|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Harry and Terri - the Schiavo case
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Your assumption that all the many judges and others who have ruled on this case over the past many years are a bunch of ivory-tower intellects with no experience of real life is breathtakingly stupid.
I deny that I assume this. Best to assume that I assume the opposite, and re-read what I've said. You may even discover that we're not disagreeing.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
I cross-posted with your more recent post and was reacting to the earlier quoted post.
But having read your justification for the "personal visit by the judge" it describes something that would just turn into a political game. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing the federal and state politicians are doing (without actually bothering to visit Terri, of course).
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Would hearsay about that be good enough in any other type of case in court?
Well, there is simple consideration that Terry's brain damage resulted from a heart attack that was caused by her bulimia. If you have any understanding of bulimia, and the kind of body-image involved with that, it's pretty damn easy to understand how her relevant wishes and intentions could be reasonably deduced.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
But having read your justification for the "personal visit by the judge" it describes something that would just turn into a political game. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing the federal and state politicians are doing (without actually bothering to visit Terri, of course).
Yes, I keep forgetting that you elect your judges over there. We don't in Australia. The political side of things would turn it into a circus, I see that.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Does the Roman Catholic Church have any specific rules that require the initiation or prevent the cessation of tube feeding, ventilators, dialysis, and the like? What would those rules be?
Thank you!
Josephine, the key here is about the status of artificial nutrition and hydration. The bishops have consistently developed a line of argument that says that ANH is part of the normal care to which a person is entitled. The deliberate refusal to feed and water someone who is incapable of nourishing and hydrating him or herself is a deliberate act, the only end of which is to bring about the death of that person. In this case, it differs in no way from the refusal of a parent to feed and water a child.
The next question that would need to be asked is whether the hospital has the same responsibility for maintaining the life of an individual through ANH. The answer "yes" would, I think flow from the human solidarity to which we are all entitled (subject to a caveat about the utilisation of finite resources).
Furthermore, I'd want to see a proper consideration of Terri's actual status. Much of what has been posted on this thread has centred around the interpretation and consequences of the CT scans. Some appear to be saying that, because of the deterioration of her brain she is no longer a human person and so the considerations should be different. I am not sure that I would be at all happy with that and I would be even less happy about my normally so orthodox Catholic brother IngoB describing the situation as "pseudo-life" and recommending poison. I'm afraid that such expressions and proposals revolt me.
In more general terms, this from the English and Welsh Bishops is, I find, quite helpful.
Finally, I think that there is a difference between ANH and artificial ventilation, dialysis and the like. I think that I'd say that these are qualitatively different from ANH. The one I would suggest was normal care, the others extra-ordinary means of keeping someone alive.
I hope this satisfactorily answers your question but "hard cases make bad law" (as indeed do "particular cases"). Is there a clear "Roman Catholic Position" on this case? I think that there might be a strong consensus in favour of continuing ANH amongst Catholic moralists but not a consensus admitting of no exceptions or dissent.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Furthermore, I'd want to see a proper consideration of Terri's actual status. Much of what has been posted on this thread has centred around the interpretation and consequences of the CT scans. Some appear to be saying that, because of the deterioration of her brain she is no longer a human person and so the considerations should be different. I am not sure that I would be at all happy with that and I would be even less happy about my normally so orthodox Catholic brother IngoB describing the situation as "pseudo-life" and recommending poison. I'm afraid that such expressions and proposals revolt me.
My concern precisely.
The digging below to work out what we mean by "personhood" really matters here.
The ANH stuff worries me too, and I can understand why at the federal level legislative shortcuts and Dodgy Bros. business might be undertaken to make sure it continues.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Finally, I think that there is a difference between ANH and artificial ventilation, dialysis and the like. I think that I'd say that these are qualitatively different from ANH. The one I would suggest was normal care, the others extra-ordinary means of keeping someone alive.
How is there any difference between them?
Someone who cannot breathe will die. A machine can be introduced to breathe for them, thus keeping them alive.
Someone who cannot swallow will die. A machine can be introduced to insert food directly to their stomach (ie swallow for them), thus keeping them alive.
It's exactly the same, just with food/water instead of air.
