HLI president encourages Catholics who supported Schiavo killing to "seriously repent and re-evaluate consciences"

[Orionthehunter]

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10504

For those that think end of life is at the will of man and not God.

I think he should have used words that were less condemning and more pastoral. It is my belief that those who supported the former husband were victims of mis-directed compassion for Terry. Now that the Church has spoken more clearly, this is an opportunity for them to gain proper knowledge and understanding for the formation of their conscience. It is my personal opinion that an invitation to learn will be a more effective instrument for conversion that chastisement. Chastisement is for those who do wrong despite knowing otherwise. I don’t believe that was the motivation of most of those who advocated her death from starvation. See the post below of Tomass who is just such a person with their heart in the right place, despite being seriously mis-guided.

How is it forced to provide what is needed to live? You have it backward.

Exactly. It is her who needed food. We are called to feed the hungry. Failure to do so is bad. To do so with intention is very bad.

What an amazing forum. I’ve just finished reviewing the thread asking whether it was hypocrytical to be against abortion while at the same time being for capital punishment, and now I find Terry Shiavo’s death being discussed.

I believe I am consistent in my opposition of both abortion and capital punishment. And am prepared to be vilified for believing that catholics and the rest of the country should leave Terry’s husband and parents to their difficulties. Whoever is being quoted in telling me I should reexamine my conscience has the right to his opinions but I wish he would keep quiet on this one.

 

[Reepicheep]

Reepicheep, Your statements regarding the removal of food and hydration from a comatose person are not consistent with Catholic Church teachings. The Church teaches that food and water, even when delivered by a feeding tube, is never to be considered extraordinary means. The Church teaches that providing food and hydration is always a requitement and it can never be withheld.

Link to a relevant Vatican document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Vatican website). And the USCCB commentary on it.

RPP.
I do not, and never will, condone depriving a comatose person of food and water.
Neither will I ever knowingly contradict the clear teaching of Holy Mother Church on any issue of faith or morals.
To prevent misunderstandings, I repeat:

**Never is it right or permissible to withhold nourishment from a comatose person.
The term "nourishment’ includes both food and water, and it is wrong to withhold either. **

My position on Terri Schiavo is not that it was permissible to withhold nourishment from her because she had been comatose for so long.
My position is that, if the medical evidence is to be believed, she was not comatose at all. She was dead. Medical technology had kept her body, or some functions of her body, going for years, but Terri herself was gone.
If you were to prove to my satisfaction that I’m wrong about the facts of the case, and that Terri was in fact still alive in that body, then I would change my position.

 

[mlchance]

God does not will forced feeding!

Proof? Along the way, please provide proof that God wills starving someone to death.

The Church teaches that providing food and hydration is always a requitement and it can never be withheld.

That isn’t quite accurate. If feeding or hydration were to cause other, more immediately serious problems, then either or both could be legimitately withheld. I faced this problem several years ago with the mother of a deceased friend. She had intestinal obstructions that made feeding a threat to her life.

If you were to prove to my satisfaction that I’m wrong about the facts of the case, and that Terri was in fact still alive in that body, then I would change my position.

A corpse’s heart doesn’t beat on its own. Terry Schiavo’s did. A corpse can’t die from dehydration. Terry Schiavo did. Your position is self-refuting.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .My position is that, if the medical evidence is to be believed, she was not comatose at all. She was dead. Medical technology had kept her body, or some functions of her body, going for years, but Terri herself was gone.
If you were to prove to my satisfaction that I’m wrong about the facts of the case, and that Terri was in fact still alive in that body, then I would change my position.

What medical technology kept her alive. All she was receiving was food that her body was processing nauturally. How many dead bodies can process food.

I have a gun here. Is is proper for me to fire it at random out the window unless you prove to my satisfaction that the bullet will injure a living person.

 

[Reepicheep]

Fix, rpp, Joe Kelley, you all raise good points.
But I fear that to continue to discuss this might lead to recriminations, possibly flames. Aside from that, we’re getting into disputes over theory and theology, in which I feel myself inadequate to hold a debate.

So I’m bowing out of this thread.

May the Peace of Christ fill all your lives.

