Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[Lochias]

Read an article today about this case.

Doctors say that the baby is so badly deformed that a gender cannot be determined. The heartbeat is very week and there is massive amounts of fluid on the brain.

None of that makes the baby less human. It’s alive, and we cannot murder a human child.

 

[estesbob]

Read an article today about this case.

Doctors say that the baby is so badly deformed that a gender cannot be determined. The heartbeat is very week and there is massive amounts of fluid on the brain.

Could you provide a link?

 

[SMGS127]

In other words, she’s not dead. Gotcha.

She IS dead, authoritatively speaking vis-a-vis the Catholic Church. Brain death absolutely, 100% constitutes death in the Church. It does not beseech anyone on either side of the issue for opinions that are in blatant opposition to the Church to be going around.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1285

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2000/jul-sep/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000829_transplants_en.html

 

[Lochias]

She IS dead, authoritatively speaking vis-a-vis the Catholic Church. Brain death absolutely, 100% constitutes death in the Church. It does not beseech anyone on either side of the issue for opinions that are in blatant opposition to the Church to be going around.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1285

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2000/jul-sep/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000829_transplants_en.html

She’s dead when she stops breathing.

Period.

 

[SMGS127]

She’s dead when she stops breathing.

Period.

This is not a Catholic statement.

Catholic teaching is that death happens at cardiovascular death OR brain death, period. You are wrong; you are directly contradicting Catholic teaching. I have given you links to prove this. If you still don’t believe me, would you like to show me the papal statements discussing how life only ends at the cessation of breath?

 

[adrift]

This is not a Catholic statement.

Catholic teaching is that death happens at cardiovascular death OR brain death, period. You are wrong; you are directly contradicting Catholic teaching. I have given you links to prove this. If you still don’t believe me, would you like to show me the papal statements discussing how life only ends at the cessation of breath?

"This is not Catholic teaching. You are misrepresenting John Paul II statement.

With regard to the parameters used today for ascertaining death - whether the “encephalic” signs or the more traditional cardio-respiratory signs - the Church does not make technical decisions. She limits herself to the Gospel duty of comparing the data offered by medical science with the Christian understanding of the unity of the person, bringing out the similarities and the possible conflicts capable of endangering respect for human dignity.

 

[ringil]

So here is my question. . . .

Has the church through that Bishop spoken officially on the matter? Is this a clear case of Catholic teaching?

I don’t know. I do know that I am not going to trust the arguments of internet posters. I want to hear an official statement on this.

The Bishop in the Terry Shiavo case did make a statement. That was more of a clear cut situation. THis does not seem to be.

I just don’t see this as cut and dry.

 

[vz71]

Death is a natural part of life, and allowing it when nature dictates is not a sin, if the alternative lies outside the bounds of ordinary, everyday medical care.

The technology that keeps many of us alive today was science fiction 25 years ago.

What exactly is ‘everyday medical care’?

 

[vz71]

Growing in the womb is not a “means” - it is an end. And, it doesn’t look to me like the doctors even know if the baby is indeed growing as expected.

Perhaps I missed this.
Where do we find it that the doctors do not know if the baby is growing as expected?
The last I had heard, the doctors had some kind of legal gag order preventing them from discussing the condition.

What can we offer this baby that heaven can’t?

Indeed. We can offer nothing to compare to heaven.
Perhaps we should kill everyone and prevent the suffering of this world.

 

[GraceSofia]

So here is my question. . . .

Has the church through that Bishop spoken officially on the matter? Is this a clear case of Catholic teaching?

I don’t know. I do know that I am not going to trust the arguments of internet posters. I want to hear an official statement on this.

The Bishop in the Terry Shiavo case did make a statement. That was more of a clear cut situation. THis does not seem to be.

I just don’t see this as cut and dry.

I don’t think the bishop in Texas has spoken.
I was just reading the Texas Tribune, and it said:

Jeffrey Patterson, executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference, which represents the policy interests of the 15 Roman Catholic bishops in Texas, said nothing’s unclear about the law, and that the Legislature surely intended to protect the life of a child if this type of circumstance arose.

“The state has the right and the interest to protect the life of the child,” he said.

The hearing is today so maybe there will be some news in a few hours.

 

[Lochias]

God is the author of life. It’s His call.

