But it was John Paul II’s choice. The Church teaches the patient has the choice (as long as it’s not passive euthanasia).I seem to recall that Pope John Paul II declined artificial nutrition/ hydration even the he himself declared it “ordinary”. Does that make him immoral? Certainly not. It was his choice to consider the benefits and the burdens. Generally speaking, the patient should decide. But if it is unreasonable, that is another question.
Nope…I seem to recall that Pope John Paul II declined artificial nutrition/ hydration even the he himself declared it “ordinary”
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS
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
This. Terri Schiavo was not on mechanical ventilator support. She could breathe very easily on her own.This isn’t necessarily applicable to a person who was just plugged out of life support and is dying, as has been established.
This is for people who would in fact starve to death without food because they don’t need a life support machine to keep their body alive.
???Terri Schiavo - while she had brain damage - did not have degenerative, irreparable…I’ll say it…what amounted to decay of brain tissue.
You are comparing apples to oranges in a clinical sense, because their conditions are not even remotely related.
Oh good heavens.I_trust said:You said I was comparing apples to oranges.
The parents would’ve had no way to pay the bill.I don’t know enough about the case, but if the parents are willing to pay the costs, and it doesn’t cause the baby to suffer, I don’t see why they couldn’t keep at it. But if the parents want to foot the bill an it causes the child to suffer without reasonable hope of recovery, I’m not so sure.
But this doesn’t have a thing to do with the teaching or bioethics. Not being funny, but I can read what was written and easily apply it to medicine - and it’s not a valid application here. It’s just not - because as I said, it’s not his medical condition. That is a Terri Schiavo-type situation. Not an Alfie situation.I do not agree that the teaching does not apply in Alfie’s case.
I respect that you have medical expertise, but that does not necessarily equate to being an expert on Church teaching or on bioethics.
They could not save him. There was no reversing his condition. His brain - essentially was rotting away. There was no further care to be done. There was no changing the outcome.“We can save your baby, but he’ll always be in a coma feeling like he’s on fire”