 

[KathleenElsie]

RPP.
I do not, and never will, condone depriving a comatose person of food and water.
Neither will I ever knowingly contradict the clear teaching of Holy Mother Church on any issue of faith or morals.
To prevent misunderstandings, I repeat:

**Never is it right or permissible to withhold nourishment from a comatose person. **
**The term "nourishment’ includes both food and water, and it is wrong to withhold either. **

My position on Terri Schiavo is not that it was permissible to withhold nourishment from her because she had been comatose for so long.
My position is that, if the medical evidence is to be believed, she was not comatose at all. She was dead. Medical technology had kept her body, or some functions of her body, going for years, but Terri herself was gone. Since there were no machines breathing for her. How can you say she was dead? How do you define dead? All that happened was to starve her. If you withheld food and water from me I would also die. Yet I can assure you I am not dead.
If you were to prove to my satisfaction that I’m wrong about the facts of the case, and that Terri was in fact still alive in that body, then I would change my position.

Is being alive being able to talk? Ask a baby to talk. Or a deaf person etc.
Is being alive the ability to walk? Ask the baby or the paraplegic.
Is being alive the ability to see? Ask the blind person.

You see there are many people that are different yet they have the same need for food and water.

 

[thomass]

I would like to thank everyone for their patience and prayers regarding my somewhat hasty posts last week.

A Priest is called to make us examine our conscience. It is fundamental to his call as a Priest. And the more it hurts, the more likely he is pricking your conscience where it needs to be pricked.

It is precisely because my conscience is constantly “pricked” regarding each of my “decisions” of those 16 years that I am continually re-examining these issues. I doubt there will ever be an end to that.

Orionthehunter said,
“Your mother might have taught you alot about the dignity of life and natural death but I don’t think you have learned the lesson. If you only see negative (human toll), you are missing the real lesson about unconditional love.”

Well, I guess, the “real” lesson is learned slowly, again and again over the course of a life. Perhaps one thing I learned from my mother regarding this topic is that I don’t, so easily, question her judgement anymore.

Orionthehunter said,
“…I’m not just talking about the premature hastening of your brother’s death. I’m talking about not allowing you to take the easy out.”

Believe me when I thank you for your concern about helping me make the right choice. I suppose I need to clarify something from my earlier posts. The controversy over Terry Schiavo’s life and death brought me to the realization that, although I believed I knew exactly what I would do if the decision were mine to make, in fact I have no idea what I would do in that position. Despite my proximity, the decision was never mine. I should also say that, in my memory, I never pushed mom in one direction or the other.

To this day, it is my belief that my brother died in the car accident. I’m not going to enter the useless discussion regarding “when the soul leaves the body,” although I have spent many years with it in the past. Because he died in the car accident the question is not about “healing” or about requirements of care. In my opinion advances in emergency medicine create these patients and then dump them on families and on society to deal with as they see fit. The decision regards only the humane, dignified treatment of a living corpse. Our dilema as Catholics arises from the ridiculous oxomoron of the last sentence. We thought that 2000 years and war and abortion and euthanasia had brought us to all of our CORRECT decisions regarding the dignity of human life. And then in the last 40 years medicine dumps these patients on us and the categories don’t fit anymore. The patient’s body breaths, eats, defacates, sleeps, snores, rests, gets excited (for 28 years my mother has been telling people that my brother reacted differently to me than to anyone else entering his room- this is one of the many peices of evidence she used to argue he “was still there.” I did not agree with how she characterized his reaction to my entrance). But the patient is not there (I am referring to my brother-- other posters have told us of other dificult experiences and I have no comment on the similarity, or lack it, to my brother’s), and that is the distinction I wish to make. Of course, Catholic teaching is clear regarding the care of sick people, terminally or otherwise. But what if the only sick thing in all of this is that that the patient died but body didn’t?

Orionthehunter said,
“God decided to give your mother, you and your family this cross.”

I guess it was probably two weeks or so after the accident that my Dad first said, “God wouldn’t have given us this if he didn’t know we could handle it.” Another version of the same thought, “Whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.” Yes, meeting the trials of life either kills us or make us stronger. God wants us to learn his love from our life here, yes all true. All true.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I would like to thank everyone for their patience and prayers regarding my somewhat hasty posts last week.

Believe me when I thank you for your concern about helping me make the right choice.
To this day, it is my belief that my brother died in the car accident.

And then in the last 40 years medicine dumps these patients on us and the categories don’t fit anymore.

But what if the only sick thing in all of this is that that the patient died but body didn’t?

Yes, meeting the trials of life either kills us or make us stronger. God wants us to learn his love from our life here, yes all true. All true.

Thomass: May I touch on some of your thoughts that I selected from your previous post?