Death is a natural part of life, and allowing it when nature dictates is not a sin, if the alternative lies outside the bounds of ordinary, everyday medical care.

No, sorry. “Ordinary, everyday medical care” is an arbitrary statement that, in this context, is modified to fit only your view.

Removing a tumor could be considered by many to be “outside the norm”, so I guess if someone gets cancer, they’d better just go ahead and die, by your logic; after all, God’s surely calling them home, right?

 

[Lochias]

Indeed. We can offer nothing to compare to heaven.
Perhaps we should kill everyone and prevent the suffering of this world.

Exactly. “What can we offer this baby that Heaven can’t?” is perhaps the most ludicrous and out-of-touch-with-reality statement that I have ever had the misfortune to see with my own eyes. Absolute and utter hogwash.

 

[Lochias]

We will know when the baby is born. We should always protect life.

Indeed. It’s amazing what some people will go through to avoid suffering. It comes to us all, whether we like it or not, and if you’re Catholic, you’re expected to bear it with love, patience and understanding, not run from it. That’s the world’s M.O., not ours.

 

[St_Francis]

So here is my question. . . .

Has the church through that Bishop spoken officially on the matter? Is this a clear case of Catholic teaching?

I don’t know. I do know that I am not going to trust the arguments of internet posters. I want to hear an official statement on this.

The Bishop in the Terry Shiavo case did make a statement. That was more of a clear cut situation. THis does not seem to be.

I just don’t see this as cut and dry.

The Chrch’s domain is Faith and Morals, not science. The Vatican discusses various issues with scientists and may make a decision wrt morality, but does not issue a decision *about science per se. *

The Vatican accepts that medical science has deemed brain death to be death.

So let’s consider the reality of brain death: if a person’s brain stops functioning altogether, the bodily functions regulated by the brain stop. One of those bodily functions is breathing. If a person stops breathing, their heart, deprived of oxygen, will stop beating. Then we will know they are dead by the old criteria.

There was no need for different criteria until the advent of organ transplants. If we test to see if someone is dead by taking them off the machine and seeing if their bodily functions come to a halt, then the organs begin to deteriorate so quickly they are no longer good for transplanting.

Pope Benedict had an organ donor card until he became Pope.

You are correct when you say that this case is not cut and dry like the Terri Schiavo case. In her case, her husband wanted to withdraw *ordinary *care, food and water, from a person whose body was still very clearly maintaining itself. In no way could Mrs Schaivo have been considered dead at all; the food and water were not harming her as they do to patients at the point of death.

In this case, the situation is very different *and *we lack information. This latter point is probably why no bishop has made any sort of statement.

 

[Lochias]

This is not a Catholic statement.

Catholic teaching is that death happens at cardiovascular death OR brain death, period. You are wrong; you are directly contradicting Catholic teaching. I have given you links to prove this. If you still don’t believe me, would you like to show me the papal statements discussing how life only ends at the cessation of breath?

Sorry, I didn’t know you had the ability to see souls leaving the body upon death, and so were the expert on this issue. Forgive me.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So here is my question. . . .

Has the church through that Bishop spoken officially on the matter? Is this a clear case of Catholic teaching?

I don’t know. I do know that I am not going to trust the arguments of internet posters. I want to hear an official statement on this.

The Bishop in the Terry Shiavo case did make a statement. That was more of a clear cut situation. THis does not seem to be.

I just don’t see this as cut and dry.

The Bishop hasn’t made any statement to my knowledge.

John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethic Center has indicated he believes this is a case of giving extraordinary care to the baby.

He is quoted in a Philadelphia publication. I linked to it in one of my previous posts.

articles.philly.com/2014-01-23/news/46468066_1_life-support-fetus-pregnant-patient

John M. Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, says Texas law no longer applies, since Munoz is dead. He says the family should make the decision now, and a big consideration is the viability of the fetus.
“The people think the Catholic Church is black and white on these things, and we’re not,” he said. “We accept judgment of physicians. . . . It seems to me that if it were highly likely that the child could survive if the corpse was kept functioning for another week, there would be a strong presumption of doing that.”
But if there were little chance the fetus would be viable, he said, the opposite would be true.
“If the child was deprived of oxygenated blood,” he said, “do you have to use extraordinary means to keep the child alive? The answer would be, no, you don’t.”

