JP II Euthanized?!?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter averheyen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church does not require an individual, the Pope or anybody else, to submit to extraordinary means in order to continue living.
One of the biggest Supreme Court cases in the early 1970’s was that of Karen Ann Quinlan. She continued to live 15 years after discontinuation of life support. She was Catholic.
 
It means beyond simple medicine and basic nutrients. While each case would have to be scrutinized on its own, the medicinal difference would be something akin to painkillers versus advanced chemotherapy.
 
I think my real question is, where is the moral line drawn?

I mean, for one person something could be considered natural death, and to another the same situation considered euthanasia depending on where the line is in the answer to that question.
 
averheyen said:
Should I file this one on the same page as that female catholic priest on the cover of newsweek?
Click to expand...
The DaVinci Code made for an amusing story. A little dose of truth stirred into a pot of intrigue with a healthy mix of conspiracy theory. The concept that one of our most loved and revered Popes would be euthanized might also make for a good novel and a follow up movie. But other than the Hollywood factor, I doubt that there is a shred of truth to base the story on.
 
melensdad said:
The DaVinci Code made for an amusing story. A little dose of truth stirred into a pot of intrigue with a healthy mix of conspiracy theory. The concept that one of our most loved and revered Popes would be euthanized might also make for a good novel and a follow up movie. But other than the Hollywood factor, I doubt that there is a shred of truth to base the story on.
Click to expand...
Good point.

The DaVinci code made for a VERY ammusing story.

It was fast paced. Kept me hooked to the last minute.

so, yep…

…that about it.
 
CCC2278. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disporportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of ‘overzealous’ treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted…
CCC2299. The dying should be given attention and care to help them live their last moments in dignity and peace.

Example. I had a friend who was a priest. When he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer the prognosis was living six months with treatment and four months without. He chose to not have any treatment and died four months later.

The CCC further encourages palliative care (ie drugs to relieve pain) as an act of charity. Palliative care does not seek a cure. It is the difference between allowing a person to die in dignity versus actively causing death.
 
As an aside, am I the only one who got an ad for Tylenol pop up in the corner of this article? I hope that’s a random selection, as it seems like a cruelly ironic choice of advertising.
 
Oh, for Pete’s sake.

It’s strange, I keep thinking I’ve heard everything, but somebody always comes along to prove me wrong.
 
What I think of this:

Tripe, and the highest form of insult to JPII’s life and mission.
 
Makes me think Time is reaching for headlines. A sinking ship trying madly to regain readership. Its sad, really, that Time, once a reputable news source… has become a shadow of its former self and is now in the business of sensationalism.

The story is complete garbage.
 
thechrismyster said:
Makes me think Time is reaching for headlines. A sinking ship trying madly to regain readership. Its sad, really, that Time, once a reputable news source… has become a shadow of its former self and is now in the business of sensationalism.

The story is complete garbage.
Click to expand...
This story was garbage of the highest order. The reporter clearly didn’t even check his facts re: the Church’s position on end of life issues (“Catholic are enjoined to pursue all means to prolong life”.) The Italian physician who stirred all this clearly has an axe to grind and, apparently, so does TIME.
 
i think this story is just another 15 minutes of fame hooey.
“She bases this conclusion on her medical expertise and her own observations of the ailing pontiff on television, as well as press reports and a subsequent book by John Paul’s personal physician”
 
chewchoo said:
i think this story is just another 15 minutes of fame hooey.
“She bases this conclusion on her medical expertise and her own observations of the ailing pontiff on television, as well as press reports and a subsequent book by John Paul’s personal physician”
Click to expand...
Well think of it this way:

Make a grossly outlandish claim, back it up with “expert” eyewitness testimony, secure the rights to the book deal, the T.V. documentrary, the appearances on Letterman, the 700 Club, the daily show with Jon Stewart.

And just sit back, and cash in.

My friend, this is a business decision!
 
I think the following quote from the Time article tells us all we need to know:

The article, entitled “The Sweet Death of Karol Wojtyla” (using the Pope’s birth name) appears in the latest edition of Micromega, a highbrow Italian bi-monthly that has frequently criticized the Vatican’s stance on bioethics.

(emphasis added)

Clearly the intent is to suggest that JPII (and the Church as a whole) are hypocritical with regard to end of life issues. What I remember was that the decision to place the feeding tube was during the week and a half that Terry Schiavo was being starved and dehydrated to death by order of her husband, who wanted to remarry. The Vatican was quite clear at the time that the removal of Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube and cessation of nutrition and hydration was a travesty. At the time, I thought that the insertion of a feeding tube into JPII was a bold statement to backup that statement regarding the Schiavo situation.

First Bl. Mother Teresa is an athiest and now JPII intentionally forsook medical treatment that would have prolonged his life. Next they’ll tell us Jesus was married and had a child. Oh wait they did that too.

The enemy will always attack the Church and her leaders. My belief is that in the end, JPII will be rightly remembered as St. John Paul the Great, Doctor of the Church.

Pax et Bonem.
 
Going back to that whole thing with Bl. Threasa being an athiest because she didn’t feel the presence of God for most of her life.

The same thing happened to Job, didn’t it?

So wouldn’t that make the media one of “Job’s comforters”?

I never understood the necessity of kicking someone when they’re down.
 
I don’t know whether or not there was any issue with JP II and a feeding tube in his own care, but if he was offered the use of one and denied it, this is not, according to my understanding, euthanasia.

One of the points of the Natural Law is that we are but humans participating in God’s divine law, which is intrinsic to our nature, hence, it is the Natural Law. Through this understanding, if one is facing the end of his life, he can choose not to undergo treatments which may prolong that life. He can instead choose to suffer or to just accept God’s will and await his death by the course of nature.

Euthanasia would be the removal of something that is keeping someone alive or intentionally seeking death. It’s the principle of double effect: if the Cause that is sought is death, it is wrong. If the cause that is sought is relief of pain, and there brings with it a chance of death, then it is not in itself wrong.

Regarding feeding tubes, JP II wrote a document on the conditions of people in a permanent vegetative state and stated that the use of a feeding tube is not considered “extraordinary means.” Extraordinary means, as someone quoted earlier from the Catechism, can be refused or removed.

A feeding tube, as JP II stated, is not an extraordinary means because it is not a method, nor does it offer a cure. Rather, it is something that provides nutrition and helps someone uphold their human dignity. As such, it ought to be used in cases in which there is nobody to speak for a patient. So, to withhold a feeding tube from a patient in the emergency room who has no representative to make medical decisions would be intrinsically evil in the eyes of the Church.

The feeding tube issue seems to be one that, under certain conditions, Must be used (as in the case above), but can also be denied as a way to accept God’s will and to prepare for a natural death.
 
Sorry; about Double Effect: an evil action is evil, no matter what. But, if an evil arises as a side effect of a good, then the person acting in the way to choose the Good is not guilty or culpable for the evil act which results. So, choosing to use a pain killer to alleviate suffering that carries with it a slight risk of death is acceptable. A person may do so and not be considered culpable of killing himself. Similarly, a woman may have an operation performed to remove her uterus which may cause an abortion, but since the intention is to save the mother and a consequence of it is the death of the child, this woman would not be guilty of committing an abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top