I am really angry about T. Schiavo

[XanaDUer]

PS-I'm new to this group.

I was rasied Catholic, but am now non-religious.

However, I am SO ANGRY right now about them removing her feeding tube, I could spit.

The one thing that I feel either of the Bushes did correct was to save this poor woman's life. And I am getting sick of people almost rooting for her to die!

Am I the only one who thinks this sucks! (I doubt it)

Now I read that it may take 1-2 weeks for her to die.

Sorry for the rant.

[JohnKleeb]

1. I havent developed a position on this, I think we're on the same boat tho

[Padraig18]

2. I'm absolutely apalled.

:wow::argh::mad:

[DemBones DemBones]

3. Me, too! It's an outrage that liberals are supporting

the euthanasia of a severely disabled woman. They killed the disabled early on in Nazi Germany but it didn't exactly stop with them, did it?

[DemBones DemBones]

4. I just posted this up in GD-P, with the header

"Our country has lost its collective mind"

and is sanctioning horrible acts under the guise of freedom. It's unbelievable to me that liberals are supporting the killing of an innocent person based on hearsay testimony that she would have wanted to die in her current situation. The fact that a judge accepted the hearsay testimony and ordered her death proves only that a judge can make mistakes -- and have no interest in preserving the rights of the severely disabled.

If the mentally and physically disabled can be euthanized, who will be next?

As Mouth magazine's bumper sticker says, "I support the right to die. You go first."

In other words, don't volunteer your disabled neighbors to die first, though of course that's been done before; in Nazi Germany the disabled were killed early on.

Those of you without disabilities don't understand this issue the way the disabled do. The media has told you that only right-wingers oppose starving Terri Schiavo but that's not true. The MSM has beeen ignoring press releases from disability rights groups, ignoring the seventeen disability rights groups that filed amicus briefs on Terri's behalf, ignoring the disabled people who have been involved in protests supporting Terri's life. The MSM has also ignored disability rights protests against Eastwood's cripple snuff film, M$B.

Here are a few quotes from Mary Johnson's article "The Scrines who Mistook the Crips for the Right":

"Religious opposition to assisted suicide is based on "sanctity of life" arguments. Disability rights opposition comes from an entirely different sensibility. The mostly-agnostic activists we know who oppose the "right to die" are steeped in progressive leftist causes. They read "death with dignity" laws as disparate impact legislation."

"The "right to die" may sound egalitarian; it may sound as though it's about nothing more than choice. In application, though, it applies only to people who are living disabled lives. And the disability rights movement continually returns to this central truth. "Since virtually all people who request hastened death have old or new disabilities, we're essential to the debate," wrote the late Barry Corbet, longtime editor New Mobility. Right to die, and death with dignity laws, Corbet wrote, "are about us."

"Many of our allies in the civil rights and health care movements have found this hard to understand. Isn't this about individual autonomy and rights, they ask?" says attorney Diane Coleman, founder of Not Dead Yet. "No, we say, it's about disability discrimination, a profit-oriented health care system, and a legal system that does not guarantee the equal protection of the law," she wrote in a 2000 article for the American Bar Association.

"The idea that people with disabilities are not worthy of society's acceptance or resources is not new," says Coleman. Actively helping someone end their life is illegal in every state. But laws permitting a doctor to provide lethal medication are being contemplated in California, Vermont, Hawaii and Arizona (such a law is in force only in Oregon.) Proponents insist safeguards exist.

Read the entire article here:

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/mediacircus/scribesmistook0205.html

[XanaDUer]

7. I saw the husband on Larry King last night (paraphrase):

I was so glad Larry King asked the man, "WHen did this happen to Terry?"

Husband: When she was 25.

LK: You're saying a 25-year-old told you she wanted to die.

Husband: (Shocked look for a second).

LK busted him on that one.

[AngryOldDem]

12. Can you post a link to it? Thanx n/t

[Kathy in Cambridge]

5. She has no brain. Her cerebral cortex is destroyed.

There is no hope of recovery. Basic biology, folks!

People arguing that the feeding tube not be removed refuse to acknowledge that she has NO cerebral cortex, and that without a cerebral cortex, there is no movement, no vision, no language, no emotions, no nothing? I will say this again: There is no hope of recovery! This isn't just a coma. Without the feeding tube forcing her body to stay alive, she would die.

The most basic, most primitive parts of her brain are still there, which is why her heart beats and she breathes. But without any structure in her brain telling her how to move, or anything else, she does not eat and would not eat.

Plus the courts found "clear and compelling evidence" that she DID express the desire to NOT be kept alive like this.

