What would happen if the United States Congress passed a law?

[rpp]

SoCalRC,

To ensure that we understand your position please answer these questions with a simple “yes” or “no”. We can discuss the answers further in later posts.

Do you believe there are circumstances where it may be licit to withhold food or water from a person who is otherwise able to receive it?

Do you believe there are circumstances where it may be licit to remove mechanical means of sustaining someone’s life (e.g. repirator, kidney dialysis, etc.)?

Do you believe there are circumstances where it may be licit to end the life of a seriously ill person (not capital punishment) by direct action?

 

[rpp]

If a law like this passes then the government will have to provide the funds to keep these people covered for their medical expenses. Otherwise it is an unfair and unjust law to expect everyone involved to go bankrupt.

And noone has yet answered my question. If these machines keep one socalled alive indefinitely when does one get to meet his Creator? Or is the Church more interested in keeping people away from Him rather than bring people to Him?

That is because the government already has a couple of programs to pay for these things. Have you ever heard of MediCare and Medic-Aid? How about Catastrophic Health Coverage?

You cannot put a value on human life.

 

[SoCalRC]

Here are relevant declarations that clarify the part of the catechism you quoted.

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Full text here.

The USCCB’s response to this declaration.

If you want to discuss things, be civil and charitable.

Note that your link poses a question about a patient in a vegative state. Also note that your quote contains the words “in principle”.

Goofyjim is not vegative (that I can tell), nor is he talking about removal of the care for someone else - he is talking about refusal of specific care for himself. I have quoted from the Doctrinal Note on Euthanasia, and the Catechism of the Church on this matter.

 

[rpp]

Note that your link poses a question about a patient in a vegative state. Also note that your quote contains the words “in principle”.

Goofyjim is not vegative (that I can tell), nor is he talking about removal of the care for someone else - he is talking about refusal of specific care for himself. I have quoted from the Doctrinal Note on Euthanasia, and the Catechism of the Church on this matter.

I am dumbfounded by the intellectual vacuum of this reply.

 

[SoCalRC]

SoCalRC,

To ensure that we understand your position please answer these questions with a simple “yes” or “no”. We can discuss the answers further in later posts.

As I have already quoted, the Church notes that these questions are extremely complicated. Collapsing them into yes/no answers would be asserting moral authority in excess of the Pope. Rather than trying to make this a battle with me, I suggest that you read the Church’s position, which I have quoted verbatim, in detail.

 

[goofyjim]

That is because the government already has a couple of programs to pay for these things. Have you ever heard of MediCare and Medic-Aid? How about Catastrophic Health Coverage?

You cannot put a value on human life.

But do we prolong life for eternity in this state? Noone is answering my question. If there is hope of recovery, fine. If I reach a vegetative state and the prognosis is of no recovery, it is not euthanasia to let me die with dignity. I think this is what SoCal is trying to back me up on. So again there are differing views on the term “natural” death. And since one cannot come to a conclusion on this earth about the matter, a law like this cannot be passed.

 

[rpp]

Note that your link poses a question about a patient in a vegative state. Also note that your quote contains the words “in principle”.

Goofyjim is not vegative (that I can tell), nor is he talking about removal of the care for someone else - he is talking about refusal of specific care for himself. I have quoted from the Doctrinal Note on Euthanasia, and the Catechism of the Church on this matter.

As I have already quoted, the Church notes that these questions are extremely complicated. Collapsing them into yes/no answers would be asserting moral authority in excess of the Pope. Rather than trying to make this a battle with me, I suggest that you read the Church’s position, which I have quoted verbatim, in detail.

Okay. Now we understand. Now I understand where you are coming from. You actually disagree with Church teachings, but do not want to admit it. You just like to play silly word games to annoy people. So I will give you the credence you deserve.

 

[SoCalRC]

Quote and response delete per rpp’s request.

 

[SoCalRC]

Okay. Now we understand. Now I understand where you are coming from. You actually disagree with Church teachings, but do not want to admit it. You just like to play silly word games to annoy people. So I will give you the credence you deserve.

I must note that this is false. I fully embrace the Church teaching, which is why I continue to extensively quote it.

 

[rpp]

But do we prolong life for eternity in this state? Noone is answering my question. If there is hope of recovery, fine. If I reach a vegetative state and the prognosis is of no recovery, it is not euthanasia to let me die with dignity. I think this is what SoCal is trying to back me up on. So again there are differing views on the term “natural” death. And since one cannot come to a conclusion on this earth about the matter, a law like this cannot be passed.