I'd like to see what qualitative evidence you can give for their being different...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
Marvin, the qualitative evidence is the analogy with feeding a child who cannot feed himself. When my first son was born, he didn't develop the swallowing reflex until quite late (six weeks, iirc). To have not administered ANH would have been to deny him food, which he could derive hyrdration and nourishment from. Had we done so, our action would have constituted a decision to allow him to die: we would have killed him by an act of omission.
Had he been unable to breathe and failed to respond to attempts at starting his respiration, to have artificially ventilated him would have been to take extraordinary steps to keep him alive.
We have a duty to feed the hungry but I'm not so sure that we have a similar duty to pump somebody's heart and inflate and deflate their lungs.
As I said in my post, I think what I was doing in answering Josephine's question was to suggest that there isn't a simple "Roman Catholic position", but that the consensus is as I suggested.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
OK, I've just looked at a couple of the videos linked on page 1 of this thread, and TS looks like she's responding to voices and interacting with people — eye contact, doing what she's asked to. Could someone who knows better than me fill me in on why this is not the case?
So far the rebuttals I've seen on this thread amount to a number of experts saying "notnotnotnot" and "you're a *&%$# if you think different". Is that the extent of the argument?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's fucking bizarre old me Erin. Thank GOD I'm an Englishman. And torment of the soul Nicole is what all pain is. I don't know what a soul is apart from me.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
OK, I've just looked at a couple of the videos linked on page 1 of this thread, and TS looks like she's responding to voices and interacting with people — eye contact, doing what she's asked to. Could someone who knows better than me fill me in on why this is not the case?
So far the rebuttals I've seen on this thread amount to a number of experts saying "notnotnotnot" and "you're a *&%$# if you think different". Is that the extent of the argument?
Read the thread and follow the links.
1. The videos are culled & edited from miles of tape. Eye contact will be made, and requests will seem to be followed some percentage of the time, given enough time & tape. There's been 15 years here.
2. People in PVS, and people with only brain stems, often vocalize & move; they do not necessarily lie stock still with their eyes closed. They do this even when alone in the room (observed through a viewing window). The point is this doesn't constitute meaningful interaction. It's reflexive, responding to stimuli -- the sensation of air moving on the skin, the actions of internal processes, detecting an odor, etc.
I have little experience with PVS, but some experience with people born with most of the brain missing, and also with people with traumatic brain injury.
In addition, if I know a person well, and know that certain stimuli typically call forth a particular range of movements or sounds, I can always manipulate the situation to make it appear that the disabled person is "responding" to me.
I once had a client who, feeling air move on his cheek, would flail and grin and say what sounded like "Yeah!" His caregivers used this knowledge to get him services which were largely wasted on him. They would move close to him and ask him yes-or-no questions, and when he felt their breath on his face, would react.
But you could get exactly the same reaction by blowing gently on his cheek without saying a word.
I never let on I knew they were doing this. The services did nothing for the client, but provided desperately-needed respite for the caregivers.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Much of what has been posted on this thread has centred around the interpretation and consequences of the CT scans. Some appear to be saying that, because of the deterioration of her brain she is no longer a human person and so the considerations should be different.
No no no no NO!!! I am sick to the back teeth of this bold-faced lie being reproduced on this thread.
The people who are siding with Michael Schiavo on this thread are not doing so because they regard Terri as no longer human. They are doing so because the medical evidence considered and adjudicated by the courts are that she is in a persistent vegetative state and that her wishes were that if she were in such a state to let her die. I don't think she should be disconnected because she's basically an animated corpse. I think she should be disconnected because Terri, the person, decided that was what she wanted.
The medical professionals who have actually evaluated her -- those who have conducted full neurological examinations and reviewed her medical records -- are all in agreement that she is in a persistent vegetative state. With the exception of the prostitutes her parents have paid, of course. But those video snippets that her parents put out there are a few seconds culled out of hundreds of hours of video. If they were to show the rest of it you would see that her so-called "responses" are actually completely random and are not responses to anything at all. Hell, even completely dead bodies move, make noises and even sit bolt upright on the table. I know because I saw one do just that in the ED and it scared the everliving shit out of me. I don't think I ever moved so fast in my life.
Anyway, a persistent vegetative state isn't equal to brain death. A person still has sleep-wake cycles, facial expressions, movement and other behavior that appears to be responsive but in reality is reflexive. Careful medical consideration (not just the CT scans, but full neurological workups) have resulted in the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Marvin, the qualitative evidence is the analogy with feeding a child who cannot feed himself. When my first son was born, he didn't develop the swallowing reflex until quite late (six weeks, iirc).
