Are feeding tubes Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment?

[queen.saints]

I also believe her family when they say that this is not what she would have wanted and that as a practicing Catholic she would have wanted to follow Church Law.

I believe that she would not have hired a famous euthanasia advocate to contest her "right-to-die"

But as even other pro-euthanasia advocates have said, the kind of evidence that was used in the case to determine her wishes is the kind that had previously been thrown out in legal precedent.

There is no good evidence that she wanted to die.

I do not believe that she had bulimia, because bulimia is a mortal sin and we are not allowed to believe that of someone without very solid evidence.

Her husband provided no evidence that passes the Catholic Church's teaching on rash judgement that would allow us to believe otherwise.

I don't believe the charges of abuse against her husband that are based on decades old hearsay either.

I do believe his public admission of adultery

His public admission of trying to kill her through infection

His public admission of not providing her with food and water.

I believe in the public "abuse" he showed when he killed his own wife

Then cremated her against her parent's wishes and the traditional teaching of the Church

And then wrote heretical and slanderous statements on the gravestone of a practicing Catholic.




We are obliged to assume the best of people until solid evidence is provided otherwise.

[awkward customer]

I do not believe that she had bulimia, because bulimia is a mortal sin and we are not allowed to believe that of someone without very solid evidence.

Her husband provided no evidence that passes the Catholic Church's teaching on rash judgement that would allow us to believe otherwise.

So, this is the basis for your refusal to accept that Terri Schiavo had bulimia and your insistence that Michael Schiavo must be lying.

But is bulimia a mortal sin?  Can a serious mental illness ever be described as a mortal sin?

I wish you'd said this earlier.  Then I would have known what I was up against.  I knew there was no logic to your arguments.  Now I know why.

[awkward customer]

Hey, Bonaventure, do you remember when I asked if you could explain the logic of queen.saints' argument because I couldn't understand it, because it baffled me.  Well here it is. I've finally worked it out.

Queen.saints believes that bulimia is a mortal sin. 

Therefore Terri Schiavo couldn't have had bulimia.

Therefore Michael Schiavo must be lying.

Oh dear ......

[benedicite]

A discussion about the Terri Schiavo case has emerged in the 'Sedevacantism and Akita' thread in the Sede subforum.  Since I have been a major participant in this discussion, I'm starting a new thread because the issue of the Ordinary/Extraordinary nature of feeding tubes is an important one and so as not to keep derailing the thread.  I also feel obliged to defend the late Fr Anthony Cekada against accusations of promoting murder etc etc.

So here goes.  I maintain that feeding tubes are Extraordinary treatment and that Terri Shiavo was kept alive for 15 years in conditions that could easily be described as cruel and usual punishment.

But there are others who disagree.

So what does the Church say?  Are feeding tubes Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment?

What is and is not extra ordinary is ambiguous and can change depending on the circumstances. What did the patient say that they wanted? How long do we anticipate the feeding tube situation is going to be. How expensive is this? Who is going to pay the bill? What is the person's situation while on the feeding tubes?

[queen.saints]

What is and is not extra ordinary is ambiguous and can change depending on the circumstances...


How long do we anticipate the feeding tube situation is going to be.

Just to clarify, ordinary means cannot become extraordinary based on duration.

Only extraordinary means can become ordinary based on this criteria.

For example, daily insulin injections were established as ordinary means for diabetics prior to Vatican II, despite being a lifelong obligation. There are other considerations that could make them non-obligatory according to more modern interpretations of Catholic teaching, but not that one.

[benedicite]

What is and is not extra ordinary is ambiguous and can change depending on the circumstances...


How long do we anticipate the feeding tube situation is going to be.

Just to clarify, ordinary means cannot become extraordinary based on duration.

Only extraordinary means can become ordinary based on this criteria.

For example, daily insulin injections were established as ordinary means for diabetics prior to Vatican II, despite being a lifelong obligation. There are other considerations that could make them non-obligatory according to more modern interpretations of Catholic teaching, but not that one.

Ambiguous could also be in the sense that depending on the context. For example a major operation that has little hope of a long term success may be considered extraordinary. With time and technological development that same operation amy become ordinary. 

[Baylee]

I also believe her family when they say that this is not what she would have wanted and that as a practicing Catholic she would have wanted to follow Church Law.

