Hey, we are all going to die eventually. Just getting up in the morning and having breakfast is prolonging the inevitable.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.
I am glad that you have conceded that the choice of words by the Church might have a purpose. Perhaps that is what you found objectionable about my explanation of this teaching to Jim earlier in the thread:The phrase “in principal” does seem to indicate there are times when it may be morally licit. However, that is more likely…
I did not note that it is not an absolute. However, I did introduce the concept of “Due Proportion in the Use of Remedies”, and have quoted extensively from the explanation in this Doctrinal Note:Even in writing, it is a hard request for Catholics to honor. It isn’t that we dont’ respect you or want to hurt you. But direct euthanasia is never permitted for us and denying you hydration and nutrition is taught to be direct euthanasia.
This should make it quite clear why refusing to reduce the teaching to simplistic, absolute terms is not a refusal of Church Doctrine, but acknowleding it. That is, the Church states that the situation is complicated, who am I to disagree?“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.”
The procedures under discussion do have some associated health risk, and “burdensome” is highly subjective. So the question again arises, who does the Church say should make the final decision? We’ve had once answer from the Doctrinal Note above, but it worth noting that it has been elevated to the Catechism as well:“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.”
This actually relates to the original post. See this Doctrinal Note on voting:“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
Does the proposed law impune our “right to die peacefully with human and Christian dignity”?When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…religious freedom
Well Jim, it’s time you just stop eating because that’s the only thing keeping your body alive which in turn is keeping your brain (semi) functioning.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.
Thank you for the stupid sarcasm. But then given the requirements by the Church, I wouldn’t consider dialysis or a respirator extraordinary means. After all technology has advanced to keep us going. So by all means require them to use those means as well. But when my time comes, I’m not footing the bill for feeding tubes and the indefinite hospital stay. The government or Church will have to do that.Well Jim, it’s time you just stop eating because that’s the only thing keeping your body alive which in turn is keeping your brain (semi) functioning.
You clearly don’t understand what actually are extraordinary means of life support. Feeding someone is NOT extraordinary care.
See this frustrates me. I am by no means a smart man but I have read the constitution. In my reading of the constitution no where does it give any court the authority to create law. If fact it is very clear that only the legislature can create law with the executive branch ratifying what the legislature has created. As I read the constitution the court system is not the final arbiter of law, their only role is to interpreter the intent of the legislature and insure that the executive is applying the law as it was intended. In my reading of the constitution it is the legislature’s right and responsibility to correct the court when it misinterprets the law.I think that if a law, like the one suggested, was passed by congress such a law would face so many legal challanges that it would be rendered practically in effective if not out right dismissed by the present court system or process.
Personally, if something like a law that was suggested to becoming a law of the land it would have to come through one of two ways. First, by a constitutional amendment or secondly by a decision of the US Supreme Court stating the legal definition of human life in the terms proposed at the beginning of this thread.
Is this second way possible? Well, the Supreme Court did turn the tomato, biologically a fruit, into a vegetable so I guess anything is possible.
Again I am not a smart man I can only understand the words as they were written, I have never had shadows or astronomic gaseous clouds speak anything to me.
Article III makes the Supreme Court a co-equal branch of the government, it also gives it broad jurdisdiction for review.
I’ve heard it argued that judicial review began with Marbury v. Madison in 1802, but the precedent was actually set in 1610 by Sir Edward Coke (an English Supreme Court Justice), his Petition of Right to Charles I was the precurser to the English Bill of Rights, after which the US Bill of Rights was modeled. In their writings, members of the Constitutional Congress refer to it pretty frequently.
From a Catholic point of view, the courts ability to strike down unconstitutional laws is seemingly essential:
“The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person.[17] Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. The democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite fragile were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. It is respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible. As the Second Vatican Council teaches, the protection of «the rights of the person is, indeed, a necessary condition for citizens, individually and collectively, to play an active part in public life and administration».[18]”
You’re quite welcome…I simply gave you a real example of what you are arguing for. You act as if a person only on a feeding tube is basically dead already. that is simply not true. If they were dead save for the feeding tube, they wouldn’t be alive even on the tube. After they started starving Teri you saw how long it took for her to die…the same amount of time it would have taken for you or me to die if we were starved and kept from water.Thank you for the stupid sarcasm. But then given the requirements by the Church, I wouldn’t consider dialysis or a respirator extraordinary means. After all technology has advanced to keep us going. So by all means require them to use those means as well. But when my time comes, I’m not footing the bill for feeding tubes and the indefinite hospital stay. The government or Church will have to do that.
We have to be careful speaking in absolutes and generalization. Teri Schivo was placed on a feeding tube with the full support of her husband and family.After they started starving Teri you saw how long it took for her to die…the same amount of time it would have taken for you or me to die if we were starved and kept from water.
Obviously you have a poor understanding of Church teaching regarding extraordinary means…
Keep in mind that what is extraordinary at one point in time may not remain extraordinary as knowledge progresses. This is true of any advances in medical treatment. The extraordinary has tended to become ordinary throughout medical history.Then why are kidney dialysis and a respirator not considered necessary and instead regarded as extraordinary means? Huh?