So you're going against her wishes because your religion dictates that you play God. I think our Lord would want us to respect her wishes, and let her die in peace.

[XanaDUer]

6. I'm an atheist.

One to two weeks starving and dehydrating someone makes me sick.

Has she had MRIs to determine the state of her brain functioning?

I believe she has had EEGs, which are notoriouly wrong. There are people with abnormal EEGs who are awake, yet their EEGs make them look brain dead.

No medical exams have been allowed on her, except for those chosen by the husband. He has refused to allow the more decisive methods of testing (positron emission tomography) that would clear up the murky waters of her brain functioning.


PS-I would also like to see an attorney looking after TS's interests-not her parents, not her husband's. Just hers.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

8. What about following her wishes?

that is also what is pissing me off here.

For a scientific review of what is happening hee, check out Bouncy Ball's thread from about a week ago. She wrote some great stuff:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3267910

<snip>
"The only documented case of someone recovering from a permanent vegetative state came in the early 1980s, said Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurology professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Schiavo.

And in that case, the patient's scan showed no brain atrophy, Cranford said. "The one thing we learned from that, you look at shrinkage of the brain," he said. "Terri has massive shrinkage."

<snip>
Here's Terri Schiavo, with her cerebral cortex completely missing, and people think she's just going to grow it back? Or just wake up and start talking without one? Without one, your body can do nothing but involuntary things. Your heart can beat, you can breathe, you can regulate your body temperature (sweat, etc), because all those things are things our "lower" brain tells our body to do automatically (you don't will your heart to beat, right?).

Anything beyond that, she is simply completely incapable of doing, lacking any brain tissue to tell her body to do those things. She can't even form a thought. (We don't think with our lower brain.) She has no consciousness.

And shame on the people who have preyed on her parents and made them believe otherwise. Seriously, that's just about criminal. It's like taking the engine out of a car and saying "ANY day now, it's just going to start up and we'll be able to drive it around! If you just pray hard enough. And fight the court system hard enough, and get enough publicity about it. Maybe if we lit some more candles that car with no engine will start and drive around."

[XanaDUer]

9. I read it, very interesting

So, Terry did NOT state she wished to die, and, if she had, her parents would not have let her? So, it's still speculative?

I also don't believe she will grow a brain back. Anyone who believes that just has wishful thinking.

I think that, because she is alive, a feeding tube is not an extraoridnary measure. The difference in my mind would be, if someone is on a ventilator, the ventilator is turned off, and they cannot breathe on their own. They die. In this case, it's food and water that is keeping her alive. Not extraordinary means. Feeding someone is not extraordinary.

And she can swallow-just not enough to take in enough nutrients. Swallowing happens to be indicative of volitional responses. Without a baseline EEG from ante-trauma, there is not a way of telling what her post-trauma brain activity is. Does Terry have quality of life? I , personally, would not want to be in her position. Until there is medical information coming from medical personnel not through the husband, then I would consider euthanasia.

Here is how I feel about it: citizens who are convicted of a death-penalty offense have more than one individual deciding whether they should be put to death. Certainly, in the case of a disabled innocent, more than one person should be required in determining whether they want to be put to death or should be put to death, especially by starvation. In this case, especially, when the person (husband) getting to make the decision has a lot of money riding on it.

[etherealtruth]

13. MRI's and other scans, not EEG's...

are being relied upon. With many disease processes leading to death this (eventual inability to take in food or fluids)is the natural process, it is not painful, it is generally peaceful. The link below expresses this much more clearly than I can:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-me

[XanaDUer]

16. No page available.

...

[etherealtruth]

17. It sure isn't now...

I will try to find another. As a former Hospice nurse I felt it expressed the process factually and with sensitivity...

[XanaDUer]

18. That's ok, thanks though

I've been googling all sorts of stuff about this case this morning.

Basically, my feeling is this:

I believe in the rigth to die-but I really gotta here it from the mouth of the person without any coersion on them in anyway.

In this case, poor TS cannot speak. And, frankly, I don't trust her husband. Each side, parents and husband, have their own motives for what they want to happen to her, but if push comes to shove, I would trust her parents over the husband.

[etherealtruth]

19. I found a link anyway...

http://www.aahpm.org/education/arthy.pdf

This is such a complicated issue... I haven't seen either side callously presented, most people seem to be very thoughtful and concerned regardless of their opinion.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Found this link in another thread.

Edit: 2nd link and comment added

[AngryOldDem]

11. I agree

It comes down to the quality and dignity of that life, and if there is any chance at all that she will recover. I think it's been proven beyond any doubt that she is brain dead and has no chance of recovery. Most of the arguments I have read basically come down to emotions -- which is to be expected -- but we also have to step back and take a look at all the evidence the courts have had to weigh over the years as they have struggled with this situation.

