K
KathleenElsie
Guest
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10504
For those that think end of life is at the will of man and not God.
HLI president encourages Catholics who supported Schiavo killing to "seriously repent and re-evaluate consciences"
- Status
S
sosayi1960
Guest
God does not will forced feeding!
How many of these people have taken care of dying people. ? Let this poor woman rest in peace!
F
fix
Guest
How is it forced to provide what is needed to live? You have it backward.
T
thomass
Guest
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.
My family suffered 16 years of “persistent vegitative state” in the form of my brother’s broken body and smashed brain. Although his body finally died in 1995, I am certain that, even now, healing has not yet begun for some in my family.
My mother has taught me much about the dignity of life and natural death. I respect her for her fight for her son. I fear for the toll it took on her and I pray for her as I do for many others, including myself, who have not yet discerned the affect this thing has had on us, let alone begun to heal.
Originally, like my mother, I believed my brother would someday “wake-up.” I am tormented by the fact that I came to believe- to this day, that my brother died in the car accident which, with the help of doctors, left him and us in this state. The body we were left to care for was once occupied by my brother and my mother dutifully fed it, kept it clean and shaved and gave it music and smells and all else she could think of. And then finally and mercifully it died after 16 years.
I read many of you on these forums with very un-christian things to say about Michael Schiavo. I tell you, you have no idea what you are talking about.
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.
My family suffered 16 years of “persistent vegitative state” in the form of my brother’s broken body and smashed brain. Although his body finally died in 1995, I am certain that, even now, healing has not yet begun for some in my family.
My mother has taught me much about the dignity of life and natural death. I respect her for her fight for her son. I fear for the toll it took on her and I pray for her as I do for many others, including myself, who have not yet discerned the affect this thing has had on us, let alone begun to heal.
Originally, like my mother, I believed my brother would someday “wake-up.” I am tormented by the fact that I came to believe- to this day, that my brother died in the car accident which, with the help of doctors, left him and us in this state. The body we were left to care for was once occupied by my brother and my mother dutifully fed it, kept it clean and shaved and gave it music and smells and all else she could think of. And then finally and mercifully it died after 16 years.
I read many of you on these forums with very un-christian things to say about Michael Schiavo. I tell you, you have no idea what you are talking about.
D
Della
Guest
I would not presume to tell you how to deal with your feelings, and you have my sympathy and prayers. I cannot, however, agree with your assessment of your brother’s situation.
I very much agree that doctors ought to leave well enough alone when it is obvious a person is not going to survive without extraordinary means at the time of the trauma. There’s a time to turn off the machines when it is obvious the person’s life would end without them, which is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching.
People do tend to have unrealistic expectations, and the very few instances in which a person recovers enough to fulfill some of those expectations encourages us to think this way. It would be better to think of each day of life as a gift instead of something expected, even for those of us in full possession of our minds and bodies.
But, your experience and that of the Schiavos are not identical. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. But, since your brother did survive (as Terri Schiavo did) our obligation was to care for them. Food and water are basic care, not extraordinary care, when they can be administered. Extraordinary care would have been breathing or keeping the heart going artificially, etc.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Note the recent Vatican statement:
**
CONCERNING ARTIFICIAL NUTRITION AND HYDRATION
First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a “vegetative state” morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?
Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.
Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a “permanent vegetative state”, may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?
Response: No. A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these Responses, adopted in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 1, 2007.
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
As I understand, this was issued in direct answer to the Schiavo case. **
**
OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
CONCERNING ARTIFICIAL NUTRITION AND HYDRATION
First question: Is the administration of food and water (whether by natural or artificial means) to a patient in a “vegetative state” morally obligatory except when they cannot be assimilated by the patient’s body or cannot be administered to the patient without causing significant physical discomfort?
Response: Yes. The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented.
Second question: When nutrition and hydration are being supplied by artificial means to a patient in a “permanent vegetative state”, may they be discontinued when competent physicians judge with moral certainty that the patient will never recover consciousness?
Response: No. A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these Responses, adopted in the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 1, 2007.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
As I understand, this was issued in direct answer to the Schiavo case. **
G
goofyjim
Guest
And who pray tell pays for the cost of something that will probably never bring the person back to full consiciousness? When the time comes close I will prepare a living will for my relatives left behind not to keep me alive in that fashion. It is considered a little extreme to say they are alive and forever keep them in a vegetative state.
Now I don’t claim to know the legal aspects of what went on in the Schiavo case but as I said I can’t pay for treatment like that and I don’t expect my living relatives to pay for it either.
