M
Mysty101
Guest
Please respond to what I said, not what you think I mean.
I would never presume to judge any situation, especially if I were not intimately involved.
- Status
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Okay,fair enough.What in your mind is relatively normal?If you are not intamately involved does it make a difference?Is it that you feel the person is too much trouble?My point is that we are supposed to treasure life period if we feel some life is worthy of death we have overstepped our bounds.
S
snowgarden
Guest
A person in that state of grace is not necessarily dying. My brother was as we used to say “semi-comatose” or like Terri Schindler Schiavo (but I refuse to use the "V’ word), but except for his brain damage he was healthy as an ox and definately not dying…not until after almost 5 years when a perforated stomach ulcer did him in. And besides, we all are slowly dying a little every day.
Feeding tubes are no big deal. You measure out the liquid nourishment, unclamp the tube, and feed the person…no different than spoon feeding a baby or elderly person. What makes it more real to me is that my mother made up the recipe every couple of days (baby food meat and vegetables, vegetable oil, orange juice, powdered milk, potato flakes, eggs, etc) I can still visualize it and smell it. It was the staff of life and kept our little guy alive with all our hopes and dreams for him until God only called him home.
M
Mysty101
Guest
And “fair enough” makes up for all the judgemental posts you have made about me, both in this thread, and the Cardinal Law threads?
I have had much training in Pastoral Care, and it’s not about what you or I feel—it is about supporting people who are in pain, and faced with terrible decisions.
It is about sensitivity, as in the victims of the Boston abuse scandal—not about forgiving Cardinal Law.
Of course we treasure life, but we are talking about what constitutes extraordinary means in a person in a PVS, and I know I am not qualified to make that determination. I never said what we should or shouldn’t do, because I just do not know, and I will pray very hard and consult with Catholic professionals, if I ever need to know.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Excuse me?I feel very strongly about both situations and express it,apparently you do too:nope: As far as starving and dehydrating to death,who is not in a dying process,I think to pray for the person is what you should do.I would not support the intentional death of anybody.Please explain to me why the stree on the family or burden out weighs life?My mom had MS and had a feeding tube the last 3 years,the last 6 years she was bed ridden.She was in a nursing home the last few months and the nursing home killed her
MY dad had to have open heart surgery and then a hernia operation,so she was going to be there until he felt better and could help me care for her (I had 4 young children at the time).I hear all the sympathy for this,how much sympathy would’ve been had if Michael got caught putting a piilow over her face?But sympathy for a long cruel 13 day execution is beyond me.
F
fix
Guest
Exactly what the Vatican has said. Each case is different, but food and hydration are ordinary means, unless they do more harm than good or there is imminent death. Starvation or dehydration can never be the proximate cause of death.
F
fix
Guest
The obligation to provide the “normal care due to the sick in such cases” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”, Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their 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).
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040320_congress-fiamc_en.html
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).
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040320_congress-fiamc_en.html
P
Pumpkin
Guest
I am confused about this debate. I read what the USCCB wrote and this is what I got. The issue of enteral feeding for the USCCB and the Pope are the same…The difference is that the Pope did not address TPN/Hyperalimentation which is feeding through the venous system when the GI tract fails.
These are the two documents I read:
usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/nutend.htm
The USCCB do not permit the removal of enteral tube feeding. This is the tube inserted through either the nose or mouth into the stomach or tubes inserted surgically typically into the bowel. This only works with a gastrointestinal system that is functioning. This is what Terri Shiavo had and it appears the JPII, and the Bishops agreed, although they did not go into as great of detail as the Pope. In addition, it appears they wrote this in 2002 and the Pope wrote his in 2004.
Where do the Bishops and Pope disagree? I certainly would go with the highest authority the Pope in my direction of care and belief in my faith, but I believe this may be the error of misunderstanding medical jargon and not a true conflict in their statements.