It should not be "life at all costs."

Believe me, if there were a scant bit of hope that she would recover to lead a somewhat "normal" life with functions and reactions even if that meant hospice care the rest of her life, I would be against the pulling of the tube. But the tube was the only thing that was keeping her alive. To me, that is not human dignity, and that is not life. My only major concern is that she not suffer unnecessarily in the meantime. Palliative measures, I trust, have been taken.

I think the bottom line for all of us in this sad case is, we have to make our end-of-life wishes known, whatever they may be, and furthermore entrust those directives to someone who will carry them through.

Another point: Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall much pro-life outrage over the ending of life support for the infant in Texas a few weeks back, whose mother wanted to keep him alive, but the hospital wanted to terminate him. Any thoughts from anyone on how that case flew under the radar?

I know this will be an unpopular opinion here, but that's how I feel.

[etherealtruth]

14. I expressed much the same sentiments in an other thread...

with trepidation

[demosincebirth]

15. I agree.

I'm sure that if she was able to, some how, communicate she would not want to live in that condition for the rest of her life. I know, as a father, I would give my daughter rest. I think we should all put ourselves in her place and see what choice we would make.

[AngryOldDem]

22. It would be a tough decision to make

But ultimately, I would opt for removing the tube, were it my child. Believe me, I know where the Schindlers are coming from. Nobody wants to give up hope on life, especially when it is their child. But sometimes, the point is reached when you do have to consider the quality and dignity of that life. (Sorry to sound so repetitive, but that's what it's coming down to for me.) If there is absolutely NO HOPE of recovery, or of some rehabilitation, what point does it serve? For whose purposes are we keeping her alive?

The Terri who all her friends and loved ones knew is gone. It's time that her physical body find some peace as well.

God rest her soul, and comfort those she leaves behind.

[Princess Turandot]

23. It's not an unpopular opinion, at least not with me..

I had thought when this group was set up that it would attract progressive DU Catholics, not only Conservative Catholics who still vote as Democrats. Without expressing progressive viewpoints, or ones which may not be lockstep with what appears more and more to be regressive Church leadership, we are not going to attract too many DU Catholics to this group.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. I agree with you. She's gone.

Her wishes need to be followed.

[elshiva]

31. I agree. I think she is pretty much gone.

I think the food is drowning her... But what do I know, I'm an Episcopalian...

It gets me angry because although it is a tragedy, I think the repukes are playing it up to get our attentions away from the two-year occupation of Iraq. Damn hypocrites to say they support a culture of life when these same repukes support the war.

[demosincebirth]

39. The part that really frosts me is that

that phony, hypocritical, self righteous, Tom Delay is leading the charge. Makes me want to puke!

[elshiva]

47. Yeah Mr. Ethics himself, sheesh!

[Stunster]

10. I have two thoughts about this

Given the actual circumstances of Terri Schiavo, I think it is obviously wrong to remove her feeding tube.

However, I'm not sure we should sticking feeding tubes into people's stomachs in the first place if they are very unlikely ever again to be able to be fed in a more normal way.

If she could be fed orally, it would obviously be wrong to stop feeding her. But I don't think it follows that we must place feeding tubes into the stomachs of people who get into her condition in the first place.

What is 'ordinary', and what is 'extraordinary' medical treatment will change, of course, over time. But I think Catholic teaching does not mandate extraordinary treatment should always be initiated.

Of course, if it's the case that Terri could recover and improve her functioning, then a feeding tube into the stomach in the meantime might be justified. But I think 'ordinary' treatment currently should only include oral feeding, or temporary tube feeding to stomach, but not permanent feeding tube to stomach.

[Princess Turandot]

20. my thoughts, not necessarily in order..

Mrs. Schiavo's human brain, so elegantly created as a result of millions of years of evolution, is gone. She has liquid where her human brain, the cerebral cortex, should be. She has a working primitive brain, something she shares with many a non-human mammal. She is not severely disabled: she is gone, with no hope of cerebral recovery short of a miracle, and I personally do not think that keeping shells which were once human alive for another 20 years awaiting a miracle is at all rational or compassionate or particularly moral.