Then cremated her against her parent's wishes and the traditional teaching of the Church

You do realize that cremation is allowed in JPII's and Benedict XVI's church, right? Not to mention there was no indication that Terri was a Traditional Catholic, and as a result, would not mind being cremated or maybe even want cremation. 

This is yet another example of why we can't just go with what the JPII church says about feeding tubes.  This is another reason why we should believe that the Church has not actually pronounced feeding tubes specifically as "ordinary" means without exception. This is another reason why, until then, Traditional clergy and lay can come to different opinions.

I'll let AC handle the bulimia is a mortal sin question.  Because that's the first I heard that the Church considers bulimia a mortal sin. I wonder whether JPII pronounced that as well. 

And again, as for who said what, there are two stories.  I believe the third one is the true one.
 

[queen.saints]

Ambiguous could also be in the sense that depending on the context. For example a major operation that has little hope of a long term success may be considered extraordinary. With time and technological development that same operation amy become ordinary. 

Yes, very good point.

One example of this is regarding ectopic pregnancy.

The Church has said that if it were feasible (which it's currently not, since no one is offering it) to surgically place the baby in the correct position, the mother would be obliged to take this measure to save the baby's life.

Two doctors, one in 1916 and one in the 1980's, attempted this and both times it was a very simple procedure and perfectly effective.

So only N=2, but still 100% success rate.

In the mean time doctors claim that it's totally impossible and "science fiction", when they have never once tried and currently world-wide research on ectopic pregnancies is going towards finding the most effective chemical abortifacient, never on saving the baby's life.

[awkward customer]

I'll let AC handle the bulimia is a mortal sin question.  Because that's the first I heard that the Church considers bulimia a mortal sin. I wonder whether JPII pronounced that as well. 
 

Bulimia is not a mortal sin and that's why you've never heard that it is.  Queen.saints is just making things up, like her insistence that feeding tubes are Extraordinary treatment.

She should have said what she believes about bulimia at the beginning of the discussion.  Then I wouldn't have wasted my time discussing this issue with her.  I would have known then that her refusal to consider Terri Schiavo's bulimia for pages and pages of this thread was based on some half baked belief that only she has.

Bulimia is not a mortal sin and feeding tubes are Extraordinary treatment according to the Traditional teaching of the Church, no matter what Queen.Saints says.

[diaduit]

I don't know about the ordinary or extra ordinary means but I would say it became Euthanasia when that rotten husband decided to remove comfort from Terri while she was dying. You wouldn't do it to an animal, by removing the PEG feed which imo is extraordinary, she was going to die anyway so he just wanted to speed it up, what a disgusting human being.

And maybe, just maybe God allowed her to suffer for 13 days to wake the world up and expose what it is to interfere with God calling you home. Terri sure earned her place in heaven please God.

  I remember my Mum begging me for a sip of water even when the hospice staff were using those glycerine swabs to help her thirst because she might aspirate with water, she was able to tell me that the thirst was horrific and she didn't care if she aspirated...I gave her little sips, she didn't aspirate.
Chestertonian who said that PEG feeding isn't all that comfortable and he had regular infections at the PEG site.

[awkward customer]

Ambiguous could also be in the sense that depending on the context. For example a major operation that has little hope of a long term success may be considered extraordinary. With time and technological development that same operation amy become ordinary. 

Yes, very good point.

One example of this is regarding ectopic pregnancy.

The Church has said that if it were feasible (which it's currently not, since no one is offering it) to surgically place the baby in the correct position, the mother would be obliged to take this measure to save the baby's life.

Two doctors, one in 1916 and one in the 1980's, attempted this and both times it was a very simple procedure and perfectly effective.

So only N=2, but still 100% success rate.

In the mean time doctors claim that it's totally impossible and "science fiction", when they have never once tried and currently world-wide research on ectopic pregnancies is going towards finding the most effective chemical abortifacient, never on saving the baby's life.

Do you pay attention to what the Church says?

You believe that bulimia is a mortal sin whereas the Church says it isn't.

What else do you believe that the Church doesn't?

[awkward customer]

I don't know about the ordinary or extra ordinary means but I would say it became Euthanasia when that rotten husband decided to remove comfort from Terri while she was dying. You wouldn't do it to an animal, by removing the PEG feed which imo is extraordinary, she was going to die anyway so he just wanted to speed it up, what a disgusting human being.