My heart goes out to you. Despite sometimes you saying words contrary to Church Teaching, what came through much clearer and better illuminated from your heart was your pain. It was really no challenge to reach out and try to sympathize with you.

I understand why you needed to believe your brother “died” in the accident. From that day forward, he was never again to be the brother that he had always been to you. But I strongly suspect that for the next 28 years, he was a brother to you in this world in a different way. Just as he is a brother to you in another way now that he is in Heaven. Look for those ways (while he was confined to bed and now in Heaven) and you will find them.

You are so correct that modern medicine has created new challenges regarding “right procedures” and protocols. But it is just another example of God giving us gifts and obligations of proper stewardship.

All bodies die. Our souls never do. Although I deleted your statement about not debating when the soul leaves the body, you are correct. It is a useless debate for you and I. Whether God had taken his soul after the accident or when his body died, the essentials of your brother always remained and your love never ceases. But, there is no argument, God left your brother’s body for your family to continue to care for. You accepted it as you were asked and you should thank God for the strength to do so. What a beautiful gift to love. I suspect your brother appreciated the loving car you gave his body for all those years.

Your parting words said it all. I do think you learned the lesson well. It reminds me of distant relative who had a Down’s child. Most of my life, I only saw the negative effect of Leslie Kay on that family (expense, emotional toil and tear, discord). When my relative was dying, he told another relative that his biggest regret of dying now (wife had already died) was not that he was going to leave his “healthy” child and her family but that he was leaving his greatest blessing behind. Upon reflection, I think it was upon his deathbed that he came to the realization of what a blessing she was.

Praise God for He is so Good!

 

[rpp]

That isn’t quite accurate. If feeding or hydration were to cause other, more immediately serious problems, then either or both could be legimitately withheld. I faced this problem several years ago with the mother of a deceased friend. She had intestinal obstructions that made feeding a threat to her life.

You are correct here. The Church does teach that providing nutrition must always be done, when doing so will not be unreasonably painful or inherently dangerous. I just left out the qualifier when I made the post. Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[rpp]

By the way, this issue is one I am dealing with right now.

You see, my elderly parents live with me and I care for them. While neither are comatose, both are too frail to live on their own. While they make their own medical decisions, they rely on me to help them make informed decisions as well as manage their medication and care.

This past Friday, doctors had to insert a nasal feeding tube for my father. While he is alert, he is not able to breath well enough to eat, he gets too tired. (He has no teeth and “gumming” his food takes a lot of work.)

Before the tube was inserted, one nurse told me she always recommends that patients should never have feeding tubes inserted. She thinks that such people should be starved to death as they are near death anyway. She actually tried to talk me out of having the tube inserted for my father and then went on to say that the law should be changed **requiring **feeding tubes to be removed after some arbitrary period of time. As a result of that conversation, I made arrangements to ensure that this nurse will have no further contact with my father or mother.

 

[rpp]

My position on Terri Schiavo is not that it was permissible to withhold nourishment from her because she had been comatose for so long.
My position is that, if the medical evidence is to be believed, she was not comatose at all. She was dead. Medical technology had kept her body, or some functions of her body, going for years, but Terri herself was gone.
If you were to prove to my satisfaction that I’m wrong about the facts of the case, and that Terri was in fact still alive in that body, then I would change my position.

While I may be wrong, I believe that Terri Shiavo was not receiving any medical care. She was not on a respirator or any other medical support. She was not being kept alive through artificial means. While she did need 24 hour care, it was to assist with her natural bodily functions. She was not even getting physical therapy. That is why the only means with which Michael Shiavo could end her life was to starve and dehydrate her to death by the withholding of nourishment.

So she was, in fact, not dead.

 

[KathleenElsie]

By the way, this issue is one I am dealing with right now.

You see, my elderly parents live with me and I care for them. While neither are comatose, both are too frail to live on their own. While they make their own medical decisions, they rely on me to help them make informed decisions as well as manage their medication and care.

This past Friday, doctors had to insert a nasal feeding tube for my father. While he is alert, he is not able to breath well enough to eat, he gets too tired. (He has no teeth and “gumming” his food takes a lot of work.)

Before the tube was inserted, one nurse told me she always recommends that patients should never have feeding tubes inserted. She thinks that such people should be starved to death as they are near death anyway. She actually tried to talk me out of having the tube inserted for my father and then went on to say that the law should be changed **requiring **feeding tubes to be removed after some arbitrary period of time. As a result of that conversation, I made arrangements to ensure that this nurse will have no further contact with my father or mother.