Having worked in the hospital field for a long time, I am absolutely adamant that physicians & ethicists tasked with making a determination of someone's state of being in a case such as this, do so in full recognition of the profound significance of what they have been tasked with. They are asked to do something that no one ever want to do and they carry it out with great professionalism. When these types of cases go to court, as they do every day of the year in the US, judges are equally aware of their responsibilities. Over and over, court appointed experts have returned the same sad answer: this woman's mind is hopelessly gone.The non-independent physicians disagreeing with this conclusion appear to be either people so mired in the 'right to life' movement that they have lost their professional independence, or they are in a word, quacks, who are trying to sell theories of care which they themselves admit have never shown any positive results. And many of them, according to the court transcripts, actually admit that her human brain is gone, but claim that something could be done to regrow it. A lot of quacks claimed laetrile could cure cancer; I don't know if a single claim was ever proved.

I am very disturbed about the sex-police attitude that some individuals are espousing in this case. This woman's husband lived with her parents for nearly a decade, actually putting forth a great deal of effort attempting to save her, until her brain deteriorated to the point of no return. There was no other woman in his life at that time. Those who say that he has lost his moral position on this case because he will not sacrifice the rest of his life sitting at the side of a shell which once contained his wife, are sanctimonious to the point of cruelty.It definitely also falls into the category of judging not lest you be judged.

Many opponents to the removal of her feeding tube indicate that they would be willing to take her off of respiratory support, because to them, an inability to breath would indicate that she was dead. There are a lot of physically disabled individuals who breath with a respirator, but who are cognitively alive and functioning, such as Stephen Hawkins. I assume Mr. Hawkins is also on a feeding tube, because his body is frozen by ALS. No one is suggesting that either of his life support mechanisms be turned off, because what makes him a human being is still functioning. I have not seen a single person on DU post that they thought Schiavo's tube should be removed because she is merely disabled. While people speak of the spousal rights, and the non-interference of government and other parties, at the same time they believe that her human brain is gone. Gone. The people posting in these threads demanding to know whether some DUer wants their brain-functioning disabled child's feeding tube removed have to know that no one is saying that. This is no slippery slope to the euthanasia of the disabled; that's an emotional red herring. I can understand that being a philosophically legitimate concern, but this situation does not ring that bell AT ALL.


Right now, many nursing homes around the country have wards filled with elderly, unconcious, diapered or tubed for elimination, bed sore ridden, ventilator and feeding-tube dependent people, whose next of kin demanded that they be resuscitated and placed on life-support, after some physical event put them into at least a coma. My mother was in a nursing home for a year with such a ward down the hall from her. These people are not brain dead and in fact show higher brain activity unlike Mrs. Schiavo but they sit there frozen in time, until some organic disease catches up with them. Most get no visitors. They must be rushed to the hospital if there is any indication of treatable illness, then brought back to the nursing home and warehoused. They are alive and in this condition because modern medicine has learned far more about keeping our carcasses alive than healing our brains. This isn't natural. It's not suffering for God, as some seem to concern themselves with. It's a situation that no one would want to conciously be in. It's as disrespectful of our humanity as it gets. Those who disagree with this should pay a visit to a local nursing home and see what this 'life' is. This rush by hypocritical politicians to demand placement of life support measures (but who would deny food stamps to living poor people) will put even more people into this sad condition.

People have an emotional reaction to the feeding tube being removed since they think about how they would feel if starved to death. I believe that the evidence in this case is compelling that this woman will not be aware of any pain from this process, given her cognitive state. The answer here of course is that a more humane approach could be taken by giving her enough morphine to hasten the death of her body. My father finally died after 3 years of terminal liver cancer had wreaked havoc upon him. His last 3 weeks were spent in a hospital; he was in a coma for the last week. We were waiting for a major body organ to fail; his cardiovascular system was working fairly well and he could have lingered for a longer time. I'm confident that his physicians quietly helped him pass away by slowly increasing his morphine. This was a mitzvah on their part, not a sin. The reality is that a decent society should provide a painless death where requested by a concious individual where death is inevitable, or as in the case of Ms. Schiavo, has now already occurred. But that won't happen because of so-called conservative moralists aided by people with an irrational belief that the medical profession will suddenly transform itself into a death squad for inconvenient people. I'll repeat myself: forcing people to linger in pain against their own wishes is cruel. It's not suffering for God, as some seem to concern themselves with. It's a situation that no one would want to conciously be in. It's as disrespectful of our humanity as it gets.


On a final note, while I have not always agreed with John Paul II's viewpoints, I have respected him and have always felt that he was a man of great intellect and courage. It saddens me that the Vatican has intervened in this case directly. Assuming that this directive actually comes from the Pope and not his less humanistic assistants, I think it is a sign that his intellectual powers are truly in decline.Refusing to accept the discoveries of modern medicine risks putting the Church back to the days when they threw Galileo in prison for heresy for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun. Respecting life has nothing to do with prolonging suffering for the glory of God unless that is the affected individual's wish or with defining human life as something that it is not.

