Vatican: Tube Withdrawal an Execution

Yahoo!News ^ | Tue, Mar 22, 2005 | ALESSANDRA RIZZO

[lizol]

Vatican: Tube Withdrawal an Execution

By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican (news - web sites) pressed its campaign to keep Terri Schiavo alive Tuesday, saying that removing the brain-damaged American woman's feeding tube amounted to capital punishment for someone who has committed no crime.

In a front-page editorial, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano criticized U.S. District Judge James Whittemore's refusal to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube and disparaged a "society incapable of appreciating and defending the gift of life."

It said Whittemore had condemned Schiavo to an "atrocious death: death from hunger and thirst."

"After all, Terri's destiny appears not unlike that of many men and women who in the United States get capital punishment for their crimes," the paper said.

"But Terri has committed no crimes, if not that of being 'useless' to the eyes of a society incapable of appreciating and defending the gift of life. Of any life."

The Holy See has maintained that there is virtually no justification for the death penalty.

The decision by Whittemore came after feverish action by President Bush (news - web sites) and Congress to pass legislation allowing the brain-damaged woman's contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts.

"She has no possibility of being 'restored' to a 'normal' life. Therefore Terri Schiavo must die," the L'Osservatore editorial said in its interpretation of the judge's ruling. "This is ... the absurd and terrifying reason" for Whittemore's decision.

The feeding tube was disconnected Friday on the orders of a state judge, prompting an extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation Monday aimed at keeping her alive.

A top Vatican official, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, also criticized the ruling, saying it legitimized a "cruel" death by hunger and thirst for Schiavo.

But doctors have said Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state without conscious awareness of herself or her environment. Experts say if she dies from the removal of her feeding tube, her passing should be peaceful.

Sgreccia, who heads the Pontifical Academy for Life, told Vatican Radio that he hoped the ruling would not be repeated in other cases.

"It's not euthanasia in the literal sense of the word," Sgreccia said. "It's not a good death. It's a death provoked by a cruel act. It's not a medical act," Sgreccia said.

"I confirm the moral judgment doesn't change, because it remains an illicit and serious act — even more serious since it appears the decision over who lives and who dies has become a question for a court."

Schiavo suffered severe brain damage 15 years ago. Her husband says she told him that she would not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Her parents say she needs treatment and another opportunity for life.

The Vatican paper's remarks reflected earlier comments from several Vatican prelates over the case. The Catholic Church teaches that euthanasia can never be allowed because only God has the power to decide over the life and death of a human being.

Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II has strongly condemned euthanasia throughout his 26-year pontificate.

[trisham]

In a front-page editorial, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano criticized U.S. District Judge James Whittemore's refusal to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube and disparaged a "society incapable of appreciating and defending the gift of life."

***************

We started down this road long ago. No one now should be surprised at how far we have come.

[anonymoussierra]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4373669.stm

Schiavo parents' appeal rejected

A US court has rejected an appeal by the parents of a brain-damaged woman to order doctors to resume feeding her.
Terri Schiavo, 41, who has been in a vegetative state since 1990, has received no food or water since Friday.

The three-judge panel in Atlanta, Georgia, ruled 2-1 to deny the parents' appeal, a day after a judge in Florida also refused a similar request.

A lawyer representing her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, said they would file another appeal.

Mrs Schiavo's feeding tube was removed at the request of her husband, Michael Schiavo, who says she would not want to be kept alive artificially and has no hope for recovery.

Mr Schiavo and the Schindlers have been locked in legal battles for years over whether the feeding tube should be removed.

Series of appeals

A panel of three judges from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had to consider whether to order the reconnection of Mrs Schiavo's feeding tubes to allow her to remain alive while the legal wrangling continues

But it ruled that Mrs Schiavo's parents had failed "to demonstrate a substantial case" for success, should they be allowed to take to court their claim that their daughter's religious and due process rights had been violated.

The decison comes a day after a judge ruled the Florida courts had not violated Mrs Schiavo's rights by ordering her feeding tube to be disconnected.

The BBC's Lesley Curwen in Washington says it is uncertain whether the Schindlers' next appeal will be heard at a local level or whether it will go to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.

However, the Supreme Court has previously refused to intervene in the case.

'Peaceful, calm'

The family claim that Mrs Schiavo is fading fast, our correspondent adds.

Before the latest decision was handed down, Mrs Schiavo's mother made an emotional appeal for the Florida Senate to intervene, saying: "For the love of God, don't let my daughter die of thirst."

A lawyer for Mr Schiavo said Terri was "stable, peaceful and calm".

Before the Schindlers filed their latest appeal, Mr Schiavo urged the Atlanta court not to rule in favour of reconnecting the tubes.

"That would be a horrific intrusion upon Mrs Schiavo's personal liberty," his lawyer, George Felos, wrote to the judges.