OK, firstly there's a big difference between someone who can reasonably be expected to regain (or develop) the required reflexes and one who can not. I'm sure that's understood anyway, but felt it was worth saying.
quote:
To have not administered ANH would have been to deny him food, which he could derive hyrdration and nourishment from. Had we done so, our action would have constituted a decision to allow him to die: we would have killed him by an act of omission.
Had he been unable to breathe and failed to respond to attempts at starting his respiration, to have artificially ventilated him would have been to take extraordinary steps to keep him alive.
I'm afraid I still don't see the distinction. To not administer AR is to deny the patient air thus killing them by an act of ommission, and by the same token if the patient fails to respond to attempts to start a swallowing reflex ANH is an extraordinary step to keep them alive.
However, this:
quote:
We have a duty to feed the hungry but I'm not so sure that we have a similar duty to pump somebody's heart and inflate and deflate their lungs.
...explains a lot to me. Forgive me if I'm way off track with this, but it seems that you feel we have a religious obligation to provide food, but not air.
I can understand such a religious distinction (while noting that I don't agree with it), but in basic biological terms there is little difference between air and food - both are essential fuels for the body, and the abscence of either causes death. Furthermore, the procedures by which either can be forced into the body should the natural methods fail are equally invasive.
quote:
As I said in my post, I think what I was doing in answering Josephine's question was to suggest that there isn't a simple "Roman Catholic position", but that the consensus is as I suggested.
Granted.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I think she should be disconnected because Terri, the person, decided that was what she wanted.
OK, I get this. If it's true, then it weighs more than any of the other arguments.
quote:
The medical professionals who have actually evaluated her -- those who have conducted full neurological examinations and reviewed her medical records -- are all in agreement that she is in a persistent vegetative state. With the exception of the prostitutes her parents have paid, of course.
[italics mine - GC]
Right — and you know they are prostitutes because?
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sewanee_angel
Shipmate
# 2908
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I think she should be disconnected because Terri, the person, decided that was what she wanted.
OK, I get this. If it's true, then it weighs more than any of the other arguments.
If it is true!!?? It has been proven in a court of law over and over and over again that Shaivo's wishes were that she NOT be sustained in this manner. It was proven with testimony from more than one person (ie not just the husband).
The point here is not what Shaivo's wishes were regarding medical care. That has been proven. The point here is whether the legislature (two of them, really), the courts, the executive, and parents who can't let go and deal with the reality of their child's death have the right to go against the wishes of the person receiving the medical care.
[ 24. March 2005, 12:30: Message edited by: sewanee_angel ]
Posts: 598 | From: a van down by the river | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
The medical professionals who have actually evaluated her -- those who have conducted full neurological examinations and reviewed her medical records -- are all in agreement that she is in a persistent vegetative state. With the exception of the prostitutes her parents have paid, of course.
[italics mine - GC]
Right — and you know they are prostitutes because?
They are taking money for screwing her parents. That's what prostitutes do.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
There are two sets of issues, and they are being confused (and I have been guilty of contributing to this confusion on this thread).
The legal problem: the state of Florida grants individuals the right to refuse, through advance directives, treatment, nutrition, and hydration if there is no hope of recovery from a devastating illness or injury.
Absent an advance directive (which Terri does not have), is there other evidence that she would prefer not to be maintained in PVS?
Courts and a number of witnesses have repeatedly answered, “Yes.”
Of course, people can change their minds. Were we able to consult with Terri now, the possibility exists she might retract her earlier decision and say, “I wish to be maintained.”
We are not able to consult with Terri now. There is no way to tell if she has changed her mind. Therefore, the state’s legal obligation is to carry out, so far as they can be determined, the last-stated wishes of the patient; it’s the best information available.
So the legal position of Terri’s parents is that of trying to trump their daughter’s last-known wishes with their own current wishes. The legal position of Terri’s husband is that of trying to honor his wife’s wishes.
This is very different from the moral questions, though.
One might question the morality of the Florida law, and I suspect that’s the actual basis for much of the protest.
The moral question is: do we have the right to refuse to live? Is it morally and ethically permissible for me, given that I could be maintained alive in a vegetative state for some indefinite period, to reject that option?
There’s more than one Christian perspective on this question.
