Pope Declares Feeding Tube Removal Immoral

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

[phenn]

March 20, 2004, 11:34 AM EST

VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul II said Saturday the removal of feeding tubes from people in vegetative states was immoral, and that no judgment on their quality of life could justify such "euthanasia by omission."

John Paul made the comments to participants of a Vatican conference on the ethical dilemmas of dealing with incapacitated patients, entering into a debate that has sparked court battles in the United States and elsewhere.

The pope said even the medical terminology used to describe people in so-called "persistent vegetative states" was degrading to them. He said no matter how sick a person was, "he is and will always be a man, never becoming a 'vegetable' or 'animal.'"

In a vegetative state, patients are awake but not aware of themselves or their environment. The condition is different from a coma, in which the patient is neither awake nor aware. Both, however, are states in which the patient is devoid of consciousness.

If the vegetative state continues for a month, the patient is said to be in a persistent vegetative state; after a year without improvement, the patient is said to be in a permanent vegetative state.

Providing food and water to such patients should be considered natural, ordinary and proportional care -- not artificial medical intervention, the pope told members of the conference, which was organized by the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and the Pontifical Academy for Life, a Vatican advisory body.

"As such, it is morally obligatory," to continue such care, he said.

Since no one knows when a patient in a vegetative state might awaken, "the evaluation of the probability, founded on scarce hope of recovery after the vegetative state has lasted for more than a year, cannot ethically justify the abandonment or the interruption of minimal care for the patient, including food and water," he said.

Similarly, he said that someone else's evaluation of the patient's quality of life in such a state couldn't justify letting them die of hunger or thirst.

"If this is knowingly and deliberately carried out, this would result in a true euthanasia by omission," he said.

John Paul has consistently voiced opposition to euthanasia, which the Vatican defines as "an action or omission that by its nature and intention" causes death to end pain. It says euthanasia always is a violation of God's law.

The issue over removing feeding tubes has prompted several court cases and legislation in the United States, Australia and elsewhere.

In a highly publicized case in Tampa, Fla., the husband of a severely brain-damaged woman, Terri Schiavo, has battled her parents for years to have his wife's feeding tube removed so she can die. He says she wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive with it.

The issue has involved the state legislature as well as the governor, who was given the authority to have the feeding tube reinserted after the woman's husband had it removed.

In his comments, John Paul said families of such ill people needed more emotional and economic support, so that they can better care for their loved ones. In addition, he said, society should commit more money to find cures for them.

Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

[Tribune7]

God Bless Pope John Paul II

[Aliska]

If the natural body can not feed itself, God has designed it to expire naturally

Babies cannot feed themselves.

[Burkeman1]

It is a cruel and barbaric practice.

[Destro]

Shame on you. This is the other the sentence you chose to ignore Did Satan make you ignore it? Keeping people alive unaturaly for protracted periods without hope of recovery is torture and a sin. Teh infant is growing up, in the words of the Bible it is experiancing a "A time to be born". We then experiance "a time to die". To keep a person alive unnaturally with no hope of recovery via the use of machines to keep them alive for the sake of only keeping the body functions working - with no brain activity apparent is a sin because it is torture.

[Desdemona]

Vegetative states and coma are mentioned, but not brain death. I hope there's a clarification on this.

[BikerNYC]

Pope Declares Feeding Tube Removal Immoral

I think he's gettin old and feeble enough that he's taking a personal interest in this issue.

[Destro]

Shame on you. This is the other the sentence you chose to ignore Did Satan make you ignore it? Keeping people alive unaturaly for protracted periods without hope of recovery is torture and a sin. The infant is growing up, in the words of the Bible it is experiancing a "A time to be born". We then experiance "a time to die". To keep a person alive unnaturally with no hope of recovery via the use of machines to keep them alive for the sake of only keeping the body functions working - with no brain activity apparent is a sin because it is torture.

In the cases of Christopher Reeves you have a hope of recovery and Stephen Hawkings is still a thinking person. No cognitive brain activity? But kept alive via machines? That is immoral.

[Destro]

Shame on you. This is the other the sentence you chose to ignore Did Satan make you ignore it? Keeping people alive unaturaly for protracted periods without hope of recovery is torture and a sin. The infant is growing up, in the words of the Bible it is experiancing a "A time to be born". We then experiance "a time to die". To keep a person alive unnaturally with no hope of recovery via the use of machines to keep them alive for the sake of only keeping the body functions working - with no brain activity apparent is a sin because it is torture.

In the cases of Christopher Reeves you have a hope of recovery and Stephen Hawkings is still a thinking person (I should add so is Reeves of course). No cognitive brain activity? But kept alive via machines? That is immoral.