Congress and President George W Bush intervened over the weekend to allow federal courts to review the case.

The debate over the case has divided the US, with some arguing Mrs Schiavo's life must be preserved and others condemning politicians for interfering in a private family affair.

It is thought Mrs Schiavo could survive for up to two weeks before dying of starvation.

""For the love of God, don't let my daughter die of thirst.""!!!!!!!!!

My good good good G-D America good country help this person!!!!!

[Terpesman]

The point is, who cares what the Vatican thinks? It's not their decision to make. And my main point is that the Vatican should clean up their own house before telling others what to do in theirs.

This isn't about a few bad preists, it's about a secretive culture that allowed these things to go on because it didn't want to tarnish it's image.

So, that makes me ask, what makes their opinion about this topic so darn meaningful?

[Cronos]

So, that makes me ask, what makes their opinion about this topic so darn meaningful?

Because the VAtican represents the Church of God.

[verity]

Madness. The world has gone mad.

Nothing new. The human race is an assortment of character flaws.

[Terpesman]

I think life is precious too, although most won't believe it from my posts on this topic.

What bothers me is that the same people who are going crazy about Terri will walk past a homeless person without even looking at them. How many homeless people die each and every night.

I've mentioned the abortion thing, if there was this much clamor over abortion, don't you think we could do something about it?

What about all the innocent people killed by gang violence in the inner cities? If we were as concerned about that as we are about Terri, we'd have made the commitment to crack down on all the thugs who are running around terrorizing our cities.

But no, everyone wants to explode over Terri. Terri wants this, Terri wants that. No proof mind you, it's easier to just call her husband a murderer based on hearsay and innuendo. If all life is precious, why are people talking about killing the judge, her husband, his lawyers, and anyone else who disagrees with the "choose life" crowd?

It's sickening, all the hypocrisy... and that's why I posted on this thread. Because enough is enough, all the Catholics, if you want to do some good, walk down the street and invite the first homeless person you see into your home so they don't freeze to death tonight. Write a letter to your Congressman letting him know that you WILL NOT vote for a him or any other candidate unless they do something about the abortion problem.

You know what, I bet less than one in 100 write a letter, much less look after a homeless person.

But I'm the troll because I call them on their misguided priorities.

Right.

[eyespysomething]

From Larry King Live Aired October 27, 2003 - 21:00 ET

CALLER: Yes. Does it bother you that the death is so slow? Maybe Dr. Kevorkian-style would be a faster, more peaceful way?

SCHIAVO: Removing somebody's feeding is very painless. It is a very easy way to die. Probably the second better way to die, being the first being an aneurysm.

And it doesn't bother me at all. I've seen it happen. I had to do it with my own parents.

Link to Transcript

[Rutles4Ever]

You're original flames were out of place. Period. By your logic, America has no right to interfere with other governments (say...Iraq) since Washington is so corrupt and needs to clean up its own act before worrying about other countries. No one with half a brain the the Catholic church is defending the molestation coverups. They're horrid. And those that did this and facilitated it will answer to God. It doesn't mean, however, that the Church must remain silent where evil treads outside its doors, hence the analogy above.

No one - and I've said this from the beginning - NO ONE should be wished harm from this. I ask for God's justice where civic justice has failed. Their day in the court that REALLY matters will come with a subpoena they can't hide from.

Do you understand what the word "immediacy" means? If the courts decide that all people who go by the handle "Terpesman" should be immediately starved to death without their written consent, should I fight for yout life or hand out condoms on the South Side of Chicago?

That said, you belong in the Pantheon of great moral relativists of the 21st century. You clearly don't understand the basic definition of "hypocrisy". Why are you wasting time on Free Republic when you could be writing your Congressman in defense of Michael Schiavo?

(silence)

That's what I thought...

[DBeers]

Jerk

Thank you for your patronage. Now that you have completed your ad-hominem -move on; there are more customers waiting to be seated.

[Terpesman]

I don't think we should be telling other governments how to run their countries, but I do think we should be in Iraq because it posed a serious threat to us... same goes for Iran and North Korea. Even though I don't agree with the French government, I don't think we should tell them what to do, we have enough problems of our own to worry about.

I understand "immediacy" but do you understand that this tragic event will have even more tragic consequences if the Federal Government intervenes to undo what a state court did? Have you thought about that? We could be setting a scary precedent with this case.

It wasn't one, single person who decided that she should die. The case has been to the courts and the appeals court, the decision stands. It sucks but we aren't privvy to all the facts, even though we think we are, so we don't know what led to the decision.

I don't need to defend Michael Schiavo. He's made his decision and he'll have his judgement just like the rest of us.

hypocrisy n 1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction [syn: lip service] 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

If you cared so much about human life, there are things you could be doing that are much more helpful. It's just easier to sit here and complain about this Terri thing, isn't it?

