N
NonTimendum
Guest
Oh he’s got brain damage? Pssh, worthless little creature. Just hurry up and kill him already. Everyone knows a soul doesn’t actually exist. Brain = humanity.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
bekalc
Guest
Taking of life support, is not killing a child. Plenty of Brian damaged people live without life support. I would not support killing them. I.e Starving them. Or injecting them.Oh he’s got brain damage? Pssh, worthless little creature. Just hurry up and kill him already. Everyone knows a soul doesn’t actually exist. Brain = humanity.
But artificially keeping someone alive, subjecting them to pain, just because you can isn’t right.
Your not protecting your life-your preventing natural death.
Church teaching is actually very clear in differentiating ordinary and extraordinary means Church teaching is when looking at Extraodinary care we must think of proportionality… And in the case keeping this child on a ventilator would be consider extradionary. There is no real hope of recovery… We need our brains to live.
If God desires that little child to live, there is nothing stopping the Lord from allowing a miracle and letting the child breathe on its own. ( I don’t support getting rid of the feeding tube.)
N
NonTimendum
Guest
Of course it is. Just like withholding food would be killing the child. The question is not whether the child is being killed, but whether the killing is justified.Taking of life support, is not killing a child.
As far as it being justified, the only considerations should be these:
What are the wishes of the person in question?
What are the wishes of the legal guardians of the person in question?
Pain is irrelevant. We are taught that pain in life is both necessary and good. We cannot end our lives to avoid pain.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
This is not what the Church teaches.Of course it is. Just like withholding food would be killing the child. .
B
bekalc
Guest
What your saying is not Church teaching. People cannot live without foot and water.Of course it is. Just like withholding food would be killing the child. The question is not whether the child is being killed, but whether the killing is justified.
As far as it being justified, the only considerations should be these:
What are the wishes of the person in question?
What are the wishes of the legal guardians of the person in question?
Pain is irrelevant. We are taught that pain in life is both necessary and good. We cannot end our lives to avoid pain.
People can live without life support. Life Support can be a beneficial thing, but it most be proportional. That’s Church teaching.
Allowing someone to die is not killing them.
B
bekalc
Guest
A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
2278. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
The key principle in this statement is that one does not will to cause death. When a person has an underlying terminal disease, or their heart, or some other organ, cannot work without mechanical assistance, or a therapy being proposed is dangerous, or has little chance of success, then not using that machine or that therapy results in the person dying from the disease or organ failure they already have. The omission allows nature to takes its course. It does not directly kill the person, even though it may contribute to the person dying earlier than if aggressive treatment had been done.
ewtn.com/morals/end-of-life.htm
2278. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
The key principle in this statement is that one does not will to cause death. When a person has an underlying terminal disease, or their heart, or some other organ, cannot work without mechanical assistance, or a therapy being proposed is dangerous, or has little chance of success, then not using that machine or that therapy results in the person dying from the disease or organ failure they already have. The omission allows nature to takes its course. It does not directly kill the person, even though it may contribute to the person dying earlier than if aggressive treatment had been done.
ewtn.com/morals/end-of-life.htm
M
masondoggy
Guest
Oh the irony.
Remember with Terri Schiavo they were all saying she should be allowed to “die with dignity” because her next of kin (her husband) wanted it. Now they’re saying this baby should be allowed to “die with dignity” despite his next of kin (his parents) objecting. So really they should all be consistent and be truthful about what they really want: When “they” decide your life isn’t worth living anymore, just shut up and hurry up and “die with dignity”
Satan hard at work here.
Remember with Terri Schiavo they were all saying she should be allowed to “die with dignity” because her next of kin (her husband) wanted it. Now they’re saying this baby should be allowed to “die with dignity” despite his next of kin (his parents) objecting. So really they should all be consistent and be truthful about what they really want: When “they” decide your life isn’t worth living anymore, just shut up and hurry up and “die with dignity”
Satan hard at work here.
B
bekalc
Guest
This isn’t Terri. She was capable of breathing on her own. She could interact with people. She could even take some soft food by mouth. Some doctors felt they could give her treatment and she’d be disabled but someone.Oh the irony.
