Are feeding tubes Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment?

[queen.saints]

If it is "nearly impossible" to conclude extraordinary means, then how do you explain why Father Cekada came to that conclusion?

To quote Fr. Jenkins, "It is amazing – literally incredible".


I certainly do not try to explain it.

[awkward customer]

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.

Oh good.  Perhaps you can help me understand the argument being put forward by queen.saints because I'm baffled by it.

Terri Schiavo could not take food and water by Ordinary means which is why she needed a feeding tube.

Queen.saints claims that Terri Schiavo was euthanised because she wasn't given food and water after her feeding tube was removed.

But she couldn't eat food or drink water which is why she needed a feeding tube in the first place. 

Can you explain queen.saints logic.  Because I can't.

PS Dr Geber never examined Terri Schiavo in person.

[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.

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.

Have you read the autopsy report?

I'm still trying to understand your logic and have asked Bonaventure to help explain it.

Here's the problem I have - again.

You keep saying that Terri Schiavo was euthanised because she was denied food and water after her feeding tube was removed.

But she couldn't drink water or eat food, which is why she was on a feeding tube in the first place.

Please explain .....

Also, a human being can't survive much longer than three days without water. Please explain how Terri Schiavo survived  13 days without water as you claim above.

[awkward customer]

Perhaps there's no logic.

The case against Fr Cekada's position, and mine, seems to be that Terri Schiavo was murdered because she wasn't given food and water which she was incapable of eating and drinking anyway.

An argument like that is impossible to counter.  She was killed because she wasn't given the opportunity to do something she couldn't do.

What can anyone say? 



 

 

[Baylee]

Perhaps there's no logic.

The case against Fr Cekada's position, and mine, seems to be that Terri Schiavo was murdered because she wasn't given food and water which she was incapable of eating and drinking anyway.

An argument like that is impossible to counter.  She was killed because she wasn't given the opportunity to do something she couldn't do.

What can anyone say? 

I don't see any logic in it either. 

Perhaps no one can explain it just as no one can explain why Fr Cekada could possibly come to the conclusion that this was a matter of extraordinary means and did not result in murder. At least queens doesn't demonize him nor those who are open to his position. I can respect that.

Bottom line: No one on either side is going to change their minds on this topic at this point in the game.  Especially those who are emotionally invested and 100% sure she was murdered.

[awkward customer]

Perhaps no one can explain it just as no one can explain why Fr Cekada could possibly come to the conclusion that this was a matter of extraordinary means and did not result in murder.

Exactly.  The original question of whether or not feeding tubes constitute Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment has been lost in this miasma of illogicality.

But what about the false compassion? I firmly believe that keeping someone with no hope of recovery on a feeding tube for 15 years constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, especially if that person suffered from bulimia.

Perhaps people should read the autopsy report you posted earlier.  Terri Schiavo's brain had atrophied to being one half of its normal size and was capable of only "reflexively" maintaining bodily functions.  She was blind and incapable of communicating.  She could not eat or drink by Ordinary means, hence the feeding tube.  She was in a Persistent Vegetative State.

Terri Schiavo had no hope of recovery.  Where's the compassion in keeping a body functioning at such a level - for 15 years - a level which would remain permanently and which depended on feeding tubes while she lay immobile on a hospital bed, blind and unable to communicate?

Queen.saints blithely states that feeding tubes don't cause distress and are less burdensome than feeding by Ordinary means.  But less burdensome to who?  I'm detecting no effort whatsoever to understand the reality of being in Terri Schiavo's position.

Surely, if a body cannot take food and water for a prolonged period - 15 years - and has no hope of recovery, then that body is signalling to the world that life is over, that it's time to go.  It's understandably that her parents did not want to admit this but why make things worse by jumping on the Euthanasia bandwagon.

I'm wondering where if she was even truly alive for those 15 years.  When does the soul leave the body?  When the body has decided it can no longer continue and is only capable of being kept in a reflexively maintained state due to the intervention of a machine, in this case the feeding tube and apparatus?

