Are feeding tubes Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment?

[Baylee]

Here is an article by John Daly that I found on Cathinfo which discusses Fr Cekada's argument. 

Fr. Cekada put together an article on these matters, which made waves by being opposed to the almost unanimous voice of Catholics and conservatives.  His main arguments were as follows:

1.   The Pro-Life Movement, where Catholics work hand-in-hand with Protestants, Jєωs and humanists, sometimes tends to make an absolute out of prolonging human life, something which is not in conformity with sound doctrine.  In such cases, we must always resist being dragged down to the emotional level and make our judgments based on the teachings of the Holy See and approved theologians.

2.   The Church teaches that it is not against the 5th Commandment to terminate extraordinary means of prolonging life.

3.   The permanent use of feeding and hydration tubes for the benefit of a sick person, without any hope of recovery to more than a semi-vegetative state can be considered as an extraordinary means.  Such is the judgment of several respected theologians from the time of Pius XII.

4.   In a case where solid arguments exist in favor of the legality of terminating the means of artificially maintaining life, where civil law is neutral, and where the doctors leave the decision to others, the one and only person (according to Catholic theology) competent to make such a decision for a married woman, is her husband, and not her parents.

5.   This being the case, it is far from obvious that a mortal sin would be committed in removing the feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo.  To maintain the contrary argument is to pervert the conscience of Catholics not only as regards their obligations to maintain life artificially, but also on the matter of spousal rights.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/fr-cekada-euthanasia-and-the-terri-schiavo-affair/

Interesting that I cannot find this John Daly article on the internet.

[queen.saints]

Here is an article by John Daly that I found on Cathinfo which discusses Fr Cekada's argument. 

Fr. Cekada put together an article on these matters, which made waves by being opposed to the almost unanimous voice of Catholics and conservatives.  His main arguments were as follows:

1.  The Pro-Life Movement, where Catholics work hand-in-hand with Protestants, Jєωs and humanists, sometimes tends to make an absolute out of prolonging human life, something which is not in conformity with sound doctrine.  In such cases, we must always resist being dragged down to the emotional level and make our judgments based on the teachings of the Holy See and approved theologians.

2.  The Church teaches that it is not against the 5th Commandment to terminate extraordinary means of prolonging life.

3.  The permanent use of feeding and hydration tubes for the benefit of a sick person, without any hope of recovery to more than a semi-vegetative state can be considered as an extraordinary means.  Such is the judgment of several respected theologians from the time of Pius XII.

4.  In a case where solid arguments exist in favor of the legality of terminating the means of artificially maintaining life, where civil law is neutral, and where the doctors leave the decision to others, the one and only person (according to Catholic theology) competent to make such a decision for a married woman, is her husband, and not her parents.

5.  This being the case, it is far from obvious that a mortal sin would be committed in removing the feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo.  To maintain the contrary argument is to pervert the conscience of Catholics not only as regards their obligations to maintain life artificially, but also on the matter of spousal rights.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/fr-cekada-euthanasia-and-the-terri-schiavo-affair/

According to the comments, Michael Schiavo, Terri's brother and sister-in-law all testified in court that Terri  had told them that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means in a dependent state.  I'll check this, if possible.

"Without any hope of recovery to more than a semi-vegetative state can be considered as an extraordinary means.  Such is the judgment of several respected theologians from the time of Pius XII"


No, what the respected theologians said is that when there is no hope of recovery to "life", then all means ordinary and extraordinary are considered useless and non-obligatory because we are going to die anyway.

And other respected theologians citing earlier more established Church teaching respectfully disagreed with them and said that just because we are certainly dying of one thing, doesn't mean we can let ourselves die of everything.

And this healthy debate didn't really matter because both sides agreed that in practice one should err on the side of caution and adopt the second approach.

No one but a most liberal pro-abortion, pro-contraception, post-conciliar theologian after Vatican II suggested that the recovery should be more than "alive". And his position was condemned by the Church.




The Church has always taught and still teaches to this day that even someone in the most vegetative, blind, half-brained, uncommunicative, non-verbal of states who is not dying is obliged to preserve their life.

Because all life is precious and a gift from God.




" In a case where solid arguments exist in favor of the legality of terminating the means of artificially maintaining life, where civil law is neutral, and where the doctors leave the decision to others, the one and only person (according to Catholic theology) competent to make such a decision for a married woman, is her husband, and not her parents."


