Pope Declares Feeding Tube Removal Immoral

Associated Press ^ | 03/20/04 | The Pope

[FR_addict]

"I consider a vegetative state when the mind just controls basic body functions. This Terri case is not to me a vegetative state but rather a case of severe brain damage. She is by all accounts responsive to her enviornment. In a vegetative state you are not responsive to your enviornment but your heart, lungs, kidnies and liver still function (sometimes with machines sometimes by themselves)."

Now we're getting somewhere. Terri is diagnosed by Michael's doctors as being in a pvs state. But there are other neurologists who have examined Terri and say she is not in a pvs state. The problem with a pvs diagnosis, is that evidently it is not a clear cut state. I was surprised to see the videos of Terri and then hear that she was in in a pvs state. Because of this leeway on diagnosis, some people have emerged from pvs to be productive human beings again.

That is why the pope is erring on the side of life. He is not talking about brain dead people, but pvs and comas, which science does not fully understand yet.

I know the doctors were telling us my father's brain functioning was gone (about the time the insurance was running out), when he was still talking to the family. I sure didn't believe them. My mother's case was different. It was easy to see that she was gone.

When a person is not on a machine to breathe and perform other neccessary bodily functions, science doesn't always have the anwers. I totally agree with the pope that starving and dehydrating someone like Terri is immoral.

[Destro]

When a person is not on a machine to breathe and perform other neccessary bodily functions, science doesn't always have the anwers. I totally agree with the pope that starving and dehydrating someone like Terri is immoral.

So do I but I never brought her case up in my comments. Others did in an attempt to score points. Because I dared say (maybe in my ignorance) that I thought the Pope was wrong/disagreed with him on his ruling. To be honest, the Pope's ruling was very vague but a welcomed step to setting up a policy. The Catholic church controls many hospitals and a ruling on this in depth would be greatly appreciated.

I don't know why people swarmed over me with this Teri case - a case I made no refrence to because I don't consider her brain dead or in a vegetative state - just severly brain damaged - but responsive - so not covered under by brief and generlized comments.

[Destro]

We should do lunch one day. I will never forget teh smell as I returned to work.

[Conservative til I die]

Getting away from the religious portion of the debate, here is still a very big medical and scientific difference between a braindead person and one who is in a vegetative state.

A braindead person is one who is fully dead, but because a machine is artificially breathing, and pumping the blood, is considered "alive." Now, if one were to hit the "off" switch on the breathing and blood circulating machinery, would IMMEDIATELY cease living.

Now, there are people on such machinery who are definitely not braindead. Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve are two famous examples. They have a full consciousness.

Now, there are another class of people in a somewhat similar situation. These are "vegetatives", who can breathe and pump their blood, and can digest and evacuate their food, and who have most or all the basic bodily functions still intact, AND are for the most part, still conscious, but less so than normal, due to some sort of severe brain damage. In the case of a Teri Schiavo, I think her brain damage is such that she's unable to swallow her food. But once the food gets past her throat, she's able to process it normally, like you or I, and keep living, albeit at a less than normal form of consciousness. It's also been reported that, with some therapy, she can have some improvement.

So basically, many vegetatives are more akin to a severely retarded person.

[FR_addict]

"To be honest, the Pope's ruling was very vague but a welcomed step to setting up a policy"

I didn't think it was vague at all. He never mentioned brain dead and the Church has already made its stand on this issue known.

"I don't know why people swarmed over me with this Teri case - a case I made no refrence to because I don't consider her brain dead or in a vegetative state - just severly brain damaged - but responsive - so not covered under by brief and generlized comments."

I'm glad you didn't mean Terri, but since the article mentions Terri and many of the Pro-Death crowd call Terri in a pvs state, it was natural to assume you were talking about people like Terri.

Now, I think we still disagree on whether a feeding tube should be removed. I agree with the pope and don't think the doctors know everything about pvs and comas and do not believe anyone should be killed in this terrible method. What about the condition mentioned earlier in one of the posts, where you know what is going on around you, but you can't do anything about it? What a terrible death to be dehydrated and starved to death, while you can't do anything about it?

[Destro]

What about the condition mentioned earlier in one of the posts, where you know what is going on around you, but you can't do anything about it?

They are alive - you can't kill them.

As for the article mentioning the Teri case - I did not concentrate at all on this - just on the Pope's words. The news media always try and link red button issues to statements to get a response rise out of readers. Since I see the attempt at red flagging I ignore it - others don't and I end up arguing with someone over an issue I did not bring up because the other person had been manipulated by the article's slant.

[Polycarp IV]

vegetative states and brain death are the same to me. If they are not, forgive my ignorance.

They are not.

Neither are you to be forgiven your ignorance given your asinine ill informed and insulting comments.

Educate yourself on these issues prior to pontificating and only then will anyone take you seriously. Until then you will be seen for what your are...a fool commenting on issues about which you have not a clue.

[Destro]

How Christian of you.

PS: I consider a vegetative state when the mind just controls basic body functions. This Terri case is not to me a vegetative state but rather a case of severe brain damage. She is by all accounts responsive to her enviornment. In a vegetative state you are not responsive to your enviornment but your heart, lungs, kidnies and liver still function (sometimes with machines sometimes by themselves).