Remember with Terri Schiavo they were all saying she should be allowed to “die with dignity” because her next of kin (her husband) wanted it. Now they’re saying this baby should be allowed to “die with dignity” despite his next of kin (his parents) objecting. So really they should all be consistent and be truthful about what they really want: When “they” decide your life isn’t worth living anymore, just shut up and hurry up and “die with dignity”
Satan hard at work here.
This isn’t Terri. This little boy has no hope of recovery, cannot move. Cannot interact. May not be aware of his surrounding. I agree with the church on Hydration.
M
masondoggy
Guest
No the medical situation isn’t the same but that’s not the point. Terri was murdered using the excuse that her husband had the authority to make that decision as opposed to this case where they’re saying the parents have no authority. So which is it?This isn’t Terri. She was capable of breathing on her own. She could interact with people. She could even take some soft food by mouth. Some doctors felt they could give her treatment and she’d be disabled but someone.
This isn’t Terri. This little boy has no hope of recovery, cannot move. Cannot interact. May not be aware of his surrounding. I agree with the church on Hydration.
M
MaryT777
Guest
No the medical situation isn’t the same but that’s not the point. Terri was murdered using the excuse that her husband had the authority to make that decision as opposed to this case where they’re saying the parents have no authority. So which is it?/QUOTE
Excellent point.
Mary.
B
bekalc
Guest
The best interests of the child. There are things that people should always get in the case of Terri food/water.No the medical situation isn’t the same but that’s not the point. Terri was murdered using the excuse that her husband had the authority to make that decision as opposed to this case where they’re saying the parents have no authority. So which is it?
Life Support is a whole different matter.
Subjecting to burdensome medical treatments that won’t cure his case, and may cause him more suffering is another.
I don’t know the answers.
M
masondoggy
Guest
I get that. Im not even arguing for him to be kept on life support. Im just pointing out the total hypocrisy of this culture of death that we live in.The best interests of the child. There are things that people should always get in the case of Terri food/water.
Life Support is a whole different matter.
Subjecting to burdensome medical treatments that won’t cure his case, and may cause him more suffering is another.
I don’t know the answers.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
In the UK, clinical decisions are the responsibility of the doctor(s), where parents (for example) disagree on treatment, the matter is referred to the courts.It seems to have been the hospital which brought the suit, and the court ruled for the hospital. Not sure If they ruled intrinsically or not…
Shabbat shalom… see you later!
The dedicated medical staff have tried everything, they were even prepared to try nucleoside therapy (the kind being offered by the American doctor/hospital, which doesn’t cure) but decided that the cellular degeneration of the baby’s brain meant that things had gone too far for it to ameliorate the situation, the American doctor agrees that the experimental therapy would not reverse the damage and that Charlie is in the terminal stages of his illness. There have been opinions and second opinions, doctors and consultants, all agree, the baby is dying. American medicine can provide no magical cure.
So, are continued extraordinary methods in the best interest of the child? Are they even in the best interest of the parents?
I expect everybody understands the awful situation of Charlie’s parents (heaven’s many of us go through ‘traumas’ over letting go of geriatric and terminally ill pets never mind the people in our lives) but this pursuit of what is, intrinsically, just extending the final stages of an irreversible dying process is not in the interests of the child.
B
bekalc
Guest
What I am trying to say is we need to look at Church teaching… I don’t think this is a Culture of Death issue. And I think there are problems when we make Death into something that can be avoided at all cost. Prolonged at all costs.I get that. Im not even arguing for him to be kept on life support. Im just pointing out the total hypocrisy of this culture of death that we live in.
As Catholics we have the believe and hope in the Resurrection. Why is it in this little boy’s best interests for his parents to delay this little one being with Christ? (IF he’s baptized) Does he even know his surroundings or even fully understand what’s going on?
I am not arguing for mercy killing. Mercy killing would be taking food or water /or injecting something ensuring he dies. But keeping him alive artificially that’s not necessarily fair to this little one.
As Catholics, we can talk about the hope we have for eternal life. Because it is a hope. And so I think its really problematic when we don’t present the other side. Or present the hospital’s position as evil.
We shouldn’t play God and directly kill anyone. But I think we are also playing God when we keep people alive artificially.
These type of things need to be on a case by case basis. Stephen Hawkings being on life support, he may be paralyzed, he may not be able to talk. But he clearly wants to live. He can be with his family, do his research etc. That’s a scenario where life support is a blessing. So yes we need to be careful about deciding that the disabled have “no quality of life.”
