Nahh! Not even Howard Dean could be that dumb, could he? Hmmm? Well, maybe.
All I can say is....Run, Michael, Run!!!
And may God bless the Schiavos and their work.
I have no wish to re-enter the whole Schiavo debate (I know pretty much where most of your commenters stand). But it is just idiotic to equate Kevorkian with Michael Schiavo. The former supports euthanasia in the classic sense. The latter withdrew food and water from a women in a persistent vegegative state. Argue what you like about whether he should or should not have done it, but it is most assuredly not enthanasia. And you know what? The campaign of misinformation over this issue and the subsequent public backlash means that the real case against euthanasia has suffered a serious setback. Brilliant, guys, brilliant. Can you for once extricate yourself from the clutches of the "Truly Evil" party?
Tony.
Tony, please, please send off your comments to Howard Dean! Implore him to make the Schiavo case a key issue in the Congressional elections of 2006! Ask him to fully embrace "loving husband" and his message of killing with kindness!
Tony,
First, you insist that you do not wish to re-enter into the debate. Then you proceed to re-enter into the debate. Oh but first you insult us by calling us idiotic. Thanks.
By the way, your right. You can't equate Kevorkian with Schiavo. Although they are both murderers, one kills in the most humanely way possible, quickly and painlessly, the other murdered his wife in a prolonged deprivation of food and water.
Lastly, we can go back and forth claiming which is the more 'evil party' but we should all be able to agree that as faithful people neither party is a true home for any of us. Now that being said the party that embraces abortion and a multitude of other immoralities with rhetoric and action is worse IMHO than the party that usually says the right thing and occasionally does the right thing.
God Bless.
FYI Last I heard Kevorkian is in very poor health and his lawyers are trying to get him a pardon before he expires.
Something to do with his liver, if I recall correctly.
Ironic, in a way.
Bad year for two party system. Stupid Party gets selfish/greedy/nutso. Our own senior senator Arlen Specter- heaven help me I voted for him last November- calls for investigations on everything. Demands Million Ex- Embryo March for support of stem cell research. Demands new D.C. Fed building named after his own self. Even enters debate on poor underpaid Terrell Owens' efforts to extract more dough from Phila. Iggles. But nothing like Evil Party. Senate and Congressional leaders outdoing one another for crazy statements and positions. A party chair capable of the wackiest most uninformed comments any time a mic thrust under his chin. Now this lounge act for the pro-death circuit likely to play the main ballrooms. Birds of feather flying together.
Daren is quite right to say you can't equate Ghoul Kevorkian with Creep Schiavo - for another reason besides the one he gave.
It appears that Kevorkian's victims were directly complicit in their own murders (which does not justify Kevorkian's complicity, nor his advocacy of serial killing in theory & practice). Schiavo had his wife killed on the basis of a casual remark which he alleges she made many years beforehand.
I will only make a few basic points, and I will try to be more temperate than last time.
First, up until 2004, the clear thinking in the church among moralists was that providing food and water to a person in a persistent vegetative state could be considered disproportionate, and need not be continued. Examples abound in the case history. A minor speech by Pope John Paul in 2004 seened to change that 400 year understanding, and said that such measures should be considered proportionate. My question is: why the change? Is it part of the development of doctrine? If so, what is the justification? I haven't seen one. Absent one, I think the weight of church history is on my side.
Second, what turned a lot of people off was the Repubicans trying to exploit a personal tragedy. Sen. Martinez wrote a memo saying it was a great opportunity for Republicans. Sen. Frist have a TV diagnosis, challenging the neurosurgeons who actually worked on ger. Rep. DeLay made veiled threats against judges. This is why public opinion turned against them. And by equating the Schiavo case with euthanasia, I think public support for real euthanasia will rise. And this is a real shame. The bamboozlement backfired.
The Schiavo case was real euthanasia. She was neither dying nor dead. She was profoundly injured and disabled. The cause of death was the withdrawal of food and water.
To the extent opposition to this is a development of doctrine, it would involve, I think, not proportionality but the definition of "ordinary" versus "extraordinary" means of preserving life. This case demonstrates quite ably, I think, why it has become increasingly evident that food and water are ordinary care. They are standard medical treatment. The effect of withdrawing them is brutish and drawn-out.
And Tony, I continue to find your ability to distort and caricature and stereotype the views of those who disagree with you simply breathtaking.