[Rutles4Ever]

Is counseling outside an abortion clinic every Saturday helpful enough? I'm not just tied to my chair in front of a computer.

[Rutles4Ever]

Immoral law has no authority over moral law. Removing food and water for the cause of death is immoral enough that you can't do it to your dog without risking jail. The rule of law, in this case, holds no moral authority no matter how many times it's been dragged through the court.

[Rutles4Ever]

Even if you agree with the courts - which you are of course entitled to do so - there is clearly a crossing of the Rubicon that does the following:

1. Removes entitlement of a patient to generally accepted standards of hospice.

2. Removes the power of contract. The will of the subject does not have to be explicitly in writing, and untethered proxy exists solely on the basis of next-of-kin. A "verbal contract" can be enforced without corroboration for any purpose. Forget about living wills. What does this mean for estate law and filial disputes? "Dad said I get the house. It's not in the will, but I'm executor, so..."

3. Puts 30,000 PVS patients on death row - let's not forget Terri was DEBATABLY PVS - what about those who are DEFINITELY PVS?

4. Invites a challenge down to the next level - the mentally handicapped. And that challenge will come, I assure you based on "quality of life" arguments and "ability to reason" for their own welfare instead of by proxy.


And this is just for starters...

[Salvation]

Not their decision to make?

How about the Ten Commandments?

Thou shalt not kill.

The Church CAN and SHOULD speak out on this. The decision was made by God a long time ago.

[Salvation]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

[donbosco74]

You have it right, eastsider, and unfortunately, the Vatican introduces confusion into these matters at very inopportune times. Right when its words are eagerly embraced by Catholics and non-Catholics alike who are thirsting for truth like Terry is thirsting for water, must we also embrace another hit against the self-protection society has the right to? We can see in this the collapse of apostolic authority before our eyes, a dire tragedy if there ever was one! To top it off, those who would welcome strong and clear power from the Vatican are reluctant to hold up the Vatican's pronouncements because they are tainted with error. Others say the authority is not credible because of the other problems in the Church.

There is really one, big problem, after all.

While it's nice that an authoritative voice speaks to protect the life of the helpless victim, shrouded in their words is a strike against capital punishment, which is a longstanding and morally proper power of the state, in order to protect itself from pathological miscreants. Terri Schiavo is no such malefactor. But she is being denied the due process that the worst criminals get.

This is diabolical disorientation at a new, higher level. If no miracle is in the offing, Terri's death will be the beginning of a deluge of similar actions. Michael's case is reprehenisble, at best, and if anyone who would ape his deviance is afraid that their defense would be shaky, all they have to do is use Michael Shiavo's impudence as a model for thier own assault on a family member whom they want to "off."

[eastsider]

As to apostolic authority, regrettably, by throwing in its two cents every chance it gets on matters like war and capital punishment that are neither intrinsically virtuous nor vicious, the Vatican devalues the Church's authority to proclaim the truth on other matters, like euthanasia and abortion, that are always and everywhere evil.

As to legal authority, the principle that we are a nation of laws presumes that law is ancillary to justice, not vice versa. Intentionally taking the life of an innocent person being always and everywhere unjust, any law or holding that intends such an intrinsic injustice is a nullity. Invoking the principle that we are a "nation of laws" to support the unjust death by starvation of Terri Schiavo is nothing short of perverse.

[lonster]

let me make sure i have this right. before i'm allowed to be ticked about a judical system that simply starves an innocent woman to death we must do away with the homeless, innocent aborted children and all other evil in the world?? how ridiculous. an innocent woman is being executed barbarically. period.

[pineconeland]

What bothers me is that the same people who are going crazy about Terri will walk past a homeless person without even looking at them. How many homeless people die each and every night.

You do your self a grave disservice by exposing your stupidly to anyone whom might read this. Such a completely unfounded, broadly applied generalization is impossible to prove in the singular, let alone the general as you have done here.

But no, everyone wants to explode over Terri. Terri wants this, Terri wants that. No proof mind you, it's easier to just call her husband a murderer based on hearsay and innuendo.

Isn't it more reasonable to ask for proof that she desires death, not proof that she desires life. There was no living will. All we have is her husbands word. A husband who has spent most of the award for a malpractice suit that was for her care on himself, not on her care as it was given for. A husband who has a new common law wife with three children by her. I don't understand why he is even considered a competent guardian he has so many obvious interests that would benefit from Terri's death. There has been no proof that he has done well by her, but plenty that he has obstructed anything that might be good for terri.

The very fact that Terri breaths is proof that she lives, and has not died. If someone threatens my life, must I prove that I wish to live before you would accuse the one who wishes to kill me of a crime? When did Terry lose her rights as a human being?