There’s the “hope” aspect. Hopelessness is considered a sin by many. Refusing to exist can be seen as surrendering to hopelessness.
There’s the “Whose is my life?” aspect. If my life is God’s free gift to me, then it’s mine to refuse. If, rather, it’s God’s life, which I only get to use, then it’s God’s, and I am in sin to reject it.
There’s the “free will” aspect. I am responsible for all my choices, including any decision I might make to reject God, reject God’s gifts, etc. If I understand and accept the consequences of my choices, then I’m free, by God’s own “rules,” to reject what God has offered.
(There are probably other aspects I've missed.)
From this perspective, Terri's parents could be seen as trying to save their daughter (or her soul) from a bad moral decision. Her husband's stance could be construed as, "She made her bed; let her lie in it."
I think the legal questions at this point are clear; Terri’s parents and the US Congress are trying to get around the law. The moral question is a little knottier.
Many people would argue that our legal system doesn't legislate morality. Of course it does -- all the time. Hence this drawn-out legal battle.
While I have no way of knowing what the various parties' moral stances are, it seems to me that, at its heart, this situation is a conflict between one version of morality and the state law obtaining where Terri Schiavo lives/lived.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
There’s the “Whose is my life?” aspect. If my life is God’s free gift to me, then it’s mine to refuse. If, rather, it’s God’s life, which I only get to use, then it’s God’s, and I am in sin to reject it.
Ah, but in that case is it not also God's to take back?
In which case keeping somebody "alive" like this could be seen as going against God's Will for that person.
Just a thought...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913
|
Posted
To demonstrate that there may be differing opinions among Catholic theologians on this issue, the following is an Op Ed piece in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It is written by Fr. Charles E. Bouchard, a Catholic Dominican friar, who is president and associate professor of moral theology at Aquinas Institute of Theology in St.
Louis. Aquinas is a Dominican theological graduate school housed at the Jesuit's St. Louis University.
Here
[Article deleted replaced by link. Please don't do this again as we don't want to be sued for breach of copyright. Thanks - C.]
[ 24. March 2005, 13:42: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
No no no no NO!!! I am sick to the back teeth of this bold-faced lie being reproduced on this thread.
The people who are siding with Michael Schiavo on this thread are not doing so because they regard Terri as no longer human. They are doing so because the medical evidence considered and adjudicated by the courts are that she is in a persistent vegetative state and that her wishes were that if she were in such a state to let her die. I don't think she should be disconnected because she's basically an animated corpse. I think she should be disconnected because Terri, the person, decided that was what she wanted.
Erin, I understand the point you are making and that Terri's wishes are the primary issue. It wasn't your argument I was highlighting, but that advanced by IngoB, who refered to a "pseudo-life" and suggested measures to terminate an animated corpse.
Your point about PSV is well made. I think the horror here occurs because of the appearance of very mixed motives in those (primarily her husband) seeking to hasten her death. Still, it doesn't do to make windows into others' hearts.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
The thing is, whatever the mixed motives (and I disagree with you that the husband's are any more mixed than the parents'), that's what the 17 lower court decisions were dealing with. That's why there is such a system on the state level. To decide what happens when there's an irreconcilable disagreement. To turn the thing into a media circus the way the parents have and to tell many of the lies they've told is, in my mind, wholly unforgiveable. For Congress to violate the separation of powers and step in like this is insane.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I think the horror here occurs because of the appearance of very mixed motives in those (primarily her husband) seeking to hasten her death. Still, it doesn't do to make windows into others' hearts.
Indeed, especially since that appearance only exists because the poor man has been vilified by ignorant people in the media.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
...and has continuously refused to engage with the media on any of it. You know how they hate people who won't play ball. He could have told his heart-wrenching tale to Barbara Walters any time, but no!
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Trisagion, thank you very much for your response. I'm wondering how much the opinion divide on this question rests with how intimately one has been involved in death -- those who haven't been around death, perhaps, are wanting to fight it off at all costs. I don't see that as a particularly Christian response, but it is a very human one.
I was part of the decision-making when we discontinued all medical treatment for my father. I was not directly part of the decision-making for my mother or my grandmother, but I was fully aware of the decisions, the reasons for them, and the outcome. Likewise for one of my uncles, who, after many years of regular dialysis, decided he was tired of the fight and was ready to die.