Now I don’t claim to know the legal aspects of what went on in the Schiavo case but as I said I can’t pay for treatment like that and I don’t expect my living relatives to pay for it either.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
I have no problem giving religious consent to the Magisterium in all cases, but I revile and despise people of a certain political persuasion using Terri Schiavo’s corpse as a political tool to bash over the heads of their opponents. “Pro-life” indeed.
T
thomass
Guest
Della, I appreciate your sympathy and your prayers and I do not want to respond with anything but patience. But your last paragraph makes my point. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You believe “extraordinary care” to be “machines,” and feel comfortable saying that turning them off would be “in keeping with Catholic teaching,” yet I could give you pages of the extraordinary care involved in caring for one of these patients, whether they are on “machines” or not.
Dad’s company fired him after their insurance had paid out over 1.5 million dollars. My two younger sisters lost their brother AND their mother, who had to be everything to the patient. Friends just go away after the first few months… Believe me Della I could go on for pages with the “extraordinary care” required to feed and hydrate one of these patients.
I’ll summarize.
- persistant vegitative state is not abortion, it is not captital punishment-- and it is not euthinasia, these patients defy categories and, as individuals and as a society we simply DO NOT KNOW how to adequately deal with them
- The teaching of the Church regarding the dignity of human life (teaching which I fully embrace) is limited in it guidence in these situations.
- Regardless of all that can and will be said- IT IS UNCHRISTIAN TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THESE SITUATIONS.
D
DaughterSorrow
Guest
What a difficult cross you and your family has had to bear all those years! I find in these situations where God asks so much of us, that you must be a very strong obedient servant of His. I hope your offered all this suffering up to Jesus, who is the only one who could really understand the true weight of such a burden. I certainly can’t fathom the situation you dealt with.
In Peace,
DS
R
rpp
Guest
Thomass,
I had a similar experience with my sister’s mother-in-law. She contracted a form of encephalitis and was PVS for 12 years before her death. Once the infection was knocked down, she did not require artificial means to live, only food and hydration. As she had been very healthy before she became ill, she often did not even receive many drugs. She was blind, deaf and unresponsive much of the time. Her final cause of death was heart failure while struggling with pneumonia.
I often helped care for her as my brother-in-law was an only child and they were my only family here in this part of the country. Yes, the financial burdens were heavy, though I admit I did not bear them. At times it was a strain on all of us to help care for her.
But I am afraid I did not come to the same conclusions as you have.
At no time did anyone in my family, and we were all atheists at that time, consider trying to kill my BIL’s mother by taking away her food or water. I can honestly say that such a thought would have horrified us. In fact, at then end when my BIL’s mother was suffering from pneumonia, my BIL agreed to have a breathing tube inserted to help her breath. Sadly, it was too late and she ultimately had some type of heart failure.
While I am sorry for the very painful way you lost your brother, I think I can say I understand a little about what you went through. Though your experience was quite different than mine.
Now that I have given you little about me, let me say this: What Michael Shiavo did, with the help of the courts, was utterly evil. He caused the death of a person. That can not be justified in these circumstances. This Church has repeatedly stated that providing food and hydration, even when artificially administered is required.
Finally, how do you know that some of these men have not had similar experiences? Many of them are older and come from larger families. Perhaps a relative or even a parent was suffered in this way. Many of them have been pastors and have almost certainly had to help parishioners deal with this very thing. To claim that they do not understand seems presumptuous to me. Not judgmental, just presumptuous.
I had a similar experience with my sister’s mother-in-law. She contracted a form of encephalitis and was PVS for 12 years before her death. Once the infection was knocked down, she did not require artificial means to live, only food and hydration. As she had been very healthy before she became ill, she often did not even receive many drugs. She was blind, deaf and unresponsive much of the time. Her final cause of death was heart failure while struggling with pneumonia.
I often helped care for her as my brother-in-law was an only child and they were my only family here in this part of the country. Yes, the financial burdens were heavy, though I admit I did not bear them. At times it was a strain on all of us to help care for her.
But I am afraid I did not come to the same conclusions as you have.
At no time did anyone in my family, and we were all atheists at that time, consider trying to kill my BIL’s mother by taking away her food or water. I can honestly say that such a thought would have horrified us. In fact, at then end when my BIL’s mother was suffering from pneumonia, my BIL agreed to have a breathing tube inserted to help her breath. Sadly, it was too late and she ultimately had some type of heart failure.
While I am sorry for the very painful way you lost your brother, I think I can say I understand a little about what you went through. Though your experience was quite different than mine.