The Catechism's distinction here (227
between euthanasia and overzealous medical care is notable, especially these lines:
Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted.
Here the will was to cause death. It was the ability to impede it which was unacceptable to the husband, and to the cast of euthanasia advocates he surrounded himself with.
To clarify, first it's 2278. Second, the development of doctrine regarding ordinary care would be in regard to situations in which death is thought to be imminent. That doesn't even come into play here. The Schiavo case was direct euthanasia of a handicapped woman.
Shiavo didn't just fail to provide food and water, which might be proportionate if, for example, he didn't have any to offer. He prevented everyone else from providing food and water.
It was state-sanctioned and state-enforced murder, pure and simple.
Michael Schaivo is an evil man (which most of you already have said, to varying degrees). What bothered me most about the whole issue was the trumped-up state of the "sanctity of marriage between man and woman." To those who supported Michael, this "sanctity" was suddenly visible (even though most would argue against any legislation banning gay marriage, thus making them hypocrites). Never mind that Michael cheated on his wife and fathered children with his mistress. No violation of his vows there.
And, consider this scenario: most who supported Michael cared little to naught about Terri's family's wishes. If Michael had been physicall/verbally abusing a healthy Terri, none of these people would claim he had the sole right to make decisions for her. They would likely support the family. So why is it suddenly different when Michael is anxious to kill his wife by cruel means? Why did the family's opinion count for so little?
And why can't Michael just shut his selfish mouth?
Max,
You write: "This case demonstrates quite ably, I think, why it has become increasingly evident that food and water are ordinary care. They are standard medical treatment."
No, I don't see this. For centuries, withdrawing food and water was seen as licit for a person in a persistent vegetative state, and keeping the person alive would be disproportionate. Again, the case study evidence is overwhelming. You are speaking as if this literature, and casuistry, was non-existent.
It would be more convincing if you made an argument that the state of modern medicine makes food and water a proportionate measure for a person in a persistent vegetative state. But you have have to admit that this would be a development in catholic medical ethics.
Note that I am not getting into Michael Schavo's motives. He may well answer to God for what he did.
Tony,
I have clarified why, regardless of whether you agree about it being ordinary care or not, the question doesn't even apply to Terri Schiavo.
The Catechism defines euthanasia as "putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable."
To clarify exactly the distinction between what constitutes overzealous treatment, the very next paragraph distinguishes it as a case in which one does not will to cause death but merely accepts "one's inability to impede it." It could not be more crystal clear which side of the line the Schiavo case falls on. And the Vatican itself backed that view, going to the remarkable and unusual step of speaking out about an individual case -- and on more than one occasion.
You don't have a leg to stand on.
For centuries, withdrawing food and water was seen as licit for a person in a persistent vegetative state, and keeping the person alive would be disproportionate. Again, the case study evidence is overwhelming. You are speaking as if this literature, and casuistry, was non-existent.
Cites please?
For centuries, withdrawing food and water was seen as licit for a person in a persistent vegetative state
Centuries, eh? Considering that the PVS syndrome was first described in 1940, and feeding tubes are a 20th century invention, you're assertion is at best highly dubious.
Mark, don't insult Vegas headliners. Louis Prima himself was in a coma for three years before he died in 1978.
Cites please?
Sorry, my post was cut off.
Here are cites from the current Ethical and Religious Directives to Catholic Health Care providers, which to this day are interpreted to allow withdrawal of ANH when a competent patient or caregiver declines it as overly burdensome:
56. A person has a moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving his or her life. Proportionate means are those that in the judgment of the patient offer a reasonable hope of benefit and do not entail an excessive burden or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.40
57. A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patient's judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.41
58. There should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration, as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.
And the last one:
59. The free and informed judgment made by a competent adult patient concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
The develoment of the casuistry in this area is well laid out in "The Catholic Tradition and the Use of Nutrition and Fluids" by John J. Paris, S.J., in Birth, Suffering, and Death, edited by Kevin Wildes, 1992, Kluwer Academic Publishers. I can't seem to find my copy right now, so unfortunately, I cannot be more specific at this point.