I agree, strongly, that there are times when artifician hydration and nutrition, dialysis, a respirator, defibrillation, transplant, and any of the other medical techniques and technologies we've developed are appropriate, and to deny them would be a sin of omission. But I don't think that's always the case. My father chose to put himself on the transplant list so that he would be around to care for my mother, should she have lingered in her demented state for many years. After she died, he took himself off the transplant list. Doing so meant that he would die from his illness, since transplant is the only treatment for the disease that killed him. When my uncle took himself off dialysis, it meant that he would die.
I loved all these people who have died, and I wish that they were still here. I miss them very much. But in this age, life has an end. To cling to it the way Terri's parents are doing seems to me like a form of idolatry, or perhaps simply a lack of faith in God, and in his promise of life in the age to come.
But back to what you said -- I agree that providing food and water is normal care, if the person can swallow. But I can't see how inserting a PEG tube can be considered normal care, since it's only possible for those of us living in the wealthiest part of the world. A PEG tube requires surgery to insert, and constant medical attention to care for it. It's not normal care; it's extraordinary care, that is sometimes justified, and sometimes not.
At least it seems so to me.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I'm wondering how much the opinion divide on this question rests with how intimately one has been involved in death -- those who haven't been around death, perhaps, are wanting to fight it off at all costs.
I don't think this is the case. I have never seen someone die. I've never even seen a dead body that wasn't enbalmed for burial. I spent some time last year with a close friend who was dying, but my views on this subject had already been determined. I haven't been around death much at all, but I'm definitely on the side of letting Terri Schiavo die.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
janine, your still missing my point i think. back on the first page, you said (something like) "if terri isn't there, then she can't suffer, so why shouldn't her husband let her parents take care of her." (admittedly thats a paraphrase, but i think its close) my point was, what makes you think she isn't suffering, spiritually, if not physically? supose her _soul_, is desperate to get going to where its supposed to be, but can't because its stuck in a technically living body? as i said on the first page, i was haunted by that thought about my father while he was dying of alzheimers disease, and it haunts me with cases like this. think about it... 15 years stuck in that situation.
i'm drawing a distinction here between "soul" and "concious mind" because, if we assume that there is some part of us that lives past death, it must be seperate from the concious mind. otherwise, what happens to the soul as the mind decays due to, well alzheimers (since thats what made me start thinking about this in the first place, though of course theres other things that destroy a mind without killing the body)
this is something of a tangent, but its annoying me and i want to clear it up. people are talking aboutputting someone on a ventilator as though its automatically a perminant until death thing, and therefore its extrodinary measures. however, it ain't always so. my husband was on a ventilator after a serious asthma attack back in '02. if the ventilator had not been inserted, he would have died, period. he could no longer sustain an oxygin level in his blood that would keep him alive. however, once the ventilator was successfully started, his life and recovery were no longer in doubt. it was just a matter of time until the attack "broke" and he could breath on his own. as it happens, that took three days, though it could have taken, i was told, as long as a month or more. now, since they didn't know how long he'd be on the ventilator (and they drugged him unconcious during that whole time because the body fights it to much otherwise), they also put a tube into his stomach (not surgically, just down his throat) to feed and hydrate him.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Here's a nice quote (seized from the blog of Andrew Sullivan, who also liked it) that sums up my feelings about this:
quote:
"Here's the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit Christian context. Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1974 called "To Save or Let Die." He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology — these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human." - Jesuit theologian Rev John J. Paris, on how the religious right is deploying heresy in its absolutism in the Terri Schiavo case
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The Catholic Catechism on this issue--there's obviously leeway for interpretation, but it doesn't seem to support the absolutist stance that the Vatican seems to be taking (emphasis mine):
quote:
(Paragraph 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.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Here's a nice quote (seized from the blog of Andrew Sullivan, who also liked it) that sums up my feelings about this:
[QUOTE] "Here's the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil?
Show me the Vatican bishop who has presented death as an unmitigated evil. Comments like this are just the sort of childish misrepresentation of the views of others that reflects poorly on those who do it.
quote:
Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years
If you buy into that proportionalist stuff, sure. Others, who recognise the existence of objective moral norms which bind always and without exception, would suggest that Pinckaers, Grisez, May or Cessario are leagues ahead of McCormick.
[ 24. March 2005, 17:51: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Trisagion:
That may not be the Church's position, but it certainly seems to have been adopted by the many of the more outspoken people on the Schiavo circuit who I've heard speaking publicly on the issue.
