Posted on 03/20/2004 9:28:59 AM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at nynewsday.com ...
Or perhaps the families could take care of them. People use to take care of their loved ones. Not anymore, off to the hospices with them, where feeding tubes are inserted for the convenience of the nursing staff.
I am lucky and haven't had to take care of anyone for a long period of time in this shape and I know it must be a tremendous burden, but it sounds like there are lots of Freepers who take care of their disabled loved ones and do not consider it a burden, but do it out of love.
I am against euthanasia - where death is applied via outside means. But if the brain is dead. The brain does not support the body functions and the brain does not comunicate - then the life is soon gone and the finite body God designed calls forth the soul. We all experiance "a time to die".
Abortion is still the elimination of a viable life and euthanasia is still murder.
Amd this article mentions the Pope's statement and my statement was in regards to the Pope's words. The Pope never mentioned Teri - I never mentioned her. That you are latched on to the Teri case and twisted my words to somehow reflect what I said as commenting on "Teri" is your fault and not mine.
No. But if it makes you feel any better... he's rooting for you.
Nothing newsworthy here. This has been the Church's position for as long as I can remember.
The Church's position is that food and water do not represent "extraordinary care." There's nothing torturous about giving a person food and water. The opposite is the case. "When I was thirsty..."
With this clarification it seems that I do agree with the Pope. If just feeding keeps the mind alive (brain dead is fully dead even if the body works) without artificial medical intervention then it is acceptable.
The pope said that people in a vegetative state or in a coma should not be starved or dehydrated to death. Since Terri is not in pvs or in a coma, it's obvious she should not be starve or dehydrated to death.
The pope also 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. </i.
"If this is knowingly and deliberately carried out, this would result in a true euthanasia by omission," he said.
It might be something like Captain Pike from Star Trek - one beep for yes two beeps for no - but that is a hopeful leap.
Sure. It just can't be said truthfully
"And if children then also heirs. Heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ provided we suffer with Him".
Christians don't fear suffering. And Satan loves to give you ways to avoid suffering and live quite comfortably (for a short time). He want's you to avoid anything that might unite you to Christ.
Ummm. No. You did not latch on to "the Pope's words". He does not mention "brain dead with no hope of recovery". He spoke of a persistent vegetative state - which is not the same thing. It is your argument that involves putting words in other's mouths.
http://www.onelegacy.org/prod/components/myths/braindeath.html
http://www.pntb.org/faq-bdth.html
My wife's uncle's family put him to death in this way. The wife and three children were in agreement. The two sons are doctors. I found out after the fact, and my wife and I had a big argument about it. She didn't believe that it was immoral since the family's priest gave them the go ahead.
Sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.