Recent posts

[This would still be a case of euthanasia.]

#1

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by Baylee - Today at 02:34:34 PM

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.

#2

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by TradGranny - Today at 02:17:20 PM

 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/

#3

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by awkward customer - Today at 01:57:09 PM

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.

["reflexively]

#4

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by awkward customer - Today at 01:55:39 PM

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

#5

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by awkward customer - Today at 01:54:17 PM

"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?

["reflexively]

#6

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by Baylee - Today at 01:49:20 PM

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.

#7

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by queen.saints - Today at 01:25:32 PM

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.

#8

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by Baylee - Today at 01:19:53 PM

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!?

#9

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by queen.saints - Today at 01:18:46 PM

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.

#10

General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...

Last post by queen.saints - Today at 01:18:30 PM

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