[etherealtruth]

21. You have eloquently expressed how I feel ...

but could not express with such intelligence and coherence. Thank you!

[DemBones DemBones]

24. Catholic teaching does not condone the deliberate ending of

someone's life, not even in a hospital through the decision of doctors to bring an expected death more quickly. Morphine can certainly be given for pain relief and it's difficult sometimes not to accidentally overdose a terminal patient while relieving his/her pain. But it's still considered murder if anyone deliberately causes a death, whether by administering a drug or by denial of nutrition and water. It's legally considered murder, too, and it is morally and ethically dangerous to consider such acts a mitzvah. If we think today that it's acceptable to hasten death just a little, soon we'll accept hastening it a little more, a little more, a little more, until the moment cancer is diagnosed, a lethal overdose of morphine or other drugs will be considered an appropriate choice.

Accepting the euthanasia of Terri Shhiavo will lead to more euthanasia of the profoundly disabled, with the less profoundly disabled soon becoming candidates as well.

Catholic teaching does permit the refusal of treatment. IF Terri Schiavo has no hope for improvement, it's a shame that a feeding tube was started in the first place, just as it's a shame that the nursing home patients you describe were ever resuscitated.

I am not convinced that Terri Schiavo has no hope for improvement, however, and I question why her husband allowed a feeding tube to be started, filed suit to get money for her care, and then "remembered" what he claims are "her wishes." It seems to me that her wishes, if she ever expressed any such wishes, would have come to mind when the issue of the feeding tube first was raised.

His moving on with his life is all well and good but why must Terri die for him to do that?

[etherealtruth]

25. Why was the feeding tube inserted in the first place...

You would really need to ask Mr Schiavo, my experience tells me that people in his position often initially agree to these measures because they desperately need to believe that their loved one will "get better" or because it is not immediately clear what the extent of the damage or disease process is.

Nerve tissue (brain tissue), in the simplest terms, does not regenerate or repair itself--- the extensive testing of Ms. Schiavo's brain indicates damage and destruction of the parts of the brain responsible for thought and emotion. This is not in dispute by the mainstream medical community.

As you say the refusal of medical treatment is not inconsistent with Catholic teaching. This in no way opens the door to euthanizing the elderly, the disabled or the ill--- This scenario occur rs through out the USA very frequently, the only difference is that it is rarely played out in the public arena. It has in no way brought about the euthanization you fear.

I do respect your concern for life and your deep concern for the Schiavo parents, I too have great concern for them and pray for them often.

[meow2u3]

26. Allowing a natural death does not necessarily constitute euthanasia

This entire case is a classic case of a gray area in life-or-death matters. Is it euthanasia or letting Terri die naturally? That is the question.
If--and I say if--her feeding tube were not removed, but instead poison were added to the mix--then I would say it's illegal euthanasia. But simply removing a feeding tube from someone in a vegetative state which artificially prolongs his or her life for years, if not decades, depends on the circumstances. I think this is a case of allowing a natural death, not euthanasia.

[Princess Turandot]

30. Don't lecture me on Catholic teachings, ..

I don't think that they are infallible or immutable. After all, I'm a cradle Catholic who for decades might have been guilty of the grevious sin of eating meat on a Friday. I happen to think they are incredibly misguided in this matter.

I am shocked that you think she can re-grow a brain from a pool of liquid. I believe Ms. Schiavo was put on a feeding tube soon after her cardiac event, when her husband was hoping that she would recover to some degree. It's clear from her state-appointed guardian's time-line that efforts were made for years to rehabilitate her. However, her cerebral cortex continued to atrophy, despite these efforts.

I do not buy into the slippery slope of euthanasia of the disabled.
There has been long standing legal & medical precedents for letting people who are cognitively destroyed to go their final rest. It happens every day of the year. The only difference with Terry Schiavo is that her case was latched onto by the Operation Rescue whackos.

I do not believe that the moral highroad is to keep a dying man alive who has been tortured for 3 years by the destruction of his liver in order for him to have a 'natural' death a week or two later, causing even greater grief to the people who loved him. If the doctors helped my dad pass, I am immensely grateful to them. You can feel free to suffer as much as you care to at the end of your own life, or that of someone you love. You have no right to wish that on anyone else. Nor does the Vatican.

[DemBones DemBones]

32. Please read the group guidelines, which say, in part,

"Participants need not be practicing members of one of the Catholic or Orthodox rites but should be respectful of the beliefs and structures of the rites, especially in advocating any changes, such as allowing women to serve as priests."

"This group is intended to be a venue for those who desire to discuss stated topics and is not intended as a forum to argue against Catholic/Orthodox belief or the Catholic/Orthodox Churches, members, or clergy."