But a little one who has brain damage, cannot see, hear or move. Who may not even fully understand who is family is? Is it truly right to keep him artificially alive, subject him to more potential procedures only for him to die a few months later?
If he is off the machines, and God chooses to continue his life, Then the Lord has spoken. But we aren’t giving God that opportunity
Not to mention all that money raised. Could go to children that do have a real shot at survival. And I am pretty sure Church teaching is that yes we DO need to look at that. Now of course I know of a situation with a cousin whose wife had brain bled and the second he went into a hospital, they were asking him for organ donation. And the guy was like wait a second give me wife a shot first. Thankfully there was a neurosurgeon and his wife was saved. So I am not saying we need to say people should only get treatment based on odds…
E
Estevao
Guest
Liberals have never respected parental rights. Around a century ago, liberals in Canada, following the prescripts of science and the experts, stole generations of indigenous children from their parents and attempted to eradicate their culture. You can still meet survivors of these “residential schools” that liberals made all over here in Canada.
Now once again liberals are stealing children from their parents, whether that’s through teaching them about “free-sex” and the non-existence of gender in the public schools, or whether it’s through some unelected twerp in a robe who thinks killing a child is for the greater good of the state.
Now once again liberals are stealing children from their parents, whether that’s through teaching them about “free-sex” and the non-existence of gender in the public schools, or whether it’s through some unelected twerp in a robe who thinks killing a child is for the greater good of the state.
E
Estevao
Guest
Good point. But liberals have absolutely on principles, deep down. They would all go full-soviet once again if they could, and they basically are here. The hopefully soon-retiring liberal Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy summarized the liberal world-view when he defended abortion in Casey v Planned Parenthood.Oh the irony.
Remember with Terri Schiavo they were all saying she should be allowed to “die with dignity” because her next of kin (her husband) wanted it. Now they’re saying this baby should be allowed to “die with dignity” despite his next of kin (his parents) objecting. So really they should all be consistent and be truthful about what they really want: When “they” decide your life isn’t worth living anymore, just shut up and hurry up and “die with dignity”
Satan hard at work here.
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” - Anthony Kennedy
Just apply this whenever you feel and you get this travesty, and soon enough we’ll be back to the GULAG just like the last time liberals had full control.
E
Estevao
Guest
The driving force was the government and the progressive and scientific ideological orthodoxy of the day, which said that this had to be done to save the Indigenous peoples from themselves and civilize them and this was more important than parental rights. It was started by the Liberal Party of Canada, currently headed by the fake Catholic Justin Trudeau. There wasn’t a public school system then like now, so of course they made use of the Anglican and Catholic parish school system.
AFAIK the liberal party has never apologized for this, while Pope Benedict XVI has.
AFAIK the liberal party has never apologized for this, while Pope Benedict XVI has.
E
Estevao
Guest
The principle set ITT is that the state has supreme rights over children, not the parents. Liberals ITT are fine with that and are going to bat for this decision, but then again that is to be expected because liberals have no principles in the first place. All they have brought up are some emotional buzzwords, which is also to be expected because liberals only care about the feelz.
Sad!
Sad!
K
Kaninchen
Guest
And yet message board warriors find it so easy to malign the motivation of the very people who spend their lives trying to help people through these kinds of personal tragedies.
E
Estevao
Guest
Lol I love it when liberals pretend to give a hoot about humans. You don’t. You only think of humanity in the mass. All these examples about “my mom was a nurse”. That’s truly meaningless. It’s an anecdote that has nothing to do with this particular situation. But you are incapable as a dogmatic liberal to think about the individual. You’re a bunch of useful idiots, to use Yuri Bezmenov’s phrase, who have absolutely nothing of substance to say ITT other than “I support the state’s right to do whatever they want, natural law and parental rights be damned!”
It’s a shame you won’t be around to experience the neo-soviet paradise your rapidly aging generation had bequeathed to us. But I’m sure you’ll get your just reward no matter what. We all will.
It’s a shame you won’t be around to experience the neo-soviet paradise your rapidly aging generation had bequeathed to us. But I’m sure you’ll get your just reward no matter what. We all will.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.