I will repeat an earlier post, to summarize the essence of this position:
The basic principles of Catholic moral teaching concerning illness and dying require that we distinguish. We must do what we can to sustain meaningful human living, but when our therapies cannot restore a person to meaningful life, we may allow the person’s body to die. When thinking about these difficult decisions, we use a distinction that enables us to sort out the relevant facts. We used to refer to this distinction as the difference between ordinary and extraordinary means. For reasons I won’t go into the words “ordinary” and “extraordinary” came to be used in the medical profession differently from the way we used them in making moral decisions, so we changed our terminology to avoid confusion. We now distinguish between proportionate and disproportionate means. (The word “means” denotes all means used to help the sick person.)
We are required to use the means proportionate to securing a good outcome in medical treatment – e.g., the means necessary to restore an unconscious person to conscious living. If a person who is unconscious or suffering terribly from an incurable cancer has no chance of recovery, we may judge that the means used to keep the person’s body alive are only prolonging a death agony and therefore are disproportionate. We, then, may discontinue using these means. The means we discontinue are called disproportionate, which means they are no longer proportionate to a reasonable end. We are still absolutely required to provide whatever care we can that will make the person as comfortable as possible and free from pain. But, when there is no hope of cure and there is no conscious life, we may let a person die.
There used to be a dispute as to whether providing nutrition (food) and hydration (water) could ever be disproportionate. This dispute was resolved decades ago as follows: if a person is unconscious with no hope of recovery so that nutrition and hydration are provided by tubes, or other technology (the person simply cannot eat or drink even with assistance), then the means of providing nutrition and hydration may be judged disproportionate and discontinued. It must be determined that the person is in such a state of unconsciousness that he/she cannot feel pain. If these conditions are not present, we are obliged to provide nutrition and hydration. If these conditions are present, we may withdraw the disproportionate means of providing nutrition and hydration and allow the person’s body to expire.
That's it, in a nutshell. If you read the excellent chapter in Paris's book, you will see the casuistry in action. Or maybe casuistry is no longer in fashion with certain elements within the church?
We must do what we can to sustain meaningful human living,...
I don't think the lives of people who wanted Terri dead are "meaningful", so I think it is time to withdraw food and water from them.
This dispute was resolved decades ago ...
By whom? By the authoritative Magisterium, or by somebody with "S.J." after his name?
By whom?
By Pope Tony A. I, of course. Haven't you been paying attention?
Tony:
I'm sorry, but your attempts to trump Catholic teaching with the opinions of a Jesuit that are particularly convenient to Democrat talking points are about as convincing to me as conservative attempts to trump Catholic teaching by appeals to arguments that are convenient to GOP talking points. Bullshit about the legitimacy of starving and dehydrating the Lebensunwertensleben remains bullshit, even when it is spoken on behalf of the Party of Compassion.
Work on being a Catholic first and an apologist for lefty causes second.
Mark,
Sorry, but that is horse shit and you know it. Nobody has shown that I am trumping catholic teaching. All people can do is point to a speech by JP2 in 2004. Do I need to point out that Paris is not inventing theology here, that he is accurately analyzing the developing of casuistry in this area? Have you even read his book?
I love the way catholic right-wingers attack their opponents by deeming them insufficiently catholic. I do not dissent from church teachings, but I will keep on pointing out again and again where right-wingers do. And that's what annoys them-- using their own arguments and rhetorical devices against them.
We need to stand firm against those who would drag the church into an unholy alliance with a weird sect of American evangelical fundamentalism that has distorted the message of Christ. We must fight those who would turn the catholic church into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party and instead return to the message of the late great Cardinal Bernardin. How come the cackling chorus of cronies practically demanded that Kerry and the other Democrats be cast from the communion rails last year, while offering the welcome mat to those who claim to pro-life, but who ignore so many of its precepts? How come gay marriage was elevated to be of equal importance with culture of life issues like abortion and euthanasia, while the whole seamless garment of issues laid out so eloquently in Gaudium Et Spes were ignored? How about the insipid anti-intellectualism (yes, I can see the smug references to "Jesuit" and "S.J.")-- have we gone from John Courtney Murray to Peggy Noonan and Mother Angelica in so short a time?
This is an American problem, driven by the American right. Guess what? The catholic church is bigger than America and her peculiar ideologies. I will keep trying to expose bullshit dressed in catholic garb. And you, my friend, are full of bullshit in this area, which is too bad, because your writings on torture are really good. If you are sick of this, and don't like me talking to you like this, then go ahead and ban me from your comboxes. But go and actually read Paris's book first. Good night and good luck.
