Are feeding tubes Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment?

[awkward customer]

Because 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.

Wow, it's truly astonishing how you refuse to research this case at all or read any of the links provided before making statements.

There was an armed guard in the room making sure she didn't receive any water or nourishment whatsoever from her priest and family, including Holy Communion.

I have researched the case, extensively, which is why I know that your argument is based on emotion and rumour.

When will you address the point I have repeatedly made that Dr Greber never examined Terri Schiavo in person?

When will you address that fact that she could not take food and fluid orally according to the doctors who examined her?  I have pointed this out repeatedly and all you do is repeat the same false claim?

You keep claiming that Terri Schiavo was capable of taking food and fluid orally when she clearly wasn't.

Why do you do this?

And why were her parents and priest trying to make her drink water when she clearly couldn't?

I think these are valid questions! I'm finding all of the information out there overwhelming, but I keep going back to: this whole situation isn't cut and dried/black and white.  I think too many want to make it so.

Queen.saints refuses to address these questions

[awkward customer]

The problem with the quote function lies with the 'Quick Reply' box.

You have to leave the thread in order to clear it of previous text.

It is truly annoying.

[TradGranny]

 CATHOLIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Upholding the Principles of the Catholic Faith in the Science and Practice of Medicine
Find a Catholic Physician

When to Recommend a PEG Tube: A Decision Tree for Clinicans from a Catholic Perspective

The question of assisted nutrition and hydration often presents great challenges not only for patients and families, but also for physicians. Catholic moral teaching can be of great help to all people of good will in meeting this challenge. An article issued in the February 2012 Linacre Quarterly by the Catholic Medical Association's Ad-Hoc PEG Tube Study Group provides resources for ethical and clinical decision making.

The question of tube feeding often presents great challenges for the physician. Catholic moral teaching can be of great help to all people of good will in meeting this challenge. The Church teaches that tube feeding is, in principle, ordinary care and hence morally obligatory. How should clinicians go about deciding when to recommend tube feeding in a manner that serves the best interests of the patient and is in harmony with the Church's teaching? A PEG tube should be recommended when a patient is not eating or drinking adequately, has more than a short-term need, is not imminently dying, and has no contraindication to a PEG. This article presents a step-by-step discussion of the decision-making process to assist physicians and other health-care professionals. A decision tree is included that is clinically focused, practical, and straightforward. The authors represent a broad range of Catholic clinical experience. Practical suggestions are offered regarding how to go about discussing this difficult subject with patients and their families. The issues of patient refusal, advance directives, and physician recusal from care are addressed. A chronological reading list on the subject of PEG tubes is provided.

https://www.cathmed.org/resources/peg/

[Baylee]

But even if a feeding tube were somehow extraordinary means in this case, which it was not by any definition of the term used in Catholic theology

and even if it could have been ascertained that she would not have wanted to accept that extraordinary treatment, which it never was

and even if it were true that she could not eat orally, which many close to her deny

and even it were true that she had miraculously survived being unable to swallow her own saliva for 15 years

and could therefore not swallow even a tiny amount of water

This would still be a case of euthanasia.

Because 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 will go back and read his statements as well as his posts here.  I'm still not seeing a shift, but a logical clarification given the reactions he got from others who insisted that this was a case about euthanasia.

Failure to supply someone with ordinary means of preserving life is euthanasia and that indisputably happened in this case.

I need to go back and look at all of the Church quotes provided re: ordinary and extraordinary means from both Fr Cekada and elsewhere.

Yes.

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.  He writes to Dr Gebel (you left out this part when you quoted him earlier):

If what you seem to be claiming is true and Terri Schiavo was somehow able to eat and drink by natural means, there is no dispute that those who cared for her would have been obliged to provide her with food and drink. To have withheld these would have been a mortal sin (unjust direct homicide) against the Fifth Commandment.

However, my writings on the Schiavo case centered on something else: the principles that Catholic moral theology would apply to removing a feeding tube.