Emotionalism and illogicality always lead to bad outcomes and rarely produce true compassion.  At least Fr Cekada had some idea of the reality of being in Terri Schiavo's situation as he repeatedly draws attention to this.

But the whole question hinges on whether feeding tubes are Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment.





 

[Baylee]

Please explain .....

Also, a human being can't survive much longer than three days without water. Please explain how Terri Schiavo survived 13 days without water as you claim above.

Good question.  Almost every article I googled says that we cannot live without water for more than 3-4 days. One article stated maybe a week.  This makes me wonder whether she was given fluids intraveneously.

 

[queen.saints]

Here we are at reply #66 and still seeing false speculations a brief reading of the posts and links provided or even Wikipedia would have contradicted.

"What can anyone say?" indeed.

[Baylee]

Here we are at reply #66 and still seeing false speculations a brief reading of the posts and links provided or even Wikipedia would have contradicted.

"What can anyone say?" indeed.

Queen, as I said above, I don't think anyone is going change anyone's opinion on this case (although I still remain uncommitted one way or the other and believe that good people can come to different conclusions). 

However, I think asking how she was able to live 13 days without water is certainly a valid one. Isn't that at least odd? Healthy people can only live 3-4 days without water and Terri lived 13??

If you answered that questions elsewhere (or it's explained in one of the links) can you direct me to that?  If it's not been answered, then isn't that a question that should be at least considered? Wouldn't it be valid speculation to question whether it's true that she was not given some sort of hydration before her final death? She may not have had it via natural means, but it certainly is possible that she was given it via IV.

For me, if this has not been answered, it certainly gives me pause, and I don't understand why someone should think that it should not.

 

[queen.saints]

Here are links to doctors and nurses who personally examined or cared for the patient testifying that she could swallow

https://terrischiavoorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/hammesfahr.pdf

https://terrischiavoorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/maxfield.pdf

https://terrischiavoorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/avery-affidavit.pdf

https://terrischiavoorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/young.pdf

https://terrischiavoorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/affidavit-c-iyer-082903.pdf

https://terrischiavoorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/affidavit-c-johnson-082803.pdf

https://terrischiavoorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/affidavit-h-law-083003.pdf





Here is a link to the appeal by the Guardian Ad Litem assigned to the patient by the court advising new swallowing tests, since even the most recent test the judge used in his ruling had been conducted in 1993, 10 years prior to the initial ruling.

https://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

New tests were forbidden by the judge.

Here is a link to his rulings dismissing the petition for new tests and his final refusal of normal administration of food and water based on what was at that time a 12 year old test.


https://web.archive.org/web/20050321013532/http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0300.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20050529141133/http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/022805EmMotionNaturalFeeding.pdf

[queen.saints]

Here we are at reply #66 and still seeing false speculations a brief reading of the posts and links provided or even Wikipedia would have contradicted.

"What can anyone say?" indeed.

Queen, as I said above, I don't think anyone is going change anyone's opinion on this case (although I still remain uncommitted one way or the other and believe that good people can come to different conclusions). 

However, I think asking how she was able to live 13 days without water is certainly a valid one. Isn't that at least odd? Healthy people can only live 3-4 days without water and Terri lived 13??

If you answered that questions elsewhere (or it's explained in one of the links) can you direct me to that?  If it's not been answered, then isn't that a question that should be at least considered? Wouldn't it be valid speculation to question whether it's true that she was not given some sort of hydration before her final death? She may not have had it via natural means, but it certainly is possible that she was given it via IV.

For me, if this has not been answered, it certainly gives me pause, and I don't understand why someone should think that it should not.

 

Yes, it was horrific and stunning that she was able to survive that long with no water, but it's not a disputed fact of the case.

Euthanasia advocates and her husband claimed that it was a beautiful, peaceful process and her priest said it was the worst thing he had ever witnessed.