Now that I have given you little about me, let me say this: What Michael Shiavo did, with the help of the courts, was utterly evil. He caused the death of a person. That can not be justified in these circumstances. This Church has repeatedly stated that providing food and hydration, even when artificially administered is required.
Finally, how do you know that some of these men have not had similar experiences? Many of them are older and come from larger families. Perhaps a relative or even a parent was suffered in this way. Many of them have been pastors and have almost certainly had to help parishioners deal with this very thing. To claim that they do not understand seems presumptuous to me. Not judgmental, just presumptuous.
D
DRIVING_BEAR
Guest
I think one important point is being overlooked in this discussion.
That is ONLY GOD KNEW / KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE HEAD OF TERRI SCHIVO OR ANY ONE ELSE IN A PVS.
One problem among many i had with the Terri Schivo case was that the public at large including christians seem to accept the word of the doctors and almost grant them pseudo divine authority. Don’t get me wrong I respect the medical community, however they are no where near infallible
That is ONLY GOD KNEW / KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE HEAD OF TERRI SCHIVO OR ANY ONE ELSE IN A PVS.
One problem among many i had with the Terri Schivo case was that the public at large including christians seem to accept the word of the doctors and almost grant them pseudo divine authority. Don’t get me wrong I respect the medical community, however they are no where near infallible
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Matthew 25:41
B
blessedtoo
Guest
But what of your brother’s soul?
As Catholics, we believe the soul leaves the body at the moment of physical death. I assume you hold this belief as well. While we can not know for certain what the patient in such a state is experiencing on any cognitive level, we do accept that the person is still a living soul. Until God allows that soul it’s passage into eternal life, are we not obligated to continue our support?
R
Reepicheep
Guest
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.
S
Seatuck
Guest
What was keeping her alive if she was “brain dead”? Obviously part of her brain was still functioning.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
I’m not a trained physician.
But those who are were testifying, under oath in courts of law, that only the parts of her brain that controlled basic physical processes were still functioning.
That the portion of the brain that makes possible such things as thought and awareness were not only failed, but physically decayed away. That, if true, is more than enough “brain dead” to convince me that (barring a genuine, theological miracle on the order of a resurrection) what’s left is not “Terri Schiavo” but “the corpse of Terri Schiavo”.
Of course, one must consider the possibility that it’s not true, since a doctor could lie or a judge be dishonest or biased or incompetent.
In this case though, from what I’ve read, we have a parade of doctors all saying this, and a parade of judges examining the testimony and saying they see no cause to doubt the doctors who say this.
Against that we have one or two doctors being paid by her parents, who say what the parents desperately want to hear, and who were heard (and dismissed) by the courts.
I think the preponderance of evidence favors the conclusion that Terri Schiavo was dead years before the doctors removed the feeding tube. It was her corpse that was being kept going.
But those who are were testifying, under oath in courts of law, that only the parts of her brain that controlled basic physical processes were still functioning.
That the portion of the brain that makes possible such things as thought and awareness were not only failed, but physically decayed away. That, if true, is more than enough “brain dead” to convince me that (barring a genuine, theological miracle on the order of a resurrection) what’s left is not “Terri Schiavo” but “the corpse of Terri Schiavo”.
Of course, one must consider the possibility that it’s not true, since a doctor could lie or a judge be dishonest or biased or incompetent.
In this case though, from what I’ve read, we have a parade of doctors all saying this, and a parade of judges examining the testimony and saying they see no cause to doubt the doctors who say this.
Against that we have one or two doctors being paid by her parents, who say what the parents desperately want to hear, and who were heard (and dismissed) by the courts.
I think the preponderance of evidence favors the conclusion that Terri Schiavo was dead years before the doctors removed the feeding tube. It was her corpse that was being kept going.
F
fix
Guest
At what point does the soul leave the body?
Why is their definition of death correct theologically and morally?
By this standard it is permissible to kill the body by dehydration and starvation?
R
Reepicheep
Guest
I don’t know.
I don’t know that it is. Then again I don’t know that it isn’t. I do know that they know more about the issues, and knew more about Terri Schiavo’s condition, than me.
Not “kill”, no. But it is permissible to give up when the effort to sustain life has become futile.
I simply don’ t know enough, about medicine in general and the Schiavo case in particular, to speak with authority. What I can say is this. Between what I’ve heard about Micheal’s side of this, and what I’ve heard about Terri’s parents’ side, I believe Micheal’s version of events is more likely to be true. Terri was gone beyond recall before the court battle began. Micheal was honestly trying to do what he thought Terri would want, and her parents just couldn’t accept it so they demonized him over it.
R
rpp
Guest
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.
- Status