The Pope went into greater detail describing the disability and status of the patient where as the Bishops went into greater detail in defining the medical treatment. The statements cannot be directly compared in addition the Bishops wrote their statement in 2002 and stated it was their initial response and it would not be their last, then the Pope clarified another aspect.
Please let me know if you all are reading a different statement by the Bishops than I am. I was previously an ICU nurse, I currently teach nursing students part-time at a Catholic university and I am the Clinical Quality Specialist at my hospital (Catholic), so I certainly want to be completely informed so that I know for myself and as I guide my students and hospital protocol in the right direction.
Sorry so wordy but I want to be 100% sure about the formation of morality and faith in my students and being that I guide protocol at a Catholic hospital we must make sure they fall inline with Catholic teaching. Thanks~ P
These are the two documents I read:
usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/nutend.htm
The USCCB do not permit the removal of enteral tube feeding. This is the tube inserted through either the nose or mouth into the stomach or tubes inserted surgically typically into the bowel. This only works with a gastrointestinal system that is functioning. This is what Terri Shiavo had and it appears the JPII, and the Bishops agreed, although they did not go into as great of detail as the Pope. In addition, it appears they wrote this in 2002 and the Pope wrote his in 2004.
What the Pope did not address was TPN/hyperalimentation, the Bishops did and it was based on the clinical studies done throughout the world regarding the clinical outcome of the use of TPN. This is supplemental feeding introduces through the venous system. The major indication for TPN is the total failure of the gastrointestinal tract to perform its normal function. The major complication is sepsis and infarction in the gut, which most often results in death. TPN does not decrease the morbidity and mortality of patients without GI functioning. It is used successfully in acutely ill patients, but not in chronic long-term conditions. Therefore weighing the medical risks is necessary when initiating TPN because you would not want to hasten death and you always want to feed the gut when ever possible. I would think they should not have even mentioned the cost in their statement because the medical outcome and clinical status always outweighs the cost.
Terri Shiavo and anyone in a coma, PVS or other illness where they are not able to orally consume food the mode of feeding, is tube feeding.
Where do the Bishops and Pope disagree? I certainly would go with the highest authority the Pope in my direction of care and belief in my faith, but I believe this may be the error of misunderstanding medical jargon and not a true conflict in their statements.
The Pope went into greater detail describing the disability and status of the patient where as the Bishops went into greater detail in defining the medical treatment. The statements cannot be directly compared in addition the Bishops wrote their statement in 2002 and stated it was their initial response and it would not be their last, then the Pope clarified another aspect.
Please let me know if you all are reading a different statement by the Bishops than I am. I was previously an ICU nurse, I currently teach nursing students part-time at a Catholic university and I am the Clinical Quality Specialist at my hospital (Catholic), so I certainly want to be completely informed so that I know for myself and as I guide my students and hospital protocol in the right direction.
Sorry so wordy but I want to be 100% sure about the formation of morality and faith in my students and being that I guide protocol at a Catholic hospital we must make sure they fall inline with Catholic teaching. Thanks~ P
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
I am sorry you felt I was being judgemental,I saw wisdom with the Cardinal Law situation.Also, as someon who was sexual assaulted at twelve,to remain in an anger and hurt mode does more aggrivating the problem than trying to live with it.Everyone seems to see this as a wonderful position,what everyone overlooks is the fact the Cardinal Law is reminded at every turn of what happened,it looks like a penance to me
M
Mysty101
Guest
It may look like a penance to you, but many people, especially those from Boston do not agree. (I have this first hand from someone who works in BU—there was much anguish with this salt in the wounds)
My point was, in sensitivity to these victims, Cardinal Law should have been kept out of the limelight. That is all I said. I would not want him defrocked, just in a less visual position.
(And with respect to feeding tubes – I said I am not qualified to make the decision, and that each case must be evaluated individually)
My point was, in sensitivity to these victims, Cardinal Law should have been kept out of the limelight. That is all I said. I would not want him defrocked, just in a less visual position.
(And with respect to feeding tubes – I said I am not qualified to make the decision, and that each case must be evaluated individually)
- Status