They can’t. But if thye are the only thing keeping the body alive then it is time to let the body die. How long do you keep the body on these just to call it life. Some might argue forever. It is not killing or euthanasia at that point to let the body die the oldfashioned way.Please clarify for me how feeding tubes can keep a brain alive without keeping the rest of the body alive?
Food and water do not keep the brain activity going.There was no way she was ever going to function again but they kept her on the feeding tubes which kept the brain activity going.
Let’s say you were susceptible to Tetanus and you happened to contract this malady. You would refuse the antitoxin on grounds that it would unnaturally prolong your life? You would likely die if not given antitoxin. Antitoxin therapy is a rather new technology.The way to define natural death is what would natural death have been before all this new technology came along.
Stating something is extraordinary does not make it so.My living will will state that they are extraordinary means and are not to be used.
Food and water do not keep the brain activity going.I don’t consider it euthanasia to pull the plug on feeding tubes when they are the only things keeping the brain activity going.
These are the only things keeping your body alive now. How many additional things would you say should be required in order to not call it extraordinary means? Since you are saying that only needing nourshishment would constitute extraordinary means.They can’t. But if thye are the only thing keeping the body alive then it is time to let the body die.
Withholding food isn’t the “old-fashioned way”. If it were, I would be killing my one-month-old the old fashioned way by not feeding him. After all, like Terri S., he can’t feed himself, but otherwise the body is working fine.They can’t. But if thye are the only thing keeping the body alive then it is time to let the body die. How long do you keep the body on these just to call it life. Some might argue forever. It is not killing or euthanasia at that point to let the body die the oldfashioned way.
When you are immobilized in a hospital bed, only kept functioning by machines, I hardly consider that body working fine. So there is no comparison.Withholding food isn’t the “old-fashioned way”. If it were, I would be killing my one-month-old the old fashioned way by not feeding him. After all, like Terri S., he can’t feed himself, but otherwise the body is working fine.
It is an extraordinary means of nourishment. The body is no longer operating to full capacity. The machines are there just to keep some slight bodily functions going and therefore the brain activity as well. At this point my desire would be to take me off them and see what happens. If I die it is a natural death.Food and water do not keep the brain activity going.
Let’s say you were susceptible to Tetanus and you happened to contract this malady. You would refuse the antitoxin on grounds that it would unnaturally prolong your life? You would likely die if not given antitoxin. Antitoxin therapy is a rather new technology.
Stating something is extraordinary does not make it so.
Food and water do not keep the brain activity going.
These are the only things keeping your body alive now. How many additional things would you say should be required in order to not call it extraordinary means? Since you are saying that only needing nourshishment would constitute extraordinary means.
I’m confused, here goofyjim, but perhaps you could clarify.When you are immobilized in a hospital bed, only kept functioning by machines, I hardly consider that body working fine. So there is no comparison.
I am in respectful dissent. I, in good conscience, can’t abide by keeping someone alive indefinitely when the quality of life is not there. The Church accepts technology advancements but rejects it in say pscychological findings. It can’t have it both ways. It either accepts science or doesn’t. I am not trying to rationalize anything. But noone here has suggested a means to pay for these methods of keeping someone “alive”. Unless they do they have no right to burden someone with the expenses which could run into the millions. The Church needs to clarify what exactly is extradordinary means. I have stated what I feel they are.I’m confused, here goofyjim, but perhaps you could clarify.
Your posts contradict the teaching of the Church. Yet, your bio lists you as Catholic. Would it be true to state that you believe that you are correct and the Church is wrong here?
Would extension of this lead us to the understanding that it is okay to disagree with the Church as long as we rationalize that we are correct?
Wow! I didn’t know we could do this! Already I’ve come up a list of eleven things I can now respectfully dissent from without fearing that silly passage to the leaders of the Church about “Whoever accepts you accepts me and whoever rejects you rejects me …”I am in respectful dissent.
This is inflammatory and misguided. In general, we consider nutrition and hydration to be “ordinary means”, but the Church uses a different definition than medical science. In medical science, “ordinary means” would indicate that a treatement is scientifically established, statistically successful, and reasonably available.I’m confused, here goofyjim, but perhaps you could clarify.
Your posts contradict the teaching of the Church. Yet, your bio lists you as Catholic. Would it be true to state that you believe that you are correct and the Church is wrong here?
Would extension of this lead us to the understanding that it is okay to disagree with the Church as long as we rationalize that we are correct?
Very interesting logical progression in this post. First you falsely claim that pointing out that someone is posting contrary to Church teaching is “inflamatory and misguided”.This is inflammatory and misguided. In general, we consider nutrition and hydration to be “ordinary means”, but the Church uses a different definition than medical science. In medical science, “ordinary means” would indicate that a treatement is scientifically established, statistically successful, and reasonably available.
But in moral terms ordinary means is a treatment that is beneficial and not unreasonably burdensome (physically or psychologically) to the patient.
Remember, we are not talking about a loaf of bread and a cup of water, we are talking about tubes and nutrient solutions. Some people have a strong aversion to the means themselves, they find it unnatural. Others are incredibly concerned about the strain that such treatment would put on their loved ones, particularly financially.
That second concern seems quite understandable. The majority of bankrupcy filings in the US are driven by health care debt. Yet we, as a society, just made such filings harder, even as health care costs grow at an extraordinary pace. It is not my place to judge the line of ‘unreasonable burden’ for goofyjim. I, personally, see the line differently and would hope and pray he will reconsider, but ultimately it is a question between him and God.