P.S. And I didn't appreciate your snide comments about the Jesuits at Seattle University (you didn't even get the picture right in your article, for God's sake). I know some of these people personally, and they are among the greatest (and most orthodox) minds in the country. So be careful what you say.
Okay, Tony. Here it is in a nutshell. Terri was not dying UNTIL she had been starved and dehydrated for 13 days. Before that, she was a severly brain-damaged woman who required a feeding tube to provide her nutritional and hydrations needs. All that is expected from using a feeding tube is the provision of nutrients - NOT a miracle cure. Secondly, providing food through NG or PEG tubes is not burdensome. I can give a complete meal within 5 minutes.
You complain that most posters rely on a statement from our deceased Holy Father from 2004, yet you rely on the writings of one man in particular too. I will side with John Paul II.
Tony:
You're simply acting like a mirror image of my Torture Apologists here. You are laboring to defend doing evil (in this case the murder by dehydration of an innocent woman) because it is convenient to the Standard Dem Parrot Points.
Your efforts to portray my criticism as motivated by my love of the GOP and Whatever The Right Wants is, well, kind of a tough sell.
I pray God somebody with the power to do something about it doesn't decide you are Lebensunwertensleben one of these days.
Tony writes:
We must do what we can to sustain meaningful human living, but when our therapies cannot restore a person to meaningful life, we may allow the person’s body to die. (emphasis added)
"Meaningful life" is precisely the value judgment Catholics are forbidden to make for any person, and precisely the value judgment that underlies all euthanasia. And allowing the "body to die" reflect precisely the body-soul dualism that the Christian faith rejects. Thanks for demonstrating the error of your ways so eloquently.
Mark,
Now that is an outrageous allegation. I've known about catholic teachings on end-of-life issues for quite some time, well before the Schiavo circus. When it came along, I thought ot myself: no big deal, the teaching of the church is clear. Sure, I can see the fundies trying to exploit this, but catholics? Please! So please don't insult me with smart-ass comments about how my position merely mirrors that of the Democratic party. You don't see me making excuses for the pro-abortion agenda of many of them.
And don't try to confuse the issue by resorting to German terms. I assume you stole that from Robert George, who wrote a really bad article on Schiavo. George assumed facts not in evidence, or denied facts in evidence, and attributed motives to principals, including attributing a possible suicidal motive to Schiavo herself, that were not only not in evidence, but probably false. He ignored the fact in evidence that she had no cerebral cortex; she couldn't think or feel. The claim that deciding not to sustain sub-human bodily functions by means of medical technology (a feeding tube is medical technology) constitutes either a murderous or suicidal intent is objectively false. One must concede that a person incapable of certain distinctions might form the intent to remove the tube either as suicidal or murderous. But, objectively it is not thus.
So-called conservatives believe one should build a barrier around human actions that might be sinful, either objectively or because of subjective deficiencies, so that weak human beings won't sin. The Pharisees were building the same protective wall around the Torah at the time of Jesus.
You can believe what you want about this (and a lot of the most extreme activism in this case comes from the old reliable populist American disdain for intellectuals) but to say I am not representing an authentic catholic position is a lie. And I think you know this.
And, no, I don't think you are a card-carrying member of the Repubican right (your combox inhabitants are a different story). But you are off the mark on a number of points.
The commandment not to kill was not nullified by Christ.
Max, Mark,(and others),
If I am in error on this issue, then so are the vast majority of catholic moral theologians. I would refer you to the doctoral dissertation of Daniel Cronin from the Gregorian in 1958 (later archbishop of Hartford, Mass.): after a thorough review of over 50 moralists from Aquinas to the 1950s, he concluded "even natural means, such as taking of food and drink, can become optional if taking them requires great effort or if the hope of beneficial results (spes salutis) is not present".
As merely one example, consider moralist Albert Moraczewski, O.P. "There appears to be no strict ethical obligation to provide nourishment by such technological interventions as intubation."
Or Fr. Robert McManus, asked to advise Biship Gelineau (Providence, Rhode Island) on a case involving a catholic in a persistent vegetative state for 2 years on the morality of removing life-sustaining nutrition and fluids: "The medical treatments which are being provided the patient, even those which are supplying nutrition and hydration artificially, offer no reasonable hope of benefit to her. This lack of reasonable hope or benefit renders the artificially invasive medical treatments futile and thus extraordinary, and disproportionate and unduly burdensome. Moreover, the continuation of such medical treatments is causing a significant and precarious economic burden to [the patient's] family. It must be unambiguously clear that the primary intention of removing what has been competently judged to be extraordinary means of artificially prolonging the patient's natural life is to alleviate the burden and suffering of the patient and not to cause her death."
