Quote from: queen.saints on Today at 12:23:54 PMQuote from: Baylee on Today at 09:49:47 AMHere's an article regarding what the medical examiner found during Terri's autopsy:
https://baptistnews.com/article/terri-schiavo-autopsy-says-she-was-brain-damaged-blind-not-abused/
The fact that they need to rely on an autopsy report to try to ascertain whether or not she could swallow, eat, and drink is simply highlighting the fact that she was not supplied the most ordinary means of preserving life (in accordance with the court order to cease all life-prolonging measures) and died an excruciating death without even a drop of water allowed to touch her lips for 13 days.
Quote from: awkward customer on Today at 12:35:41 PMQuote from: queen.saints on Today at 11:01:59 AMBecause whether or not any of that were true, the fact remains that she was denied even attempting ordinary means. The doctors never even tried to administer food normally to her. There was a court order in place and an armed police man on guard at all times to make sure that no one could even try to give her water.
"The failure to supply the ordinary means of preserving life is equivalent to euthanasia."
I don't know why you persist in saying such things.
Terri Schiavo could not take food or water by Ordinary means. Why do you say that her doctors didn't even try? Of course they tried.
And the armed guards were there to prevent the protesting crowds outside from attempting to storm the hospital with food and drink, as they had threatened to do.
Terri Schiavo's brain had atrophied to half its normal size. And her cerebral cortex was only capable of "reflexively regulating the bare essentials of life".
There was no possibility of a recovery. She was blind, and in a "persistent vegetative state" according the the doctors who examined her, unlike the doctor referred to by you and Bonaventure.
There was nothing Ordinary about any of this.
Quote from: queen.saints on Today at 11:01:59 AMBecause whether or not any of that were true, the fact remains that she was denied even attempting ordinary means. The doctors never even tried to administer food normally to her. There was a court order in place and an armed police man on guard at all times to make sure that no one could even try to give her water.
"The failure to supply the ordinary means of preserving life is equivalent to euthanasia."
Quote from: Baylee on Today at 09:49:47 AMHere's an article regarding what the medical examiner found during Terri's autopsy:
https://baptistnews.com/article/terri-schiavo-autopsy-says-she-was-brain-damaged-blind-not-abused/
QuoteThe autopsy results for Terri Schiavo, released by Florida officials June 15, conclude that she was not abused prior to collapsing and lapsing into an unconscious state 15 years ago, that she was blind at the time of her death, and that her brain had atrophied to half the normal size.https://baptistnews.com/article/terri-schiavo-autopsy-says-she-was-brain-damaged-blind-not-abused/
The report, released more than two months after her March 31 death, also concluded that the 41-year-old Florida woman could not have received enough food or hydration by mouth to sustain life.....
.....Schiavo had been in what court-appointed physicians diagnosed as a "persistent vegetative state" since 1990, when she collapsed from what was initially diagnosed as a heart attack brought on by an eating disorder. Her brain was denied oxygen for an extended period of time, leaving her with significant neurological damage.....
..... Doctors also concluded, while Schiavo was alive, that most of her cerebral cortex had ceased functioning. Her brain stem, they said, was reflexively regulating the bare essentials of life, such as her heartbeat, breathing and digestive processes.
Quote from: Baylee on Today at 11:53:47 AMQuestion: if Terri Schiavo could communicate that she wanted the feeding tube out, would she be forced to keep it in? Would those against her husband doing it still be against her doing it? Would the feeding tube still be considered "ordinary" means?
Quote from: Baylee on Today at 07:55:43 AMI don't see a shift at all. His original statement was the following:
Accordingly, as regards applying the principles of Catholic moral theology: (1) One could have continued to employ these extraordinary means to maintain Terri Schiavo's life; however (2) one would not have been obliged to do so. It is false therefore to claim that Terri Schiavo was the victim of "euthanasia" or "murder".
It seems to me that he is still considering the same issue of murder (euthanasia) in this particular case by discussing the Fifth Commandment (i.e.. whether inserting/keeping/removing a feeding tube constitutes murder), but tries to make it clearer. I see nowhere that he is "admitting" his arguments don't apply nor "changing" his arguments.
Again, what I see is that it is possible to have different opinions on how to apply Catholic moral theology in this case.