When someone isn't respecting Catholic belief in this group, any of us may speak about it and remind the others of what the Church teaches.

What you said about doctors having possibly deliberately overdosed your father with morphine and it being a mizpah (blessing) if they did hasten his death is at odds with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, a teaching more important than abstinence from meat on Fridays.

I do understand your feelings about your father not having to suffer more but it's not morally acceptable to hasten someone's death. I've been through the deaths of my parents and in-laws, all involving plenty of suffering, but the morally acceptable act is to alleviate suffering, not to end life. An accidental overdose in the attempt to control the pain of a painful terminal illness is not immoral, a deliberate overdose is because it involves intent to kill. Not that it would be your sin, in any case, but that it would be sin, and the sin of murder at that. It is possible that my mother's death from lung cancer was hastened accidentally by the morphine used to control her pain but I pray that there was no deliberate overdose, no murder.

There are plenty of places on DU to argue against the Church but this group is one where Catholic teachings are to be respected.

I don't think that the Church will ever reverse its teachings on moral issues. The prohibition against eating meat on Fridays was a means to generate a penitential respect for Friday as the day on which Jesus was crucified and the original idea was that money not spent on meat on Fridays could be given to those in need. But over the years, people forgot the part about giving to the needy and just ate a tasty fish or vegetarian dinner rather than sacrificing anything on Fridays. In removing the ban on meat on Fridays, the intent was to make Catholics focus more on spiritual matters, more on doing good and giving alms, etc., than on simply altering their diet for one day. We are still supposed to perform such acts on Fridays and may still choose to abstain from meat as a reminder of our beliefs.

As for Mrs. Schiavo, I do not think she can re-grow a brain from a pool of liquid, if her cerebral cortex is liquid as some allege. I also don't think she should be starved to death since the "evidence" that she'd want to die is hearsay. When a terminally ill person refuses a feeding tube (as my mother-in-law, who had ALS, did), they are still able to eat food and they have made the choice knowing that a feeding tube could lengthen their life but without improving the quality of their remaining life. My husband and I supported her choice and would make the same choice ourselves in a similar situation. But Terri Schiavo has had a feeding tube for years and removing it is intended to kill her directly.

You wrote:

"I do not buy into the slippery slope of euthanasia of the disabled.
There has been long standing legal & medical precedents for letting people who are cognitively destroyed to go their final rest. It happens every day of the year"

That something happens routinely does not make it morally acceptable. Some forty-five million unborn babies, the vast majority of them healthy and no threat to their mothers' life or health, have been legally destroyed in this country over the past three decades. I don't find that morally acceptable and neither does the Roman Catholic Church. Nor do I believe that the disabled, even the prfoundly disabled, should be euthanized (killed) for the convenience of the abled, and I find it strange that anyone cannot see that there is a movement to make euthanasia acceptable. I suggest reading about disability rights activism.

Peace be with you.

[Princess Turandot]

49. Sorry DB2..

as far as I am concerned, I have no obligation to be silent on my disagreement with Church teachings in certain areas, no matter what you want you think. I don't present my views in a disrespectful manner. I think discourse is healthy.

I do not believe that it is in the best interest of progressive Catholics to attempt to silence views which disagree with the Church on social policy. I'm not coming here suggesting that Mary's Immaculate Conception is a myth or deriding matters of faith. I do not consider birth control or the Schiavo debate to be matters of faith; I consider it to be the opinion of whomever is running around in the Vatican at any point in time.

Abortions have absolutely nothing to do with assisted deaths of living people. Can you cite a specific example of a sentient although physically disabled person who has been euthanized by a cruel & unjust relative or society against that person's wishes? Terry Schiavo does not fall into that category at all. Elderly people who are removed from ventilators by their family's wish often have more brain activity than she does, but lack any realistic chance of meaningful recovery.The Church does not interfere in those matters, choosing to believe that the lack of a natural ability to breath is an acceptable measure for ending life support.

I personally know a group of Catholic nuns who do health related mission work in third world countries. I know that they tell their clients to use barrier birth control in order to prevent the spread of AIDS because their consciences do not believe that violating the Church's view on birth control is worth innocent people dying. They live lives of complete service until they can no longer function, often well into their 80's.These women have a hell of a lot more vested in Catholicism that you or I do. Under your construct of Catholicism, they would, I suppose, not be welcome here either.

[AngryOldDem]

35. Please correct me if I'm wrong....

...but it seems that most of the home videos the Schindlers have been using to bolster their case that there is hope for Terri are at least four years old. The one showing her with her mother is dated 2001, I believe; there is another of her in bed, somewhat conscious, which I think is from a year or so later.