And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.

[queen.saints]

Because 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.

Wow, it's truly astonishing how you refuse to research this case at all or read any of the links provided before making statements.

There was an armed guard in the room making sure she didn't receive any water or nourishment whatsoever from her priest and family, including Holy Communion.

I have researched the case, extensively, which is why I know that your argument is based on emotion and rumour.

When will you address the point I have repeatedly made that Dr Greber never examined Terri Schiavo in person?

When will you address that fact that she could not take food and fluid orally according to the doctors who examined her?  I have pointed this out repeatedly and all you do is repeat the same false claim?

You keep claiming that Terri Schiavo was capable of taking food and fluid orally when she clearly wasn't.

Why do you do this?

And why were her parents and priest trying to make her drink water when she clearly couldn't?

You could not have researched the case extensively and not known that

a)she was able to breathe normally and not by machine as you claimed
b)she was not in a coma, as you implied
c)her mouth was not kept moist, unlike what you claimed

None of my posts have been based on emotion or rumor. Besides Fr. Cekada's own criteria of principle, Church teaching, and theology books, my only other sources have been court documents and eye witness accounts. 

I provided a link to a discussion where a lawyer points out that most doctor testimony accepted in a court of law is not based on physical examination of a patient.

I provided a link to a court document forbidding the administration of food and water normally. We are discussing the topic based on Church teaching, which says that ordinary means must always be at least supplied, which they were not. The claim that she could not take food and water normally was highly contested not just by her family, but by members of her medical team and a medical examination clarifying the question was requested and denied in a different ruling by the judge.

I never once, let alone repeatedly, claimed that she was certainly able to take food and water orally. I said the fact is that they were not supplied to her. Not even in the tiniest most manageable amounts.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

But why are you so emotionally invested in denying what her doctors and the autopsy report said?

You're really going to go with, "Just trust the doctors," after the past four years?

[queen.saints]

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.

...
And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.


"What people are up to" when they argue against Fr. Cekada is reading the sources he himself provides, from which it is nearly impossible to conclude that a PEG feeding tube, is itself extraordinary means and it would not be wrong to remove it when already in place. This is the conclusion of the entire Catholic Church- including sedevacantists- outside of Fr. Cekada's one group,  just about all prudent and conscientious men, and the entire developed world, including even North Korea.


The "burden" is in the fact that the person is severely handicapped. The feeding tube makes this burden easier, not harder.

Feeding a person by mouth, indefinitely, is much more burdensome, yet ordinary.

[awkward customer]

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.

Why do you keep repeating the same falsehood?

[Baylee]

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.

Why do you keep repeating the same falsehood?

Well...maybe it wasn't supplied because they knew she was incapable of eating and drinking on her own.

[Baylee]

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.

...
And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.


"What people are up to" when they argue against Fr. Cekada is reading the sources he himself provides, from which it is nearly impossible to conclude that a PEG feeding tube, is itself extraordinary means and it would not be wrong to remove it when already in place. This is the conclusion of the entire Catholic Church- including sedevacantists- outside of Fr. Cekada's one group,  just about all prudent and conscientious men, and the entire developed world, including even North Korea.


The "burden" is in the fact that the person is severely handicapped. The feeding tube makes this burden easier, not harder.

Feeding a person by mouth, indefinitely, is much more burdensome, yet ordinary.

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.

...
And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.


"What people are up to" when they argue against Fr. Cekada is reading the sources he himself provides, from which it is nearly impossible to conclude that a PEG feeding tube, is itself extraordinary means and it would not be wrong to remove it when already in place. This is the conclusion of the entire Catholic Church- including sedevacantists- outside of Fr. Cekada's one group,  just about all prudent and conscientious men, and the entire developed world, including even North Korea.


The "burden" is in the fact that the person is severely handicapped. The feeding tube makes this burden easier, not harder.