In 1987, the pro-lfe committee of the U.S. Catholic Conference declared that "laws dealing with medical treatment may have to take account of exceptional circumstances where even means of providing nourishment may be too ineffective of burdensome to be obligatory." (The Right of the Terminally Ill, 1987).
Take what the Texas bishops adopted in their official guidelines on the use of nutriton and fluids in Catholic hospitals in 1990: patients in a persistent vegetative state can have such treatment withdrawn. They claim this is "not abandoning the person. Rather, it is accepting the fact that the person has come to the end of his or her pilprimage and should not be impeded from taking the final step".
Your position is inconsistent with both the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae, which are definitive magisterial statements. High-ranking Vatican officials themselves weighed in on this specific controversy. The withholding of nutrition as disproportionate does not apply except in cases where death is imminent. The catechism clarifies precisely that. See the quote above. One can never intentionally cause death.
If "Catholic theologians" have obfuscated on this point or if you have misinterpreted them, I don't care to say. But your position is clearly at odds with the magisterium, with the natural law and with all that is good and true.
Until you can grapple with my criticisms above, this will conclude my discourse with you. Refuting apologetics for murder is tiresome enough, but refuting name-calling("fundies") and laughable accustions of being "anti-intellectual" when you, the accuser, do not refute the arguments presented to you repeatedly, make it seem like ... time not well spent.
By the way - one of your documents below undermines your point. Its title itself refers to "terminally ill." Terri wasn't, until someone started starving her to death.
Max,
I see you are bothered because I am actually quoting what used to be a well-established catholic principal, providing the actual evidence. That's sad. I have no idea how you can possibly say this position is in violation of CCC or EV. I suggest you study this matter further. Your position is not new, but it has been a minority position within catholic thought, and it is utterly disgusting that you claim I am justifying murder.
To address your point: Gerald Kelly S.J. stated in 1950 that "no remedy is obligatory unless it offers a reasonable hope of checking or cusing a disease". This is an important part of the principal. Note that when Fr. McManus made the above point with respect to patients in a persistent vegetative state, his bishop noted that it was in line with catholic moral theology, and should not be thought of as condoning euthanasia. And that was pretty much the established position, among all shades of theological opinion.
And I am not calling you (or anybody else in Mark Shea's comboxes) a "fundie", so what is your problem with that? I see you falling back on your buddy Paul's approach and attacking me personally, and refusing to address the actual arguments I make. At least I do you the courtesy of recognizing that your approach is consistent with catholic moral theology, and the natural law, even if only a minority view. You do not do the same for me, even though I am merely quoting what has been regarded as the standard approach.
To paraprase our host on this blog, you should work on being a catholic first, and an apologist for bad theology second. [Don't like that? Well, neither did I, to be honest.]
Actually I am relying on my "buddy" Pope John Paul II who told us in Evangelium Vitae to call things by their proper names. Euthanasia is murder. What you are advocating is euthanasia. What you are attempting to justify is, therefore, murder.
And please, Tony, provide a quote in which I personally attack you, rather than your positions. It is, in fact, you who have spewed terms like "right-winger" and "fundie" and "anti-intellectual" with abandon. Or for that matter, the crack about "your buddy Paul," which sounds kind of like an implied personal attack on Paul to me. And your generalizations about combox inhabitants and their views.
You are quoting sources which are not definitive and that don't even always appear to say what you want them to say - some (not all) can be understood in a way that is in keeping with the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae, if the circumstances they are discussing involve patients who are actually dying. This is not the case in a PVS situation like Schiavo's. I keep quoting definitive magisterial statements - interpreted in a way supported specifically and repeatedly by Vatican officials with regard to the Schiavo case itself - and pointing out to you the central distinction you are missing or ignoring, between those who are dying and those who are not. In response, you persistently refuse to address that distinction, blow hard with random handwringing about evangelical theology, and appeal to the supposed authority of your favorite theologian or bishop, with quotes that may or may not be taken out of context. I have already cited (and quoted) the passages in the Catechism, 2277-78, backed up in EV, which evicerate your position.
