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.

[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.

[awkward customer]

Here'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.

They didn't have to rely on an autopsy report.  Why do you keep persisting with your false claims?  The doctors were already well aware of Terri Schiavo's condition and that she could not accept food or liquid orally, a fact which you consistently deny.

And how do you know what her death was like?  If her brain had atrophied to half its normal size and her cerebral cortex was only capable of reflexive action, what sensations was she capable of?

And if she had been capable of feeling pain and distress, what makes you so sure that the feeding tubes didn't cause her suffering?

If a damaged brain is only capable of reflexive action , was Terri Schiavo even alive?  What does the Church say?

[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?

[Baylee]

According to the autopsy posted above by Baylee,

The 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.

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.

https://baptistnews.com/article/terri-schiavo-autopsy-says-she-was-brain-damaged-blind-not-abused/

Remember, the doctors who diagnosed Terri Schiavo's "persistent vegetative state" had actually examined her in person, unlike Dr Greber who never met her.

It does seem as if the autopsy report agrees with what HER doctors said before she died.

This part piqued my interest:

Ability to be rehabilitated: The report determined that there was no way to reverse the brain damage that had incapacitated Schiavo. It also noted that attempting to feed her or provide her with hydration orally — which the Schindlers argued at one point she was capable of — was not possible and could have resulted in "aspiration," or choking.

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.  I'm wondering whether any of this information would render keeping her on the feeding tube "extraordinary".

[Baylee]

I 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.

His original statement was that the Terri Shiavo case was not an anti-euthanisia issue.


Ordinary means were defined by Manuals that Fr. Cekada himself either used to be,

"all medicines, treatments, and operations, which offer a reasonable hope of benefit for the patient and which can be obtained and used without excessive expense, pain, or other inconvenience."

Fr. Cekada was under the impression that feeding tubes were excessively expensive and inconvenient, a burden on society. But it was shown that here (and in most cases) they are less expensive and inconvenient than even regular feeding, which we are bound to provide. They are certainly less expensive and burdensome than many treatments which are indisputably ordinary means. They could theoretically be excessively painful, but here (and in most cases) they were not. They were providing the benefit of keeping her alive and comfortable.


What, therefore, is the basis for claiming they are extraordinary? In some theoretical circumstance, in which it were excessively painful, expensive, or inconvenient, then, yes, one would not be obliged to accept such treatment and it would not be a mortal sin. But that was not the case here.

However, even if it were extraordinary, his second argument is that the husband has the right to make the decision to deny such treatment. (He also makes the remarkable claim that a husband can even deny forms of water, which is clearly  ordinary means, because of his headship.)

But this is false.

Only the individual has the right to accept or refuse even extraordinary means. Even extraordinary means that are useless and torturous (which these were not).

"it is fundamentally the patient himself who has the right to decide whether or not he shall continue with a useless and extraordinary means which will prolong his intense suffering. It would be rash, indeed, to pose the question to him in his present condition, and it might be equally rash for others to make the decision for him. Who but God knows what goes on in the mind of such a person? Who but God knows what spiritual benefit such suffering may hold for the patient." Fr. McFadden

As even pro-euthanasia advocates have pointed out, the wishes of Theresa were never seriously considered and no evidence presented suggesting she wanted to die the like of which wouldn't have been thrown out under all legal precedent. This was fundamentally a "quality of life" case, where the judge decided she should die, because she had no quality of life, not because she wanted it, or because the feeding tube was excessively burdensome on anyone.

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=concomm






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.

[queen.saints]

"On February 28, 2005, the Schindlers filed a motion, asking for permission to attempt to provide Schiavo with "Food and Water by Natural Means". This second motion asked for permission to "attempt to feed" Schiavo by mouth. Judge Greer denied the second motion on March 8"

https://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf

[queen.saints]

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.

[Baylee]

On a side note:  what IS the deal with the quoting function here?  The above post makes it look like I wrote what queen wrote.   

[queen.saints]

https://www.priestsforlife.org/library/4535-terri-schiavos-final-hours-an-eyewitness-account

[queen.saints]

On a side note:  what IS the deal with the quoting function here?  The above post makes it look like I wrote what queen wrote.   

Yes!! Very annoying.

[Baylee]

On a side note:  what IS the deal with the quoting function here?  The above post makes it look like I wrote what queen wrote.   

Yes!! Very annoying.

Wait.  It's fine now.  Did you edit it?  Or am I losing it!?

[queen.saints]

On a side note:  what IS the deal with the quoting function here?  The above post makes it look like I wrote what queen wrote.   

Yes!! Very annoying.

Wait.  It's fine now.  Did you edit it?  Or am I losing it!?

I tried to edit it, but wasn't sure if it worked. Glad to know it did.

[Baylee]

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.

[awkward customer]

"On February 28, 2005, the Schindlers filed a motion, asking for permission to attempt to provide Schiavo with "Food and Water by Natural Means". This second motion asked for permission to "attempt to feed" Schiavo by mouth. Judge Greer denied the second motion on March 8"

https://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf

It's understandable that Terri Schiavo's parents couldn't bring themselves to accept the reality of their daughter's condition.

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