Feeding a person by mouth, indefinitely, is much more burdensome, yet ordinary.

You keep repeating that denying ordinary means would be euthanasia.  But Fr Cekada didn't believe that this was ordinary means.  He actually agrees with you (and others) that this would be murder if it were ordinary means.

...
And this is when I start to wonder what people are up to when they argue against Fr Cekada on this.  He believed this was a matter of extraordinary means, not ordinary.  As such, his comments are completely valid.  You don't have to agree with him, but they are valid.   

Quite frankly, when reading about "grave burdens" related to extraordinary means per Catholic moral theology, I really don't see how using a feeding tube indefinitely is NOT a grave burden...whether physically, emotionally or financially. I really think this is the issue.  This wasn't a temporary use of a feeding tube.  It was permanent.

This certainly being a case of euthanasia was, as I stated, not in reference to the feeding tube, but to her being refused even regular food and water. Church teaching days that it must be supplied and it wasn't in any sort.


"What people are up to" when they argue against Fr. Cekada is reading the sources he himself provides, from which it is nearly impossible to conclude that a PEG feeding tube, is itself extraordinary means and it would not be wrong to remove it when already in place. This is the conclusion of the entire Catholic Church- including sedevacantists- outside of Fr. Cekada's one group,  just about all prudent and conscientious men, and the entire developed world, including even North Korea.


The "burden" is in the fact that the person is severely handicapped. The feeding tube makes this burden easier, not harder.

Feeding a person by mouth, indefinitely, is much more burdensome, yet ordinary.

If it is "nearly impossible" to conclude extraordinary means, then how do you explain why Father Cekada came to that conclusion? He certainly didn't make a lot of friends by doing so.  In fact oftentimes his opinion on this is held against him to this day.  I witnessed it here on the "SV and Akita" thread. He may have been wrong, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he sincerely and objectively weighed the teachings and evidence to come to what he believed to be the correct traditional Catholic teaching. Even if everyone else concluded differently. Again, I know there is so much more to read about this case, but I remain unconvinced it's an open and shut case ofmurder.

[Baylee]

But why are you so emotionally invested in denying what her doctors and the autopsy report said?

You're really going to go with, "Just trust the doctors," after the past four years?

And yet Dr Gebel gets a pass? 

[awkward customer]

You could not have researched the case extensively and not known that

a)she was able to breathe normally and not by machine as you claimed
b)she was not in a coma, as you implied
c)her mouth was not kept moist, unlike what you claimed

None of my posts have been based on emotion or rumor. Besides Fr. Cekada's own criteria of principle, Church teaching, and theology books, my only other sources have been court documents and eye witness accounts. 

I provided a link to a discussion where a lawyer points out that most doctor testimony accepted in a court of law is not based on physical examination of a patient.

I provided a link to a court document forbidding the administration of food and water normally. We are discussing the topic based on Church teaching, which says that ordinary means must always be at least supplied, which they were not. The claim that she could not take food and water normally was highly contested not just by her family, but by members of her medical team and a medical examination clarifying the question was requested and denied in a different ruling by the judge.

I never once, let alone repeatedly, claimed that she was certainly able to take food and water orally. I said the fact is that they were not supplied to her. Not even in the tiniest most manageable amounts.

Alright, she could breathe without the aid of a machine.  And she was diagnosed as being in a Persistent Vegetative State, as the autopsy report states.

She could not take food or fluid orally and needed a feeding tube.  You keep saying that food and water was not supplied to her.  But why would they be if she couldn't eat or drink and had to be fed through a tube?

This is the point in your argument that I don't understand.  You say you never said that she was "certainly able to take food and water orally".  And then you say she was denied food and water, even the "tiniest most manageable amounts".

But if you can't say with certainty that she could take food and water orally, how do you define the amount of food and water you think she could take?  She could manage ice chips and some Jello - for 15 years.  But if these weren't to keep her mouth moist, then it seems a bit of a stretch to refer to these as food and water.