Even your own words betray your outright contradiction of Church teaching when you yammer about about "meaningful life" and "letting the body die." That is the very heart and soul of the philosophy behind euthanasia.
So no, I cannot reciprocate in respecting your position, which I believe justifies an act that "constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the hyuman person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator," in the words of the Catechism. If that makes be a bad guy or a Pharisee or a fundie or a right-winger, so be it.
In fact, before I conclude this, I feel I must remind you of Christ's admonitions about millstones and necks. Consider it a version of Pascal's wager. If I am wrong and you are right, a few people live who could be licitly killed, with some significant burden of suffering and expense resulting from the "error." If you are wrong and I am right, you are helping in your own small way to form consciences against the truth about a matter of grave, mortal sin and thus putting their souls in danger. Place your bets wisely.
"no remedy is obligatory unless it offers a reasonable hope of checking or cusing a disease"
So, you have a dementia patient living in a nursing home unable to care for herself. Providing her with food will not cure her dementia. Therefore it's optional. But it's not euthanasia you're advocating, right?
Unless food isn't a "remedy."
And I thought arguing with torture apologists was depressing.
Max,
We've been over this before. In fact, I think I was the first to quote EV in an earlier discussion on the issue. First, note that the relevant statement from EV is simply a reference to the 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia.
Money quote: "Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called "aggressive medical treatment", in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience "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". Certainly there is a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death."
The point I keep on making is that, in some circumstances, provision of fluids and nutrition can fail these 2 tests-- disproportionate to expected results, and undue burden-- and can hence be licitly withdrawn. That is the whole point of the reasoning laid out in my last post. I would repeat again and again- this is not me talking, this is the prevailing wisdom of catholic moral philosophers. If you don't accept the reasoning, fine, but to denounce those who do as murder-apologists is simply appalling.
Reread your quote. Here, I'll help:
"Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called 'aggressive medical treatment', in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience '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'. Certainly there is a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death."
My point exactly.
Off.
Trying again:
"Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called 'aggressive medical treatment', in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience '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'. Certainly there is a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death."
My point, exactly. Imminent death is a qualifying characteristic of such cases. Terri Schiavo was not dying. You are only looking at the parts of the statement that accord with your wish to justify murder.
As for your "prevailing wisdom" - horse hockey. I've seen that tactic enough times from you to recognize it by now. "Most" economists accept this position of yours. "Most" bishops think that position of yours. You will have to do better than that.
And this ain't just me talking, Tony. Take it up with the Vatican. But what the heck would those right-wing, fundamentalist Pharisee know about Catholic teaching, right?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
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.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
(Emphasis added.)
It just doesn't get any clearer.
Max,
We seem to be talking past each other. I see nothing in the sections from CCC and EV your highlight that goes against what I have said. Since neither explicitly mentions a persistent vegetative state, or nutrition and fluids, I can certainly see how you can interpret it your way. All I am saying is that this is not the standard interpretation. I have tried to quote as much of the reasoning as possible. Not only have you not countered, you dismiss the integrity of the these theologians, or you question the context. [There are counter-arguments in the literature that support your opinion. I can only assume fro your silence that you are unfamiliar with them.] Well, I see this mode of argument all the time in these kinds of venues. It's not one I'm used to, and it irritates me. You tell me I should do better. How? Quote even more sources?
P.S. I've no idea what the majority of bishops think. I do know something about economics, though.
We seem to be talking past each other. I see nothing in the sections from CCC and EV your highlight that goes against what I have said.
If anything, that reflects on your literacy, and not the exhaustive posting. Goodbye.
Oh, I'm a masochist. Let's try syllogisms:
1. An act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. It must be always forbidden and excluded. (CCC, 2277)
2. Removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was an act which of itself and by intention caused her death in order to eliminate suffering.
3. Therefore it constitutes a murder contrary to human dignity and the respect due to God and should have been forbidden and excluded.
Regarding the extraordinary means wrinkle:
1. Withdrawing overzealous treatment can be licit only in cases where by the act one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. (CCC 227
2. In the case of Terri Schiavo, the will was to cause her death, which was neither inevitable or imminent.
3. Therefore the act cannot be considered licit on the grounds of withdrawing overzealous treatment.
So. Logical fallacies? Ambiguous terms? Challenge any premises?