Furthermore, Schiavo's own parents and lawyer argued before the appeals courts that her freedom of religion was being abridged because disconnecting her feeding tube would damn her immortal soul because of her Catholic beliefs. What nonsense! Assuming arguendo that to deprive a person in her condition of artificial nutrition is murder, Schiavo's done nothing wrong. How in the name of God would the decision of the Courts be endangering her soul?
I think a timely reminder that death is not always bad and life is not always good and that the Church doesn't stand for such a principle does no harm.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Others, who recognise the existence of objective moral norms which bind always and without exception, would suggest that Pinckaers, Grisez, May or Cessario are leagues ahead of McCormick.
This is what I'm looking for in this circumstance - when a couple of pages ago I said I thought the Church was a whore to technology and expressed dissatisfaction that our ethics were informed by our technological capacity.
Our Christian ethics should be able to be distilled in a stand-alone way, with the tools we have available in our spirituality, discernment, tradition, scripture or by those with the wisdom to exercise these. We shouldn't need a scientist to tell us what is right and what is wrong. The ultimate revelation of God in Christ obviously wasn't ultimate enough if we can't determine a compassionate, respectful and holy path in circumstances like Ms Schiavo's.
We should be able to establish (or codify rather), 'objective moral norms' to give people guidance who are seeking a holy death. (So we can say ahead of time for ourselves or on behalf of others we have responsibility for, in X situation, do not rescusitate / only give palliative care / do not artificially sustain me with dialysis, ventilation, ANH etc. with clear conscience).
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I think the horror here occurs because of the appearance of very mixed motives in those (primarily her husband) seeking to hasten her death. Still, it doesn't do to make windows into others' hearts.
Her husband is NOT trying to hasten her death; her parents are trying to prolong her life (or vegetative state). She would have died a quiet, natural death without the feeding tube long ago.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReginaShoe
Shipmate
# 4076
|
Posted
Don't know how widely this has been publicized, but apparently the whole Schiavo tragedy is
God's gift to the conservative movement, according to Tom DeLay:
quote:
"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," DeLay told the crowd. "This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," DeLay said.
Oh, so it's all about YOU now, is it, Tom? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
(At the site referenced, you can either listen to the tape from this speech or see quotes from it in a rather furious press release from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.)
--------------------
"If you have any poo, fling it now." - Mason the chimp
Posts: 598 | From: Colorado | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"I'm Tom DeLay. I'm not a doctor, but I play one in Congress."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Trisagion:
That may not be the Church's position, but it certainly seems to have been adopted by the many of the more outspoken people on the Schiavo circuit who I've heard speaking publicly on the issue.
Furthermore, Schiavo's own parents and lawyer argued before the appeals courts that her freedom of religion was being abridged because disconnecting her feeding tube would damn her immortal soul because of her Catholic beliefs. What nonsense! Assuming arguendo that to deprive a person in her condition of artificial nutrition is murder, Schiavo's done nothing wrong. How in the name of God would the decision of the Courts be endangering her soul?
I think a timely reminder that death is not always bad and life is not always good and that the Church doesn't stand for such a principle does no harm.
Ah, but Pope John Paul II has weighed in on the case, as follows: "the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act," and is, therefore, "morally obligatory."
Sorry I can't provide a link to the original; I copied the quote into a notebook and no longer know the source.
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Here's a nice quote (seized from the blog of Andrew Sullivan, who also liked it)
Andrew Sullivan also called the supporters of Terri Schiavo "life fetishists." I'm somewhat on the fence as to the legitimacy of withdrawing a nutrition tube for someone like Terri, but that little phrase of his is much more telling of Andrew Sullivan's psyche than it is of the supporters of Terri. Count me in as a "life fetishist," please!
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foolhearty:
Ah, but Pope John Paul II has weighed in on the case, as follows: "the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act," and is, therefore, "morally obligatory."
I'm afraid that the Holy Father is just plain wrong about this.
Just review this brief slideshow about the insertion of a PEG tube and tell me that it's not a medical act. It is a medical act. And it carries fairly high risks. (See this discussion of the risks in patients with impaired cognitive function.)
This paper provides a detailed discussion of the ethics of the procedure.
This review of the literature regarding patient refusal of hydration and nutrition is also worth reading.