And maybe, just maybe God allowed her to suffer for 13 days to wake the world up and expose what it is to interfere with God calling you home. Terri sure earned her place in heaven please God.

  I remember my Mum begging me for a sip of water even when the hospice staff were using those glycerine swabs to help her thirst because she might aspirate with water, she was able to tell me that the thirst was horrific and she didn't care if she aspirated...I gave her little sips, she didn't aspirate.
Chestertonian who said that PEG feeding isn't all that comfortable and he had regular infections at the PEG site.

But the "disgusting" and "horrible" Michael Schiavo claims he was keeping his promise to Terri.  Are you familiar with his side of the story, posted earlier?

What if Terri Schiavo did make her husband promise to never leave her in a totally dependent state?  What if she did have what St Alphonsus Ligouri called a "subjective repugnance" for the treatment she was receiving and the situation she was in?

The thing about a subjective repugnance is that it's subjective.  Just because one person can tolerate a particular Extraordinary treatment doesn't mean that everyone can. And Catholics have the right to refuse Extraordinary treatments that are subjectively repugnant.  Michael Schiavo, her husband, was acting acting within the Traditional teachings of the Church and had the authority to do so.

Terri Schiavo's parents, on the other hand, refused to accept the reality of their daughter's condition just as they refused to accept the bulimia that had originated during her teenage years. Perhaps they were over-compensating for earlier neglect by stirring up a media and political storm which resulted in mobs of misguided, emotionally charged pro-lifers making Michael Schiavo's life a misery.

Queen.saints believes that bulimia is a mortal sin, therefore Terri Schiavo couldn't have had bulimia, therefore Michael Schiavo is lying.  Is that typical of the level of understanding associated with this case?

PS.  By the time Terri Schiavo died, her brain had atrophied to half its normal size according to the autopsy report.  She had been unable to communicate at all ever since her collapse.  Comparing her situation to that of your mother, who could talk, isn't comparing like with like. 

[Baylee]

I have a general question for those who believe that feeding tubes are ordinary means without exception/question.  I'm hoping this question gets to the heart of the matter without the "noise" and emotion of the Schiavo case.

Do you believe that the Church teaches that we have the obligation to use a feeding tube and to never remove it (regardless of circumstances, how long we had it, etc) if we were placed in a similar situation?

Would we die in mortal sin if we included the removal of a feeding tube in some fashion in our own Living Will/Advanced Directive?

Would this be equivalent to Assisted Suicide (ie. "I want you to kill me") no matter what?

Furthermore, do priests advise Catholics not to do so?

When I look at it this way, I still find it hard to consider the feeding tube ordinary means and not extraordinary. 

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Is it possible that Michael Schiavo was a loving husband who was carrying out his wife's wishes when he applied for her feeding tube to be removed? 

The question is moot.

If nutrition and hydration are ordinary interventions, then removing them would be either murder or, if she had indeed wished it, "assisted suicide", which most Catholics should be intelligent enough to recognize as murder by another name.

The decedent's wishes would matter only if nutrition and hydration were extraordinary interventions.

Catholic bioethicists and the CDF maintain that they are, in fact, ordinary.

[Miriam_M]

I have a general question for those who believe that feeding tubes are ordinary means without exception/question.  I'm hoping this question gets to the heart of the matter without the "noise" and emotion of the Schiavo case.

Do you believe that the Church teaches that we have the obligation to use a feeding tube and to never remove it (regardless of circumstances, how long we had it, etc) if we were placed in a similar situation?

Would we die in mortal sin if we included the removal of a feeding tube in some fashion in our own Living Will/Advanced Directive?

Would this be equivalent to Assisted Suicide (ie. "I want you to kill me") no matter what?

Furthermore, do priests advise Catholics not to do so?

When I look at it this way, I still find it hard to consider the feeding tube ordinary means and not extraordinary. 

I'm not sure if this link answers your question.  (It also weighs in on Terry Schiavo specifically.)
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/end-of-life-decisions-ordinary-versus-extraordinary-means-12733

It seems to me that there is disagreement on this thread as to the true medical situation of Shiavo, and that that is at the heart of moral decision-making and moral judgment ex-post-facto.  I think it is very hard to know definitively the morality of any case without intimate medical knowledge of it.

Note that I have no position on the case in question, as I lack such intimate medical knowledge.