Jim, it is impossible to keep someone alive forever.

It is clear from the posts that we cannot take an action to end a life, we cannot withhold food and hydration from a person in a vegetative state, a conscious person cannot commit suicide by refusing to eat and starving to death. A person can choose to refuse extraordinary means of care, such as mechanical respirators, kidney dialysis, surgical procedures, etc.

This is clear, even to those who want to change to definition of words, or apply in a manner not consistent with what the Church teaches. What the Church teaches is clear. There is nothing of greater value than human life. “Death with dignity” is a lie. There is no dignity in suicide, self-murder. As the documents referenced in earlier posts clearly state.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim, it is impossible to keep someone alive forever.

It is clear from the posts that we cannot take an action to end a life, we cannot withhold food and hydration from a person in a vegetative state, a conscious person cannot commit suicide by refusing to eat and starving to death. A person can choose to refuse extraordinary means of care, such as mechanical respirators, kidney dialysis, surgical procedures, etc.

This is clear, even to those who want to change to definition of words, or apply in a manner not consistent with what the Church teaches. What the Church teaches is clear. There is nothing of greater value than human life. “Death with dignity” is a lie. There is no dignity in suicide, self-murder. As the documents referenced in earlier posts clearly state.

They can choose to refuse extraordinary means. If kidney dialysis is considered optional why are not the feeding tubes? It is not suicide to include in a living will that if I ever reach a vegetative state I don’t want to be hooked up to those. Otherwise one would have to choose the respirator, kidney dialysis, et al.

 

[SoCalRC]

This is clear, even to those who want to change to definition of words, or apply in a manner not consistent with what the Church teaches.

Again, I must note that this is false. Only one quote thus far appears to be uncited and seemingly out of context, and that was awfulthings’.

I have noted from the beginning that MY understanding of what constitutes ordinary means does not match Jim’s. I am simply deferring to the Church, which asserts that, due to the incredibly complexity of such matters, the patient is the ultimate arbitor in each case.

You appear to believe that you can be the proper moral judge in all cases, including Jim’s. As noted, this appears to be in direct contradiction of the Catechism and the Church’s Doctrinal Note regarding Euthanasia (both of which I have cited).

 

[goofyjim]

Again, I must note that this is false. Only one quote thus far appears to be uncited and seemingly out of context, and that was awfulthings’.

I have noted from the beginning that MY understanding of what constitutes ordinary means does not match Jim’s. I am simply deferring to the Church, which asserts that, due to the incredibly complexity of such matters, the patient is the ultimate arbitor in each case.

You appear to believe that you can be the proper moral judge in all cases, including Jim’s. As noted, this appears to be in direct contradiction of the Catechism and the Church’s Doctrinal Note regarding Euthanasia (both of which I have cited).

Seems you and I are just in polite disagreement. But at least we stick to full doctrine and not just quotes to suit our fancy.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

And the Democrat party would suffer greatly because its sole reason for existence would be eliminated.

What, pray tell, is the Democrat party? The two major parties in the United States are the Republican party and the Democratic party. Is the Democrat party new?

I’m sorry, but you asked for that. This is not a thread about how much the posters might or might not hate the Republican party.

The question was asked and I answered it. I honestly believe that it would be a severe blow to the Republican party because it would have to compete based on its core ideology (corporatism) alone. Without the abortion issue as a smokescreen to its corporatist agenda, I don’t think Christians would vote Republican all too often.

Now as to what would happen in the culture? I’m sure that it would help to reduce the number of abortions, ultimately a good thing. Sadly, I don’t think they’ll be completely eliminated. It really depends on what we, as a culture, do in response. Will our society revert back to the day when a girl who got knocked up was sent away to her aunt’s house 500 miles away, would she be given assistance her crisis pregnancy or would she be condemned as a slut and a tramp? These are important considerations.

 

[rpp]

They can choose to refuse extraordinary means. If kidney dialysis is considered optional why are not the feeding tubes? It is not suicide to include in a living will that if I ever reach a vegetative state I don’t want to be hooked up to those. Otherwise one would have to choose the respirator, kidney dialysis, et al.

Please not the test in bold above. That is the sub-topic.

As I noted earlier, the Church has directly addressed this issue. Let me quote is in it’s entirety as there are questions.

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.

Link to document

It is pretty clear that instructing someone to withhold food and water, as long as the person is physically capable of receiving it, is not morally licit.