There are certainly times when feeding tubes are good and appropriate medical treatment. But they are, in fact, medical treatment. There is no question about that.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Erin, I understand the point you are making and that Terri's wishes are the primary issue. It wasn't your argument I was highlighting, but that advanced by IngoB, who refered to a "pseudo-life" and suggested measures to terminate an animated corpse.
"Animated corpse" sounds like a rather good definition of "pseudo-life" to me. If her cortex is indeed completely liquid, then the "biological carrier" of her soul has died, is gone. "Terminating" what's left is per se about the same as killing an animal (and one very sick and helpless animal at that). Out of respect for the history of that human body formerly being the medium of a human soul, out of respect for those who loved that person, and actually out of respect for what remains, even if only "animal", I'm suggesting to use a quick, painless, and "not so shocking for observers" method of death.
We need to define what we think a living human being is. And we need to define how we approach cases which are borderline. The former has been classically answered by the union of a human body and soul. For the latter I have suggested above that the concept of a "life story" is helpful. One can quite reasonably be against abortion and for "killing" in this case, by stating that one is a human seeking a beginning, the other is a human being trapped in her end. And a "life story" also has others in it. Given RC ideas about marriage, it would follow - even without any state law - that the person who should ultimately decide how this story is going to end should be the husband in loving consideration of his wife's wishes.
The problem of the RC church is IMHO that they would like to maintain a "simple and clear" pro-life policy publically, which however fails in complex situations and is reduced to little more than emotional pleading. I think the core of the current RC arguments about life is also rotten, and it is so because it has gone away from the RC tradition of the middle ages concerning the "biological" union of body and soul (which should be updated by modern science, of course). But that's a different topic, and one I haven't read into enough yet to defend my ideas appropriately.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
quote:
... my point was, what makes you think she isn't suffering, spiritually, if not physically? supose her _soul_, is desperate to get going to where its supposed to be, but can't because its stuck in a technically living body? as i said on the first page, i was haunted by that thought about my father while he was dying of alzheimers disease, and it haunts me with cases like this. think about it... 15 years stuck in that situation...
Many a soul of a person walking down the street, lying in a hotel bed, performing on a rock-band stage, is in absolute agony and longing to go home. Any number of people should have died by now, but haven't.
I have no more nor less worries about Terri's soul than I do about the gal at the next computer's soul, re: being tormented and desperately longing to go on.
If Terri is soul-less -- which I assume most don't claim -- or if Terri is even just Terri-less, which seems to be the position of those who consider her dead and her activity the result of the random misfirings of a stray decaying neuron or two --
Then she is a sack of twisted meat. Take her outside and scrape some clover over her.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
Just to prove what kind of Bizarro Universe we're living in, take this little quiz:
I oppose states' rights.
___ YES
___ NO
I believe that state court rulings should be reviewable by federal courts.
___ YES
___ NO
If I lose a lawsuit, I believe in litigiously filing case after case until I can find a judge who agrees with me.
___ YES
___ NO
I believe that the government -- not the individual -- should have the final say in matters of personal autonomy.
___ YES
___ NO
I believe politicians should insinuate themselves into intimate realms of family life.
___ YES
___ NO
If you answered four or more questions YES, that makes you a Republican.
Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I'm afraid that the Holy Father is just plain wrong about this.
Just review this brief slideshow about the insertion of a PEG tube and tell me that it's not a medical act. It is a medical act. And it carries fairly high risks. (See this discussion of the risks in patients with impaired cognitive function.)
This paper provides a detailed discussion of the ethics of the procedure.
This review of the literature regarding patient refusal of hydration and nutrition is also worth reading.
There are certainly times when feeding tubes are good and appropriate medical treatment. But they are, in fact, medical treatment. There is no question about that.
Thanks, Josephine. Mind you, I agree, and think the pontiff's position is over the top. And I'm very glad the Supremes have refused to listen to the parents' appeals.
Prayers for Terri and her welcome, at long last, to her eternal home. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
[from page one of this thread] quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
ETA: never mind, I trawled through several news reports and found out that it was only Bill Frist, Mel Martinez and John Warner. [italics mine]
Damn! I used to respect him.
For the record, I have learned that the senior Senator from Virginia (John Warner) was the sole Republican to vote against this travesty of a law. My respect for him is restored.
Even if he is a Republican.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.