On the other hand, the fear of crushing medical debt is something that does concern me. Matt 25 tells us about the Son of Man calling all nations before him for judgement, and Jim’s widely shared financial fears seems to fall under one of the 6 criteria that we are repeatedly told will be used in determining if we are “sheep” or “goats” - IE, it seems to represent sin on a societal scale.
On a related subject. Not one of us is a perfect Catholic. We acknowledge this, in unison every Mass. In fact, it is our common unworthiness that makes us equal, in preperation to receive our Lord.
Do Catholics judge one another? Obviously, look at how many people are willing to declare what is and is not “true” Catholicism on these forums. But that is a meaningless comparison, the Lord tells us so (ex. Luke 15:11-32 and Luke 18:9-14). If anything, it is just another example of how we fail the Lord.
I think you are confused, I was correcting his missapplication of Church teaching:Very interesting logical progression in this post. First you falsely claim that pointing out that someone is posting contrary to Church teaching is “inflamatory and misguided”.
Then you try to go to great lengths to say very little.
You finally close by saying that anyone who points out that what someone says is not Church teaching is being judgmental and is a fails God.
I think you do not understand exactly what “misguided” means or what the Church teaches. You clearly do not understand what “judging” is.
As I noted, it is not my decision or judgement call. Pope John Paul II wrote extensively on this subject if you are interested.“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.” - Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2278
Please qualify. I would really like to see the specifics you failed to give here. Surely you aren’t referring to the threads on voting and the Civil War in which, over and over again, I pointed out that I was being a Devil’s Advocate.That said, I must applaud your standing up for AwfulThings, based on his past posts and reference to multiple “things”, his seeming accusation of ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ would apply to you as well.
Here is a relevant quote:As I noted, it is not my decision or judgement call. Pope John Paul II wrote extensively on this subject if you are interested.
Maybe you could point me to the passage where he leaves it open for discussion?The obligation to provide the ‘normal care due to the sick in such cases’ (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Iura et Bona,’ p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration… Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.
Previously in this thread you stated:Please qualify. I would really like to see the specifics you failed to give here. Surely you aren’t referring to the threads on voting and the Civil War in which, over and over again, I pointed out that I was being a Devil’s Advocate.
RPP then applauded you for ‘correct’ Church teaching, and me for ‘not’. However, as I just showed from the Catechism, I am instructed to respect my differences with Goofyjim. You, and RPP seem to examining only part of the Church’s teaching, something like this:Your posts contradict the teaching of the Church. Yet, your bio lists you as Catholic. Would it be true to state that you believe that you are correct and the Church is wrong here?
Would extension of this lead us to the understanding that it is okay to disagree with the Church as long as we rationalize that we are correct?
(vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html)Today it is very important to protect, at the moment of death, both the dignity of the human person and the Christian concept of life, against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse. Thus some people speak of a “right to die,” which is an expression that does not mean the right to procure death either by one’s own hand or by means of someone else, as one pleases, but rather the right to die peacefully with human and Christian dignity. From this point of view, the use of therapeutic means can sometimes pose problems. In numerous cases, the complexity of the situation can be such as to cause doubts about the way ethical principles should be applied. In the final analysis, it pertains to the conscience either of the sick person, or of those qualified to speak in the sick person’s name, or of the doctors, to decide, in the light of moral obligations and of the various aspects of the case." - LURA ET BONA
I get that. I’m curious about your reference to my “previous posts” and reference to “multiple ‘things’”. I wanted to know which posts you were refering to and what you meant by the ambiguous “multiple ‘things’” so I could respond. You said these posts would paint RPR as a cafeteria Catholic, so I either need to defend my previous posts or offer explanation if I have been misleading.RPP then applauded you for ‘correct’ Church teaching, and me for ‘not’. However, as I just showed from the Catechism, I am instructed to respect my differences with Goofyjim. You, and RPP seem to examining only part of the Church’s teaching,
Did I not do that in the parentheses in my quotation? I gave the document title, the page number, and the congregation.P.S. When providing a “relevant” quote, it is helpful to at least note the source. That way we can distinguish between, say, a Doctrinal Note on the specific subject from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and a lay person’s opinion.
I am not confused and I have an immediate interest in these matters. I manage the health care of my mother and managed the health care for my father, who passed away in October. I have researched this and know what the church teaches.I think you are confused, I was correcting his missapplication of Church teaching:
As I noted, it is not my decision or judgement call. Pope John Paul II wrote extensively on this subject if you are interested.
That said, I must applaud your standing up for AwfulThings, based on his past posts and reference to multiple “things”, his seeming accusation of ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ would apply to you as well.
Full text here.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.
At the time you posted this, I applauded no one on this thread.RPP then applauded you for ‘correct’ Church teaching, and me for ‘not’.
No, you are quoting something that preports to be quoting a Church document. The words “Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal”, never appear in the cited document. In fact, only the words in single quotes do. The reason it is useful to note sources is so that one can confirm context. For example, the snippet actually quoted from the Vatican appears to be in this section:Did I not do that in the parentheses in my quotation? I gave the document title, the page number, and the congregation.
Since hydration and nutrition are never mentioned and the sentence comes from a section discussing a right to refuse treatment, the interpretation and application, which you failed to cite, seems open to question.“Therefore one cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community. - When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.” - LURA ET BONA