is going away.
THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II IS IN A CRITICAL CONDITION ! PRAY FOR HIM.
May the LORD give to all his blessing.
daer brother GREG , brothers and sisters,
I had no bitterness or anger in my last comment. I have compassion for all.
CHRIST tells us to forgive and to judge ourselves before judging others.
May the LORD gives his blessing to all persons involved in this tragedy.
Greg, could you read this article I read in the Washington Post. I was wondering if there are any inaccuracies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3798-2005Mar26?language=printer
John, I'm not qualified to say that the article contains no inaccuracies, but on a general level, it appears okay. I'd have to research whether all the facts are correct or not.
However, I am always a bit cautious about the media's presentation of Catholic teachings. This article makes the Pope's teaching appear to be new and different from prior Church teaching. That is where I would respectfully disagree.
I don't know the whole history of the Church and feeding tubes (it's not a long history because it's a modern issue), but I've always understood that the Church has seen nutrition and hydration as ordinary means. Further, I've always understood that the Church has taught that there is a moral obligation to provide ordinary means.
Richard Dierflinger is a solid, orthodox, pro-life Catholic, as you probably know. He is a credible source; trust him and his quotes (if they are what he actually said). I'd trust his quotes that the Pope hasn't changed the teaching on the issue of feeding tubes; he's merely defined it more specifically.
That's the main point, as far as I'm concerned. If the data is trying to show that the Pope has changed Church teaching, I don't think it does that. If it's merely to show the evolution in terms of a more specific clarification, then I would agree and thinks the facts they present show that.
I don't see a big problem with the article, unless it is meant to show an inconsistency that isn't there.
Post a Comment