No one truly knows the state of Terri physically, but when the cortex is described as being completely gone it does not take a neuroscientist to see that there is no hope for recovery, and that the feeding tube is keeping alive basically a shell of what was once a vital and functioning human being. It is time to let go.

The fact that this is now being made a federal case -- with Bush "cutting short" his vacation in order to make yet another grandstand play to his legions of right-wing toadies -- is a sin in and of itself.

There is no "slippery slope" here. It is, truly, a question of whether one has a right to a dignified death. This spectacle has assured Terri that she will not have one, no matter when the end comes.

[XanaDUer]

41. This is a slippery slope

how would we like the insurance industry, that already has way too much control over our lives, to have doctors pull the plugs on people who are costing too much money?

And yes, DBDB, the Church does not support murder, even to help someone.

I wish the husband would let her parents assume her care. Then he can move on with his life.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. Here's where I get hung up...

What bothers me is the removal of her feeding tube; had one not been inserted in the first place, that would be different, but to deliberately remove it now that it is there is something both qualitatively and quantitatively different. No matter how hard I try, I just can't get past the significance of the act, and what it means for Terri Schiavo.

It's a horrible case, and horrible cases make bad law.

x(

[DemBones DemBones]

34. Yes, indeed. If the tube had never been begun, she would

have died, slowly, because she would have continued eating some food. My mother-in-law had ALS and she chose not to have a feeding tube. She knew she would live longer with the tube but not necessarily with much quality of life. Most likely, if she'd had a feeding tube, she'd have very soon had to face a decision on whether to be on a ventilator, due to the muscles ALS was affecting and to its rapid progress, and I think would have suffered more. The last two weeks of her life were increasingly uncomfortable because she was very thin and had so little padding on her bones to keep her comfortable in bed or sitting in a chair. But she never had to have pain medication and one of my last memories of her is is her sitting in her chair sucking on a Goo Goo Cluster (a candy made in Nashville, involving chocolate, caramel, pecans -- wish I had one now!) and talking with us. Her speech was so garbled by then that we had to do a lot of guessing and we all laughed a lot in the process. She already was too weak to use an electronic communication board (couldn't press the buttons hard enough) but could still write. Only on the last day of her life did her speech and handwriting become completely unintelligible and I think that she chose to die then. Our priest visited her and prayed with her in the afternoon and she died peacefully about midnight, with us on either side of her bed, nine years ago this week.

(I do think some people can choose to die, will themselves to die. My grandmother had said to me many times that she'd sooner die than move into any sort of assisted living home. Her children decided she had to, eventually, and she seemed to be going along with them, had picked out the furniture to take along and so on. Then she had a sudden, massive stroke. We buried her on the very day she was to have left her home and moved into "the home." Coincidence?)

[XanaDUer]

29. Now someone is calling her an "animated corpse"

Guys-I'm not just a dem-I'm a far-to-the left leftist.

I am starting to become ashamed of some people here.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Welcome to the group, XanaDUEr! You don't have to be a practicing

Catholic, or even a baptized Catholic, to participate here as long as you abide by our guidelines, which require a respectful attitude toward Catholic teaching and hierarchy.

I'm as tired of the "Die, Terri die!" threads as you are.

As one disability rights activist put it, crips are supposed to either be cured -- or actively pursuing a cure, a la Christopher Reeve -- or hurry up and die. Preferably out of sight so the abled don't have to look at them.

The Left is not supportive of the disabled.

[XanaDUer]

42. Thanks!

:hi:

I have great respect (although I do get mad at times, lol!) for most of the Church's teachings.

And yes, if I have to read another Terri-must-die thread, I'm gonna :puke:.

[etherealtruth]

36. NONE of us posting here are arbiters of the faith ...

On edit: shoot didn't mean to respond to XanaDUer, #33

Here are a couple links stating the church's position as: remove the feeding tube. There are many sites that will state the opposite. I do not take the view that one side is good, the other bad... both sides exist with in the community.

My point is that NONE of us is an arbiter of the faith. I am taking this personally as I worked closely with a physician whom was a brilliant light of the faith (and a member of a RC religious order)who believed that withdrawing treatment (in circumstances identical to to Ms. Schiavo's)was very consistent with the church.

You can certainly disagree,but I assert that your interpretation IS simply that, YOUR's.

http://www.medhunters.com/articles/religionAndHealthcareRomanCatholic.html

What should a healthcare professional know about a Roman Catholic's view of death?

A: Catholics believe that there are limits to physical treatment. Withdrawing treatment has the same moral value as providing treatment. If it has been shown that there is no benefit to continuing treatment, then it should not be continued.