The phrase “in principal” does seem to indicate there are times when it may be morally licit. However, that is more likely not relating to choice, but rather the medical reality that some people are not able to receive food or hydration, even via a various types of feeding tubes. At this time, I do not believe it is medically possible for sufficient nutrition to be given intravenously. It must be go into the digestive system.

Finally, how is leaving instructions intended to bring about your death if certain criteria is met not making a plan for suicide?

 

[roymckenzie]

But do we prolong life for eternity in this state? Noone is answering my question. If there is hope of recovery, fine. If I reach a vegetative state and the prognosis is of no recovery, it is not euthanasia to let me die with dignity. I think this is what SoCal is trying to back me up on. So again there are differing views on the term “natural” death. And since one cannot come to a conclusion on this earth about the matter, a law like this cannot be passed.

A couple thoughts;

• People are never vegetables
• Vegetable is a term used by the other side to dehumanize us
• If your brain completely stops you are dead and the rest of your body will die.
• The case of the young lady in Florida was very sad. There was not consensus on her condition. The doctor in charge is pro death. The doctor in charge has an agenda.
• You my friend will never be a vegetable.

 

[goofyjim]

Please not the test in bold above. That is the sub-topic.

As I noted earlier, the Church has directly addressed this issue. Let me quote is in it’s entirety as there are questions.

Link to document

It is pretty clear that instructing someone to withhold food and water, as long as the person is physically capable of receiving it, is not morally licit.

The phrase “in principal” does seem to indicate there are times when it may be morally licit. However, that is more likely not relating to choice, but rather the medical reality that some people are not able to receive food or hydration, even via a various types of feeding tubes. At this time, I do not believe it is medically possible for sufficient nutrition to be given intravenously. It must be go into the digestive system.

Finally, how is leaving instructions intended to bring about your death if certain criteria is met not making a plan for suicide?

Then why are kidney dialysis and a respirator not considered necessary and instead regarded as extraordinary means? Huh?

 

[goofyjim]

A couple thoughts;

• People are never vegetables
• Vegetable is a term used by the other side to dehumanize us
• If your brain completely stops you are dead and the rest of your body will die.
• The case of the young lady in Florida was very sad. There was not consensus on her condition. The doctor in charge is pro death. The doctor in charge has an agenda.
• You my friend will never be a vegetable.

All well and good but when you prolonging the inevitable just to hang on to some faint vital signs and call it life then eventually someone has to decide enough is enough. Rather than make my surviving relatives agonize over that I would rather make the decision while I am still functioning.

 

[rpp]

Then why are kidney dialysis and a respirator not considered necessary and instead regarded as extraordinary means? Huh?

Eating and drinking is a normal process. Generally speaking, mechanical support is considered extraordinary means. Both are quite invasive.

As I have some experience with feeding tubes, I can tell you that some types, like the NG (Nasal-Gastric) tube, are not so bad or invasive. It does not require a machine or electricity. I know when I had one a couple of times I was generally unaware of it’s presence. When my father had his, it really did not bother him. Both of us were conscious and aware when the tubes were inserted and during our treatment. Just a thin tube up the nose and inserted about 3 feet.

Likewise, I do not believe a Foley catheter or a bedpan would be considered extraordinary care, because voiding our waste is a normal process as well. In the same manner, I do not think supplying supplemental oxygen via a nasal cannula or simple mask would not be extraordinary care.

On the other hand, kidney dialysis requires surgery to install the bits into your body. It is quite invasive. A respirator prevents a person from talking or swallowing. Both are mechanical devices.

But how the Church leaders ultimately came to the decision they did I cannot tell you. I can only say that in the spirit of humble obedience, I will follow their pronouncements.

 

[awfulthings9]

Then why are kidney dialysis and a respirator not considered necessary and instead regarded as extraordinary means? Huh?

Because in those cases major organs have shut down necessary for the body to stay alive. Without the kidney able to do its work, the body will die. Without the lungs able to do theirs, it will die. In the case of nutrition, the intestines still work. However, with the patient in an unconscious state, she is unable to pick up the food, chew it, and get it into the stomach. If someone helps her get it into the body, the body knows what to do with it. We don’t have to force the body to keep performing the necessary tasks, as would happen if the lungs were forced to inflate and deflate or if something were do the work of the kidneys.

So, in the cases you mention, the body is shutting down. God is calling them home. In the case of nutrition, the body is not shutting down. It is still hungry and will easily process the food if someone would only provide it.

So, the analogy would be this - to withhold nutrition would be the same as placing plastic wrap over the mouth and nose of someone whose lungs work just fine. The body desires the food or oxygen. Doctors are purposefully withholding it.