[Baylee]

Here we are at reply #66 and still seeing false speculations a brief reading of the posts and links provided or even Wikipedia would have contradicted.

"What can anyone say?" indeed.

Queen, as I said above, I don't think anyone is going change anyone's opinion on this case (although I still remain uncommitted one way or the other and believe that good people can come to different conclusions). 

However, I think asking how she was able to live 13 days without water is certainly a valid one. Isn't that at least odd? Healthy people can only live 3-4 days without water and Terri lived 13??

If you answered that questions elsewhere (or it's explained in one of the links) can you direct me to that?  If it's not been answered, then isn't that a question that should be at least considered? Wouldn't it be valid speculation to question whether it's true that she was not given some sort of hydration before her final death? She may not have had it via natural means, but it certainly is possible that she was given it via IV.

For me, if this has not been answered, it certainly gives me pause, and I don't understand why someone should think that it should not.

 

Yes, it was horrific and stunning that she was able to survive that long with no water, but it's not a disputed fact of the case.

Euthanasia advocates and her husband claimed that it was a beautiful, peaceful process and her priest said it was the worst thing he had ever witnessed.

You say stunning, but my common sense says, "13 days? That's hard to believe".

Thank you for the links.  I will look them over to see if they address my question regarding the use of other forms of hydration vs "normal means".  If other forms of hydration were used (even though normal means were not allowed), then that would mean certain ordinary means were still used in her final days.

[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?

And yet Dr Gebel gets a pass? 

I thought he was a fine paleontologist.

[TradGranny]

This is from the website of Terri's family:

The Schindlers' battle for Terri's life began in 1998 when her husband petitioned the court to remove her nutrition and hydration, which would result in her death. They endured court hearings, legislative battles, and three separate attempts to withdraw Terri's food and fluids over the course of five years. Sadly, Terri's courageous struggle, and her family's tireless efforts to protect her, ended on March 31, 2005, when she succumbed to dehydration and starvation at the hands of a faithless judicial system and at the request of her husband.

Their valiant struggle to save the life of their daughter was played out in primetime and splashed across newspapers and magazine covers around the globe. During this time, Terri's parents taught us what it means to love unconditionally and to defend life without reserve.


for links see
https://terrischiavo.org/story/terris-family/


    Who was Terri?
    What was Terri's wish?
    Who was Terri's family?
    What was the timeline of Terri's fight?
    What were the professionals' opinions?
    What was the public's opinion?
    What are some frequently asked questions?

[TradGranny]

From link above:

On February 25, 1990, at the age of 26, Terri Schiavo collapsed, for still unknown reasons, while home alone with Michael Schiavo. Terri had no written directive. Schiavo made no mention that Terri had any type of verbal living will.

In November 1992, Michael Schiavo initiated a medical malpractice suit against Terri's physicians, a general practitioner and a gynecologist, claiming that she may have suffered from an eating disorder which they failed to detect. At trial, the Chief of Rehabilitation from Bayfront Medical Center and a second rehabilitation specialist both testified that Terri could expect a normal life span and would require extensive care throughout her life. Michael Schiavo recited his wedding vows to the jury and asked for upwards of 20 million dollars so that he could "bring Terri home" and provide her with the proper lifelong rehabilitation and therapy she was going to need because of her disability. Based on that and other evidence, the jury awarded Michael Schiavo $600,000 for loss of spousal consortium and over $1.5 million to Terri. Of this, $780,000 was placed in trust to provide for Terri's future healthcare and therapeutic needs.

On February 14, 1993, Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents had a disagreement over the course of her care and the use of her trust to provide therapy. Terri's parents urged Michael Schiavo to begin rehabilitation and therapy for Terri once again. He declined. Schiavo discontinued any contact with Terri's family and took steps to deny their access to her.

In the spring of that year, subsequent to the split between Michael Schiavo and Terri's family, Schiavo places placed a DNR order in Terri's medical records, and instructed nursing home not to reveal any medical information regarding Terri to her family.