[Destro]

I will keep reposting this statement until Freepers learn to read more in depth.

Shame on you. This is the other the sentence you chose to ignore Did Satan make you ignore it? Keeping people alive unaturaly for protracted periods without hope of recovery is torture and a sin. The infant is growing up, in the words of the Bible it is experiancing a "A time to be born". We then experiance "a time to die". To keep a person alive unnaturally with no hope of recovery via the use of machines to keep them alive for the sake of only keeping the body functions working - with no brain activity apparent is a sin because it is torture.

In the cases of Christopher Reeves you have a hope of recovery and Stephen Hawkings is still a thinking person (I should add so is Reeves of course). No cognitive brain activity? But kept alive via machines? That is immoral.

[tkathy]

At the rate technology is going, perhaps we could keep hundreds of millions of elderly going for 50 or more years on the unnatural feeding tubes, until the age of 130, 140 or 150 or more. At a cost of $100,000 per person per year.

[EggsAckley]

You're missing out on one important element. That is, that no one knows whether Teri could improve through treatment and therapy because her monster of a husband HAS NOT ALLOWED IT. So you see, we don't know if there is hope of recovery; it's never been tried.

[IMRight]

Shame on you. This is the other the sentence you chose to ignore Did Satan make you ignore it?

I'm sorry. Had I realized you're debating technique put Gomer Pyle ("Ohhhh, you're goin straight ta He11 for that one!") to shame I would have ignored you.

Keeping people alive unaturaly for protracted periods without hope of recovery is torture and a sin.

You assume fact not in evidence (AND contradicted in many cases). The Pope did not say "with no hope of recovery". YOU'RE the one taking the side of the husband who just want an inconvenient part of his past put down. It has not been demonstrated that there is "no hope of recovery" since people HAVE recovered from a vegetative state.

So fine. Pick a quadriplegic. Or a burn victim. Or whatever. All of them just die "as God designed" (by you're "logic") without being cared for. There are plenty of cases where the "natural body" can't care for itself and YOU say they are intended to die? I won't attribute you're motivations to Satan, but it sure looks New Age / Secularist to me.

[phenn]

I have an immediate family member who had to recieve TPN for over a year because of botched surgery after botched surgery.

You think she should have naturally been forced to die?

[FR_addict]

"To keep a person alive unnaturally with no hope of recovery via the use of machines to keep them alive for the sake of only keeping the body functions working - with no brain activity apparent is a sin because it is torture."

Terri is not on a machine. She is on a feeding tube. She is physically in better shape than Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawkings. If this was a 100 years ago or even 50, it would be assumed that Stephen Hawkins was brain dead. It is only through his computer that we know there is an active mind there. Terri responds more than he does.

Terri does have brain activity. She has some awareness. How much is hard to say since, Michael refuses to let videos be made. Doctors have testified that she can get better with the proper therapy. It is cruel to starve and dehydrate this woman. I think Michael has been extremely cruel to this woman he supposedly loves, often refusing her visits by her family, purposely keeping her shut up in a room completely devoid of anything that could help her.

[codyjacksmom]

Who are we to decide if Terri has no hope of recovering? Her husband won't even allow her to eat by mouth (which she can)

In the case of Christopher Reeves...For quite sometime he was thought to be a goner. He was kept alive. Even when he seemed to be slowly recovering...he needed a machine to breathe for him. While on the machine, he even did interviews on TV. Since the breathing apparatus was the only thing keeping him alive while he was completely aware of everything going on and communicating, should they have disconnected his oxygen? Was that a sin? I think not.

[Destro]

Excuse me. The Pope was speaking in generalities and not a specific case of this Teri person was he not? Why did you bring it down on this personal case? To not attempt to treat someone so they can improve is also immoral and a sin. But the Pope was speaking in generalities - on the macro level - not the micro. All cases are unique. You and pthers are reacting with emotions rather than with thought to my statement. Read it again.

[Destro]

The Pope never mentioned this Teri person. So try again.

[EggsAckley]

Hey pal, YOU'RE the one who posted the same post over and over, knowing full well that the people on this thread are referring to Teri Schaivo. Why don't you waste a bit more bandwidth and post it another five or ten times? You still haven't swayed anyone here.

[phenn]

I'll try again. The Vatican held counsel on Persistent Vegetative State earlier this week. In plain English, they decided that we don't know enough about brain function or brain recovery to start shoving people out the door.

I happen to agree. We have a human obligation to one another to treat each other with love and care. Food is nothing extraordinary. It's food, dude. Who cares how you take it?