I hope you requested another nurse for your father. When there is someone involved with the care that does not believe in the means of feeding it just becomes harder for the one that is being cared for.

 

[rpp]

I hope you requested another nurse for your father. When there is someone involved with the care that does not believe in the means of feeding it just becomes harder for the one that is being cared for.

I most certainly did, and I did so immediately, effective on that very shift. I also am in the process of filing a complaint with the manager of the facility.

The conversation started because, after talking to my father, we (I) initiated the request for a feeding tube. When I asked the nurse to make a request that the in-house doctor evaluate my Dad for it, she launched into into this explanation about why feeding tubes are bad and should never be used (“Why help a dying person?”) Then, before I had any chance to say anything, she starts into this political discussion.

Disgusted, I finally interrupted her and said “You are advocating the murder of sick people.”

She responded, “No I am not. It is not murder to let someone who is very ill to die. Look around here, are any of these people ever going to be productive citizens again?”

At that point I had to walk away.

But then, physician assisted suicide is legal in Oregon.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I just don’t understand why people with this mind set are in the care situations.

My mother would have died because they wanted to keep the tube in place even though it was making her sicker. Her care takers were of the mindset that anything goes ventilators etc. The tube was removed, I fed her tiny meals till she could swallow on her own and its been two years now. The formulas that were available to her were toxic to her system and it was just a means of feeding her faster for them. The physical therapist was wonderful helping me teach her to swallow again. I was a bit luckier then you as mom had had implanted frames for her false teeth a year prior to her stroke. They are semi-permanent and let her chew and not gum it.

 

[masondoggy]

Nowhere near infallible, true - but wasn’t it the case that almost every doctor who examined Terry said she was brain dead?
In general the only ones to say she was alive were the ones her parents hired. and the courts repeatedly examined and rejected their testimony.

The courts are not infallible either - but over years of time, court after court after court examined the evidence and agreed that it showed Terri was gone, brain-dead.
The case went on only because Terri’s parents refused ever to accept any of this and appealed endlessly till they had no avenue of appeal left to try.

Edit: I fully agree that one must never withhold the normal means of life from the living. The issue with Terri was whether she was in fact, still living.
Multiple doctors over years kept saying no, she was not. Multiple courts kept saying there was no reason to disbelieve the doctors.

I followed that case very, very closely. There was never a disagreement between Michael’s chosen dr’s and her parents over her being brain dead. She absolutely was NOT brain dead. That was a misconception perpetuated by the media.

All the dr’s agreed that Terri had severe brain injury/damage. What they did not agree on was whether or not she was responsive (Her parents and their dr’s reported that she responded to stimuli), and whether or not she had any meaningful hope of recovery. The courts determined that since her dr’s believed she couldn’t recover and get up and walk and talk, her life was by all means over. Brain death was never an issue. If she was brain dead, she would have needed a respirator etc, and she did not need anything but daily nursing care and a feeding tube. That’s it. Well, and some rehabilitation care in which Michael would not allow her to have, even against several dr’s recommendations.

As for the courts, no they did not review the evidence over and over and over. The fact is that the evidence was only looked at in the initial trial, a trial that was fumbled by an incompetent attorney of her parents. After that, every single court appearance had to do with reviewing that judge’s decision, not the evidence. That’s what that whole shenanigan in Washington with Pres. Bush was about, they were trying at the very last minute to force the courts to take another look at the evidence which indisputably would have proven that Terri was responsive and had some hope of recovery. Didn’t happen, she was killed.

Her parents refused to give up because they knew that Terri was responsive and that there was hope, AND because they knew it was morally wrong to take out that feeding tube and let her physically STARVE to death in the most painful and vicious way.

They did what they had to in order to protect their child.

 

[RobHom]

What was keeping her alive if she was “brain dead”? Obviously part of her brain was still functioning.

The “autonomic response built into the cerebellum”. That is all. That portion of the brain is not intelligent.

 

[jediliz]

Terri Schindler was a Victim. Her husband didn’t love her. He committed adultery while she was lying in a hospice bed and not allowed anything - no flowers, no window shade raised, nothing. He even denied her being able to receive communion.

I followed Terri’s plight and I prayed for her. I prayed for people to see that she was disabled, not a vegetable. But the world did not see it as so. The world was so convinced that she was on LIFE SUPPORT (since when is food and water life support? She could breathe on her own).

I know this - any doctor that supported her tube removal by her husband that cheated on his marriage vows, better not become my doctor when my life is near the end.