"Catholic theology" has never taught this, not at all.

The Church teaches that each person is responsible for and therefore has the right to make these decisions themselves.

Therefore, the person who is actually  representing their real wishes, is the only person who has any right.

"To maintain otherwise" is to contradict the Catholic teaching.

[queen.saints]

Bulimia is a psychological illness - the result of internal perverse self-concept (perfectionist standards, craving for attention, hatred of self, or other). Mortal sin requires full consent of the will and full control of one's faculties.

Just clarifying that I still have no position in the argument, since I am not well-read on it. I posted my comment to remind us what the Church's position is regarding mortal sin in general (knowledge, conscious decision, control of faculties).

And just to clarify,

"Bulimia" as I meant it and as the word was used until recent history is an act of eating in a manner that is objectively gravely sinful. Of course a related mental illness would and often does affect culpability. It would affect any action.

But the act itself is intrinsically wrong and we cannot believe that a woman committed this act and caused herself permanent brain damage based on testimony such as "she used to always excuse herself after restaurant meals" and "she was on a low calorie high-tea diet".





" While the psychological disorder "bulimia nervosa" is relatively new, the word "bulimia", signifying overeating, has been present for centuries."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulimia_nervosa



On a side note, I do wonder what kind of tea she was drinking. I know someone who became seriously ill from accidentally over drinking herbal tea, which they thought was perfectly safe.
It's something to use with caution.

[queen.saints]

Yes AC, I read his side and not for a split second do I believe one iota from him, if he truly did what he did out of love he would have allowed Terri to have the comfort of relieving her dry mouth when dying and he would have allowed the priest to give her communion.  Nope he does not come to this with clean hands.  As for fulfilling a promise, knowing 22 year olds glib comments for example , I'd love to go out like a light (not Terri but countless people I know) and when it comes to it, they cling to life and try all means possible to stay alive.  I can't take seriously the comment in the context that testimonies quoted in this thread.
Terri was murdered imo, the time to not put in the peg feed was initially when she was in a coma and see if nature takes its course but once it was in, ML schiavo had no right to remove it. 

" . "I would far rather err," says St. Anselm, "by thinking good of a bad man than by thinking evil of a good man." "

http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/commandment8.htm

Even if every single word he said he were true, what he did would still be gravely wrong.

That's what's important to point out, so that others don't make the same mistake and the only thing we can know for certain, because the Church teaches it.

We can never know what went on in his heart, so that's God's way of telling us to assume the best.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Traditionally speaking, feeding tubes are Extraordinary treatment.

 

There is no pre-1958 consensus on the "extraordinariness" of feeding tubes.

[awkward customer]

Traditionally speaking, feeding tubes are Extraordinary treatment.

 

There is no pre-1958 consensus on the "extraordinariness" of feeding tubes.

What were the opinions pre-1958?  If there was no consensus, there must have been more than one.  What were they?

[Baylee]

Throwing this out there.  It was quoted in the original thread from 2015.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/004056395001100202

Unfortunately, this is only a portion of this article.  Does anyone have access to the full article/PDF?  It was written by Fr Gerald Kelly in 1951 and might prove helpful in this discussion.

[awkward customer]

The Church has always taught and still teaches to this day that even someone in the most vegetative, blind, half-brained, uncommunicative, non-verbal of states who is not dying is obliged to preserve their life.
 

There you go again, making things up again.

The Church has not taught this and still doesn't, whatever the Modernists say.

"Vehemens horror, an intense and overwhelming emotion of horror provoked by the use of those means", quoted in the SSPX article you posted, has long been recognised by the Church as an entirely justified reason for refusing an Extraordinary treatment.

[queen.saints]

Double post

[queen.saints]

Throwing this out there.  It was quoted in the original thread from 2015.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/004056395001100202

Unfortunately, this is only a portion of this article.  Does anyone have access to the full article/PDF?  It was written by Fr Gerald Kelly in 1951 and might prove helpful in this discussion.

" The Duty of Using Artificial Means of Preserving Life"


Looks like it would be very helpful to the discussion. 

[queen.saints]

The Church has always taught and still teaches to this day that even someone in the most vegetative, blind, half-brained, uncommunicative, non-verbal of states who is not dying is obliged to preserve their life.
 

There you go again, making things up again.

The Church has not taught this and still doesn't, whatever the Modernists say.