You say that the claim she couldn't take food and water orally was contested.  Then how much food and water could she take and why did removing the tube end her life?

I've read many claims about this case and I doubt we'll ever agree.  But the claims of murder, execution and euthanasia are ridiculous and evidence enough of emotionalism.

[Bonaventure]

But why are you so emotionally invested in denying what her doctors and the autopsy report said?

You're really going to go with, "Just trust the doctors," after the past four years?

And yet Dr Gebel gets a pass? 

He's a traditional Catholic and a massgoer of SGG.

[queen.saints]

Well...maybe it wasn't supplied because they knew she was incapable of eating and drinking on her own.

Thank you for admitting what is public record in court documents and all testimony from both sides of the discussion.

She was not supplied any ordinary means, including the tiniest amount of water for 13 days. Nobody but one person in the entire world is denying this, not even her husband.

This is not a false claim.

This would be like not just turning off someone's oxygen, but then covering their head with a pillow and saying, "This isn't euthanasia, because the doctors say she can't breathe on her own."

Except the doctors are often wrong in these pronouncements when it's actually tested, like they were with Ann Quinlan.

And as even awkward customer admitted earlier, keeping someone's mouth moist is "essential" even when they cannot eat or drink. But this ordinary means of preserving health was denied too.

Every "life-prolonging measure" was denied.

[queen.saints]

You could not have researched the case extensively and not known that

a)she was able to breathe normally and not by machine as you claimed
b)she was not in a coma, as you implied
c)her mouth was not kept moist, unlike what you claimed

None of my posts have been based on emotion or rumor. Besides Fr. Cekada's own criteria of principle, Church teaching, and theology books, my only other sources have been court documents and eye witness accounts. 

I provided a link to a discussion where a lawyer points out that most doctor testimony accepted in a court of law is not based on physical examination of a patient.

I provided a link to a court document forbidding the administration of food and water normally. We are discussing the topic based on Church teaching, which says that ordinary means must always be at least supplied, which they were not. The claim that she could not take food and water normally was highly contested not just by her family, but by members of her medical team and a medical examination clarifying the question was requested and denied in a different ruling by the judge.

I never once, let alone repeatedly, claimed that she was certainly able to take food and water orally. I said the fact is that they were not supplied to her. Not even in the tiniest most manageable amounts.

Alright, she could breathe without the aid of a machine.  And she was diagnosed as being in a Persistent Vegetative State, as the autopsy report states.

She could not take food or fluid orally and needed a feeding tube.  You keep saying that food and water was not supplied to her.  But why would they be if she couldn't eat or drink and had to be fed through a tube?

This is the point in your argument that I don't understand.  You say you never said that she was "certainly able to take food and water orally".  And then you say she was denied food and water, even the "tiniest most manageable amounts".

But if you can't say with certainty that she could take food and water orally, how do you define the amount of food and water you think she could take?  She could manage ice chips and some Jello - for 15 years.  But if these weren't to keep her mouth moist, then it seems a bit of a stretch to refer to these as food and water.

You say that the claim she couldn't take food and water orally was contested.  Then how much food and water could she take and why did removing the tube end her life?

I've read many claims about this case and I doubt we'll ever agree.  But the claims of murder, execution and euthanasia are ridiculous and evidence enough of emotionalism.

You still haven't researched enough to know that the reference to ice chips in the debate was to the fact that even these were forbidden to be placed on her lips to alleviate some of her suffering as she slowly dehydrated and starved.

So we'll never know if she could have taken even that much water.

Fr. Cekada claimed her husband had the authority to do this.

Which no Catholic principle, teaching, or theology book has ever taught.

We will certainly never agree if you think it is "ridiculous" and "emotional" to even claim she was euthanized. It's the conclusion that, as far as I know, every single traditional Catholic priest in the world came to besides three.
And two of those did not defend the actions denying her even a tiny amount of water at the end of her life.