[Polycarp IV]

Educate yourself on these issues prior to pontificating and only then will anyone take you seriously. Until then you will be seen for what your are...a fool commenting on issues about which you have not a clue.

[Destro]

The fool is you - a robot who parrots rather than discusses.

[Polycarp IV]

I'm a physician who has sat on medical ethics committees at several hospitals. I have studied and debated these issues ad nauseum.

Your ignorance of even the most basic aspects of this debate is astounding.

Your insistence on offering your uninformed opinions on this subject in face of your gross ignorance of the issues at hand, and willingness to insult those far more knowledgeable, bespeaks a prideful illiterate unwilling to admit his ignorance and unwilling to remedy it either.

Get lost.

[Elsie]

How 'loaded' can it be!?

Do YOU want to be kept alive indefinitely?

Yes or No


That's LOADED???

[Destro]

My opinion is informed - no mind no life.

[Diddle E. Squat]

No fool here, just someone who recognizes that living wills are not clear cut decisions one way or another. The guy used a blunt argument and then chewed out a person who made a difficult decision about his agonizing father. Totally classless and uncalled for, even if he was correct(which is actually not clear.)

I read in these arguments how a body is a temple, and we should do nothing to harm it, and simplistic applications of such principles to justify one's position. Yet Jesus fasted in the desert for 40 days. 40 days of fasting clearly harms a body. But I am sure those who view everything in rigid black and white will likely fail to grasp the implication that some issues are more complicated decisions requiring weighing and application of various principles.

Is yanking Terry's feeding tube murder? IMHO, yes. But some of you blowhard self-rightous simpletons, always so quick to chew out us lesser mortals, also quickly expanded your judgement and condemnation from the issue of feeding tubes to living wills and other related but very different topics. Its that kind of oversimplified condemnation that allows the media and left to perpetuate the false stereotype of the intolerant and hateful Christian. So if some of you want to be extremely rude and scream at an honest man that he is an evil fool who murdered his dying father, then I'm going to throw that bile right back in ya'll's face.

Don't for a minute try and tell us that Jesus would scream at and chew out someone who drew up a living will or after much thought acted in accordance with one. He had compassion with sinners such as the woman at the well. Didn't compromise his message, but didn't scream at her. He was harsh with the moneychangers because they knew better, because of their hearts, and because of their disrespect and intent. Very different than a man who may or may not have made a wrong decision in caring for his agonizing father, but one made with care and good intentions.

You might want to go back and read both my post(#1850 and the posts that I was replying to(#154, in a extremely rude reply to #149.)

[Destro]

Persistent Vegetative State - North Carolina

"Persistent vegetative state" is a medical condition whereby in the judgment of the attending physician the patient suffers from a sustained complete loss of self-aware cognition and, without the use of or artificial extraordinary means nutrition or hydration, will succumb to death within a short period of time. (G.S. 90-321)

http://imc.gsm.com/demos/dddemo/consult/millwill/will_nc.htm#vegstate

[Destro]

Amen

[Diddle E. Squat]

Make that post #185

[Diddle E. Squat]

BTW, for those against pulling the plug no matter what the circumstances, living wills, and 'Do Not Rescuscitate', I'd like to see them address the issue of permanent life support. We are not that far away from being able to sustain persons virtually forever on life support. So if every possible medical advancement is considered God's gift and decree to extend life, and anything short of applying the best medical care available is tantamount to murder, does that mean we should all try and live forever, even if in a life support vegetative state? Or would that not be a medical Tower of Babel?

Hopefully the answer won't be an 'Armageddon will surely happen first' copout.

[Destro]

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die..." From The Bible, Old Testament Ecclesiastes iii

The rest is a cult of emotionalisim.

[Ohioan from Florida]

This was your original question:

"Do YOU want to be maintained on a feeding tube for longer than two months if incapacitated?"

YES or NO

Now you're asking,"Do YOU want to be kept alive indefinitely? Yes or No"

Two totally different questions, yet you seem to equate them. The first question involved feeding tubes and the term "incapacitated", ambiguous qualifiers because they can mean many things. In the second, you want to know if others want to be kept alive indefinitely. No qualifiers at all. How could these two questions mean the same thing? Only if you want them to mean the same thing. But they can mean different things. Let me explain.

If you consider longer than two months to be equal to indefinitely, then your answer might be the same. But if you wouldn't mind being maintained on a feeding tube for a period that was more than two months but less than indefinitely, say a year, then your answer to the two questions would be YES for the first and NO for the second.

That's just the beginning of what I mean by it being a loaded question. Next there's the problem of feeding tubes. There is more than one kind of feeding tube, and they have different benefits. The situation for even the same type of feeding tube can and does vary from circumstance to circumstance, yet you have equated them all, regardless of their purpose or benefit to the patient. Sometimes feeding tubes are inserted for the convenience of the caregiver, rather than the necessity of the patient. Sometimes they are a short-term solution and sometimes long-term. There's too many different circumstances to consider them as equal.

Next, there's the problem of the term "incapacitated". This word means different things to different situations. It can't be used as a blanket term. Medically and legally they mean two different things. Which one are we supposed to apply?

My point is...that often when people are asking a survey question, they usually are already projecting limited answers when in reality, there are lots of options to consider. It's a loaded question because you're making everything seem black and white. There's a lot of nuance in there, that your question and available answers don't take into account.