"Vehemens horror, an intense and overwhelming emotion of horror provoked by the use of those means", quoted in the SSPX article you posted, has long been recognised by the Church as an entirely justified reason for refusing an Extraordinary treatment.

No matter how vegetative we may seem to an onlooker, as long as we are alive we have a duty to preserve our life.

No matter how vegetative someone may seem to other onlookers, we know better than anyone, as Catholics, that they are a human being and we have a duty towards them as our neighbor.



" In the Fifth Commandment almighty God forbids us to destroy our own life, or that of our neighbor, or to treat the lower animals with cruelty...

Since the life and health of the body are of great importance for the life of the soul and for our eternal salvation, we are bound to take precautions for the preservation of our health and of our life."

http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/commandment5.htm


An intense horror of a specific means could exempt us from using that specific means. It doesn't exempt us from anything else.

[queen.saints]

"the longer we keep our health and our life, the more treasures we can lay up for eternity, where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, where thieves do not break through, nor steal (Matt. vi. 20). If we thoughtlessly do anything to shorten our life, we defraud ourselves of a part of our seed-time. The eagle takes the utmost care of its egg, not for the sake of the shell, but of the young eagle enclosed in the egg; so we should take care of our body because of the soul that dwells within it."

http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/commandment5.htm

[queen.saints]

Traditionally speaking, feeding tubes are Extraordinary treatment.

 

There is no pre-1958 consensus on the "extraordinariness" of feeding tubes.

What were the opinions pre-1958?  If there was no consensus, there must have been more than one.  What were they?

They hadn't been invented yet.

PEG tubes were invented in 1980 and have a "success rate of 95%."

" PEG and PEG-J tubes are important in patients with barriers to oral feeding, including benign or malignant conditions, iatrogenic causes such as radiation therapy that can lead to mechanical obstruction in the esophagus, motility disorders of the esophagus, neurologic causes resulting in oropharyngeal dysphagia, psychosomatic issues such as dementia, and mental retardation or developmental delay."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559215/#:~:text=They%20serve%20as%20alternatives%20to,%2Drelated%20mortality%20is%200.5%25.



Unlike the previous methods cited in the pre-1958 examples, they are portable, discreet, and easy to operate. They can be used "in the community setting" or at home, not only in a hospital.

This is why they reduce healthcare costs, not increase them.

[Baylee]

Traditionally speaking, feeding tubes are Extraordinary treatment.

 

There is no pre-1958 consensus on the "extraordinariness" of feeding tubes.

What were the opinions pre-1958?  If there was no consensus, there must have been more than one.  What were they?

Again, the key is that one can apply Catholic principles to situations that may not have been dealt with in the past as is the specific case of "feeding tubes". Traditional Catholic clergy can come to different conclusions...especially those who do not consider JPII proper authority. There is no final Church say on feeding tubes pre-1958. It remains an open question.

 

[Baylee]

Bulimia is a psychological illness - the result of internal perverse self-concept (perfectionist standards, craving for attention, hatred of self, or other). Mortal sin requires full consent of the will and full control of one's faculties.

Just clarifying that I still have no position in the argument, since I am not well-read on it. I posted my comment to remind us what the Church's position is regarding mortal sin in general (knowledge, conscious decision, control of faculties).

And just to clarify,

"Bulimia" as I meant it and as the word was used until recent history is an act of eating in a manner that is objectively gravely sinful. Of course a related mental illness would and often does affect culpability. It would affect any action.

But the act itself is intrinsically wrong and we cannot believe that a woman committed this act and caused herself permanent brain damage based on testimony such as "she used to always excuse herself after restaurant meals" and "she was on a low calorie high-tea diet".





" While the psychological disorder "bulimia nervosa" is relatively new, the word "bulimia", signifying overeating, has been present for centuries."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulimia_nervosa



On a side note, I do wonder what kind of tea she was drinking. I know someone who became seriously ill from accidentally over drinking herbal tea, which they thought was perfectly safe.
It's something to use with caution.

AC's comments regarding Terri having issues with bulimia were most certainly considering it as an illness.  It was clear.  You, on the other hand, refused to consider bulimia the possible cause of her initial medical event because you said that would be imputing mortal sin on her and that we can't do that. 

The bottom line is you were wrong to say such a thing.  Dealing with bulimia is not a "mortal sin" and to question whether she had those issues at the time is completely valid.  No one is imputing mortal sin on her.