That summer, Michael Schiavo instructed Terri's physician not to treat her UT infection which would ultimately lead to her death by sepsis. Fortunately, the Nursing home intervened, informing Schiavo that Florida Statutes do not permit the withholding of such medical treatment.

In November 1993, Michael Schiavo is was deposed and testified that he wanted the antibiotics withheld in the hopes that Terri would die stating that, "It's what I think Terri would want", and "In my own feelings, if Terri were to wake up and see herself the way she is now, she wouldn't even want to live like that." Schiavo never mentioned that it was "Terri's" wish to die, only his wish.

In 1994, Michael Schiavo took up residence and became engaged to Jodi Centzone. He refused to dissolve his marriage to Terri, and the couple eventually had three children.

In 1995, Michael Schiavo sought out the services of attorney George Felos, a right-to-die litigator. Attorney Felos would later petition the court for his fees to be paid for by Terri's trust.

In July of 1997, Michael mother, Clare Schiavo, passed away. While making no mention of Terri, Schiavo publicly announced – in mother's obituary – his intentions to marry Jodi Centonze, while still being married to Terri.

Note: During the 2000 trial to determine Terri's fate, Michael Schiavo testified that it was only AFTER his mother's death that he decided to remove Terri's feeding tube. This contradicted the fact that Schiavo and his attorney had already begun the procedures to remove Terri's feeding tube several months prior to Schiavo's mother passing away.

In May of 1998, Felos filed Petition to Withdraw Life Support, based on Michael Schiavo's claim that Terri had a verbal living will. The court appointed a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to investigate the merits of this petition. During investigation, Guardian ad Litem asked Schiavo if he knew of anyone else having knowledge of Terri's alleged wish. Schiavo tells GAL ... "No".

The final report of the Guardian ad Litem to the court was that the petition should be denied based on conflicts of interest by Michael Schiavo. Report cited the number of years it took for Schiavo to recall Terri's alleged wish, and the money Schiavo would stand to inherit, which was upwards of $800,000.00. Attorney Felos objected on claims of bias and the court dismissed the Guardian ad Litem without ever appointing a successor.

In the spring of 1999, Florida Law was changed to recognize feeding tubes as "medical treatment" (artificial life support). Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos was directly involved in effort to change law.

That same year, during Michael Schaivo's deposition in preparation for upcoming trial, attorney Felos asks asked Schiavo if there was anyone who would corroborate his claim regarding Terri's "wishes". Despite previously saying he knew of no one, Schiavo then identified his brother, Scott Schiavo and sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo.

In January of 2000, the Petition to Withdraw Life Support was heard by Judge George W. Greer in Pinellas-Pasco's Sixth Judicial Circuit. As support for his petition, Michael Schiavo testified that Terri told him in the mid-1980s that she would not want life support after the couple had watched a movie depicting a patient on a ventilator. Schiavo's brother and sister-in-law also testified that Terri had made statements to them regarding mechanical life support. Judge Greer dismissed testimony of Terri's parents, siblings, Terri's life-long girlfriend and closest friend in Florida, all testifying that Terri never made any statements regarding situations if she were to become disabled. Greer found Schiavo and his family's testimony to be clear and convincing evidence and ordered that Terri's feeding tube be removed.

In April of 2001, Cindy Brashers (Shook) – a previous girlfriend of Schiavo's -told Terri's father, and brother in a phone conversation that Michael Schiavo was lying about Terri's wishes and that he told Shook back in 1991 when they were dating that, "He had no idea what Terri's wishes were."

That same year, Trudy Capone (Trudy Capone and Schiavo dated just prior to his relationship with Jodi Centonze) submitted an affidavit repeating Shook's claim that Michael Schiavo was lying and did not know Terri's wishes.

March 31, 2005, Terri died of marked dehydration after almost 14 days of being denied food and water based on Judge Greer's decision that it was Terri's wish to die.