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1183

These are John Haas’ qualifications.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1183

Here is a snippet. Please read all of his qualifications.

He is a former board member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars and is a board member and faculty member of the International Catholic University. In 2002 Dr. Haas was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Christian Ethics by the Franciscan University of Steubenville. In 2004 he was elected to the board of the International Federation of Bioethics Centers and Institutes of Personalist Inspiration based in Rome under the leadership of Bishop Elio Sgreccia and in 2006 he was appointed an Ordinary Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life by Pope Benedict XVI. For a number of years Dr. Haas produced and hosted a national television program known as The St. Charles Forum which was carried on the Catholic network EWTN.

I also would like to note that Terry Schiavo was breathing on her own. The only life support she required was to be fed through a tube, because she was too impaired to eat.

Marlise Munoz is brain dead because her heart stopped. For an hour.

 

[St_Francis]

Indeed. It’s amazing what some people will go through to avoid suffering. It comes to us all, whether we like it or not, and if you’re Catholic, you’re expected to bear it with love, patience and understanding, not run from it. That’s the world’s M.O., not ours.

Do you think the family will avoid suffering one way and not the other? Do you think they are not already suffering?

And if suffering is so wonderful that no one should seek to avoid it, why even have hospitals or medical care? We should just let everyone suffer!

But instead, over the centuries it has been the *Catholic Church *which has worked to alleviate suffering in the form of help to the poor, creating medical institutions and furthering medical research. Why would the Church do that?

 

[St_Francis]

Indeed. It’s amazing what some people will go through to avoid suffering. It comes to us all, whether we like it or not, and if you’re Catholic, you’re expected to bear it with love, patience and understanding, not run from it. That’s the world’s M.O., not ours.

Do you think the family will avoid suffering one way and not the other? Do you think they are not already suffering?

And if suffering is so wonderful that no one should seek to avoid it, why even have hospitals or medical care? We should just let everyone suffer!

But instead, over the centuries it has been the *Catholic Church *which has worked to alleviate suffering in the form of help to the poor, creating medical institutions and furthering medical research. Why would the Church do that?

ETA: And why would the Church set up rules explaining the moral and immoral means of reducing suffering?

 

[Lochias]

Do you think the family will avoid suffering one way and not the other? Do you think they are not already suffering?

So we’re entitled to pick and choose what suffering comes at us in life? Good golly, how did I miss that memo?

And if suffering is so wonderful that no one should seek to avoid it, why even have hospitals or medical care? We should just let everyone suffer!

Did I say suffering was wonderful? And it’s amazing that you take this stance, since without medical care the baby would suffer.

But instead, over the centuries it has been the *Catholic Church *which has worked to alleviate suffering in the form of help to the poor, creating medical institutions and furthering medical research. Why would the Church do that?

“Lord, grant me the courage to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” The baby is being kept alive. Courage and wisdom, indeed.

ETA: And why would the Church set up rules explaining the moral and immoral means of reducing suffering?

See above.

 

[ringil]

The Chrch’s domain is Faith and Morals, not science. The Vatican discusses various issues with scientists and may make a decision wrt morality, but does not issue a decision *about science per se. *

The Vatican accepts that medical science has deemed brain death to be death.

So let’s consider the reality of brain death: if a person’s brain stops functioning altogether, the bodily functions regulated by the brain stop. One of those bodily functions is breathing. If a person stops breathing, their heart, deprived of oxygen, will stop beating. Then we will know they are dead by the old criteria.

There was no need for different criteria until the advent of organ transplants. If we test to see if someone is dead by taking them off the machine and seeing if their bodily functions come to a halt, then the organs begin to deteriorate so quickly they are no longer good for transplanting.

Pope Benedict had an organ donor card until he became Pope.

You are correct when you say that this case is not cut and dry like the Terri Schiavo case. In her case, her husband wanted to withdraw *ordinary *care, food and water, from a person whose body was still very clearly maintaining itself. In no way could Mrs Schaivo have been considered dead at all; the food and water were not harming her as they do to patients at the point of death.

In this case, the situation is very different *and *we lack information. This latter point is probably why no bishop has made any sort of statement.

Thank you for your reply,

Yes, this case is different from Shaivo’s.

It seems to me this is not a case where the Church can give a firm answer. In that spirit I would tend to support the family and their wishes.

Prayers for all involved.