Indeed he must be. I worked for Goldwater's Presidential campaign in 1964, when I was in high school and have liked him ever since, even though I became more sympathetic to Democrats during the 80s and am now thoroughly disgusted with the GOP. Late in life, he even spoke up for gays in the military.
This question popped into my mind yesterday: suppose you were in Mr. Schiavo's position. For fifteen years, your spouse has been nothing but a warm body in a hospital bed. The doctors tell you that there is little left of his or her brain and there is no hope of recovery. Only medical technology developed in the last few decades enables a patient in this condition to survive at all.
You have promised to be faithful "in sickness and in health...until death us do part" but there isn't really anyone left with whom either you or your children can maintain a relationship.
Schiavo apparently is hardly Mr. Warmth towards his wife (or what's left of her). He has reportedly asked nurses, "Is the bitch dead yet?" and I don't think that this, if it's true, speaks well of him.
On the other hand, those who oppose him might also hold it against him that he is "now seeing another woman" like a garden-variety jerk cheating on his wife. Is he? When these vows were written, I doubt that anyone's lying in a coma on life support for fifteen years with no prognosis was a possibility. It seems to me that anyone unwilling to relax "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in a situation like this has a low opinion of marriage, not a high one.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Alogon wrote: On the other hand, those who oppose him might also hold it against him that he is "now seeing another woman" like a garden-variety jerk cheating on his wife. Is he? When these vows were written, I doubt that anyone's lying in a coma on life support for fifteen years with no prognosis was a possibility.
Here's my litmus test for bias: Any website or news report that refers to him as her "estranged" husband isn't worth reading.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Michael Shiavo is doing exactly what I would want my wife to do, should I ever be misfortunate enough to be in Terri Shiavo's condition. He appears to be absolutely steadfast in the only sort of faithfulness that really matters in this situation.
Presleyterian, Goldwater should quit his spinning and just be thankful that he was allowed to die. He's lucky that he wasn't fitted with animatronic prostheses and set at the front door of the White House to welcome visitors.
This episode is, I think, the final nail in the coffin of my longtime sympathy for the GOP. I've never agreed with all of their platform, but they used to come closer than the Democrats to my ideal of a limited government. No more. In recent years the Republican leaders have demonstrated a willingness, sometimes an eagerness, to get involved in virtually every aspect of our lives, from conception to death. If they could figure out how to meddle in the afterlife, I have no doubt that they would.
Of course the Dems are little better. I suppose I'm now Just Another Irrelevant Third-Party Voter.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lady A
Narnian Lady
# 3126
|
Posted
Makes me think about all the fun we could have with PVS Christianity.
But for Terri, and all those involved
Posts: 2545 | From: The Lion's Mane, Narnia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Schiavo apparently is hardly Mr. Warmth towards his wife (or what's left of her). He has reportedly asked nurses, "Is the bitch dead yet?" and I don't think that this, if it's true, speaks well of him.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about here. I am satisfied that the nurse's allegations have been thoroughly discredited.
ETA:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I suppose I'm now Just Another Irrelevant Third-Party Voter.
Welcome to the outer circle, my brother.
[ 25. March 2005, 15:24: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If her cortex is indeed completely liquid, then the "biological carrier" of her soul has died, is gone.
Why should we presume that there is a "biological carrier" of the soul? Sounds like Descartes theorizing about the pineal gland to me.
FCB
[ 25. March 2005, 15:51: Message edited by: FCB ]
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
I understand that Terri isn't going to re-grow all that destroyed brain tissue. I discount not at all the Lord's ability to touch reality and change that -- but until He does I will continue to assume she won't.
But a simple delivery of food & water is what keeps her smiling her reptilian smile, and darting her reptilian glances about the room, and lying about for hours in between like a reptilian zucchini... (The "reptilian" being a reference to what some perceive her mental level to be, no high brain functions, primitive reflexes etc. because she basically has no brain.)
Well, I wouldn't starve even a lizard.
This is truly scary. Think of your most beloved family member and imagine them reduced to less than the cognition and ability of a reptile (since said lizard can seek and eat its own sustenance). What earthly purpose would it serve for them to be trapped for 15 years in this kind of existence when they had wished to be freed. You are not meeting the needs of that person; that person is gone and needs to have their body released - you are meeting the needs of those who desire her to stay alive for their purposes.
No matter what you believe of Limbo, Heaven is decidedly better.
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