Max wrote:
"If anything, that reflects on your literacy". There, a personal attack on me! Knew it wouldn't take long. Thanks anyway.
To conclude: For as long as I can remeber, this issue has been considered settled: the means (tubes, etc.) used to deliver nutrition and hydration are judge disproportionate if the nutrition and hydration are not sustaining the life of a person who is conscious or who will regain consciousness.
Second conclusion: (from Michael Sean Winters writing in the New Republic at the time): The [..] problem is one of theological literacy. It is one thing for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, John Paul's most important theological adviser, to meditate on the virtues of an all-male priesthood, since Ratzinger has forgotten more theology than most of his liberal critics ever knew. It's quite another to have young priests and bishops, educated in intellectually narrow seminaries and without serious immersion in either the Catholic tradition or the languages that constitute it, express grave doubts about female altar servers or Catholic Democrats who take Communion. Meanwhile, the self-declared Catholic "spokesmen" who took to the airwaves in recent weeks to pontificate on the Terri Schiavo case proved unable to give a compelling account of Catholic teaching on end-of-life issues--a teaching more complicated, contested, and rich than the blunt demand not to remove a single feeding tube. The contrast between the situation at the Second Vatican Council in the mid-'60s (when the elegant Latin and theological acumen of Americans like the Jesuit John Courtney Murray startled jaundiced Europeans) and the current moment (when some of the most visible "orthodox" American Catholics shuttle between pro-life protests and Mother Angelica's loopy Catholic cable network) could not be more stark.
Look in the mirror!!!
Translation: You can't refute my syllogisms, so you "personally attack" me by accusing me and everyone else who disagrees with you of theological illiteracy.
As far as I can discern, the group of people who disagree with you include the top bioethicist at the Vatican, the spokesman for the Holy See itself speaking in his official capacity (i.e. for You Know Who), the USCCB office of pro-life, the USCCB itself, the Florida bishops speaking collectively and Pope John Paul II.
But in your opinion, this was decided long ago. Tony, Father "Darn Those Right-Wingers!" Paris and the New Republic have spoken; the matter is settled.
Hey, it's your soul.
Yes, it is my soul. All I will say to you is that you need to open your mind (unlike you, I would not dare to comment on the state of another's soul.)
I have tried to reach out to you. I have accepted that your position can be seen as validly catholic. All I am saying is that the previlaing view, before 2004, said otherwise. You denigrate theologians like Paris. Well, Richard M. Doerflinger, (vice president of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) has contneded for years that tube-feeding is not an extraordinary means. But even he admitted that (prior to 2004) there was enough of a debate about the Catholic position that a person could choose which side to take: continue or discontinue tube-feeding. He thinks that John Paul's address to an ethics conference in the Srping of 2004 sealed the issue. I think otherwise. You, on the other hand, will not even acknowledge the existence of the debate. Is this where the church is today? God help us all.
My position doesn't lead to dead people. It's very kind of you to accept the Catholicity of the position that murder is wrong. Again, sorry I can't reciprocate.
One more implication of Doerflinger's position: he contends that there was no accepted catholic view on this narrow topic prior to 2004. Therefore, your attempt to read stuff back into the the Declaration on Euthanasa, EV, or the CCC is complete crap. And this is not my logic, or the theologians you dismiss so readily-- this is our own guy at the USCCB that pushed the "keep Schiavo alive" position. Good God, man, you don't even know the position on your side own. How blind are you???
My position does not create dead people. Yours does. Terri Schiavo is in a casket now, instead of being fed and cared for by her loving parents at their own expense. A lie about her death is literally engraved on her gravestone. The lawyer and the "medical expert" who helped make it happen are both euthanasia advocates. If that's the "side" you want to go with, it's your right.
It puts you against the Vatican, the USCCB and "right to lifers" (to borrow Father Paris' intended pejorative). But it's your right.
The point I keep on making is that, in some circumstances, provision of fluids and nutrition can fail these 2 tests-- disproportionate to expected results, and undue burden-- and can hence be licitly withdrawn.
No, that's not the point you keep making. The point you keep making is that "meaningful" life is a requirement of the expected results.
Fluids and nutrition can licitly be withdrawn if, for instance, the patient can not properly digest them, and the build of waste products causes more harm than the supply causes benefit, or if, for another instance, a patient dying within days would require a painful operation to have them administered.
Which do not apply here.
Commenting by HaloScan