The Sacrament of Anointing the Sick is a ritual, in which a prayer is said for the patient, for those who are close to the patient, and for the healthcare providers. The purpose of this sacrament is not for physical healing but for mental and spiritual healing.


http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/oct31.html

In "Allowing Death and Taking Life: Withholding or Withdrawing Artificially Administered Nutrition and Hydration," the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America classes artificial nutrition and hydration as "medical treatment," not basic care. In cases where such treatment becomes futile and burdensome, says the document, "it may be morally responsible to withhold or withdraw them and allow death to occur."

But such decisions about the artificial extension of life through medical means are not really about killing, only letting die. In cases where, as the Catholic catechism puts it, hydration or feeding amount to "disproportionate means" to sustain the life of someone who already lacks cognitive function, to omit such treatment may well not amount to a direct act of killing, but rather an acknowledgment of our "inability to impede" imminent death.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. ALL of us here are, however, supposed to be respectful

of the teachings of the faith, and the Catechism does not advocate euthanasia.

[etherealtruth]

38. I am respectful of the church's position on euthanasia...

In my post I hoped to clarify the view that the plight of Ms. Schiavo is NOT euthanasia:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/200...

But such decisions about the artificial extension of life through medical means are not really about killing, only letting die. In cases where, as the Catholic catechism puts it, hydration or feeding amount to "disproportionate means" to sustain the life of someone who already lacks cognitive function, to omit such treatment may well not amount to a direct act of killing, but rather an acknowledgment of our "inability to impede" imminent death.


I do NOT disagree with the Catholic Catechism on euthanasia; I disagree with you.

However, I do believe that both of us arrived where we are by the same motivation: a deep respect for the dignity of human life and great compassion for all involved in this poor woman's plight (esp. Terri herself).

[DemBones DemBones]

44. It must be noted that Pope John Paul II has said that to remove

nutrition and hydration from someone in order to cause their death -- as is the case here -- is immoral.

Thus you disagree with the pope on this, not just with me.

[etherealtruth]

46. You provided nothing except your assertion...

....here is a link that gives a little more insight into the entire position:
http://www.nds.edu/countervatican.htm

Refresh your understanding of what "papal infallibility" really means.

"Catholics work in the sunshine. Cloaked cadres communicating in secrecy, trying to influence the discourse from their 'secret' vantage point is not Catholic in any sense. It's the kind of thing that causes further misunderstandings about the Catholic Church."

It is YOU I truly disagree with and I am sorry that being disagreed with is so unsettling to you. Please read the links, the US conference of Bishops is very clear,as well as the one above.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.htm#partfive

[Midlodemocrat]

40. I, for one, am appalled that it was ever placed at all.

I agree with the Church's teachings on euthanasia, but I don't believe that the Church has adequately addressed the issue to keeping someone artificially alive. I don't think the teachings have quite caught up with science.

Unfortunately, I have a lot of experience with this type of thing. My sister in law had a tube placed and it was in place for 10 months prior to her death. My dad had one placed as well, but it contributed to his death.

I don't think the medical community has adequately communicated the problems that can arise from placing a feeding tube, and I also don't think that the Church has adequately indicated its position on the placing of a feeding tube. The placement of a feeding tube is going to result in only two outcomes; the tube is replaced and the person recovers, or the person dies.

[XanaDUer]

43. Was the tube placed right after the CVA?

OR whatever it was?

I ask because one of the things that concerns me is the husband. I understand he did not really try to get her rehab, etc., that might have improved her quality of life even more.

PS-what I mean is, perhaps it was placed in anticipation of her improving, and then lack of antetrauma care caused her to deteriorate. I see her as a victim all the way around.

I also suspect some of his motives-call that gut instinct.

[Cuban_Liberal]

45. As so often happens, technology gallops while moral education walks.

The pace of medical advancement is exceeding our study of the moral consequences and implications of the technology itself. Simply because we can do something does not mean that we should do it, of course, and the Schiavo case illustrates the problem beautifully. A decision was made to do a procedure becuase it could be done with little thought being given to whether or not it should be done. I fully realize that my position on this mater is the conservative one, because I don't believe it is now proper to say 'Ooops!', and pull her tube out; the proper time to have asked whether or not a feeding tube was proper was at the time of its initial insertion, not years later. This is not a mistake that can now be 'corrected' like a stray pencil mark on a paper; the commitment to sustaining Terry Schiavo was undertaken years ago, and to now withdraw that means of sustenance is, at best, euthanasia.

/dons Nomex and Kevlar

[DemBones DemBones]

48. Like you, I believe that it was a mistake to begin a feeding tube

in this case.