Posted on 03/21/2004 12:51:23 AM PST by Robert Drobot
Is removing a feeding tube from someone in a vegetative state 'immoral'?
Yes, starvation is a barbaric way to kill someone
Yes, there is always the chance somone will recover
Yes, recover or not, this a fellow human being made in God's image
Yes, but I would not want to be kept alive in that state
It all depends on the medical circumstances
No, as long as pain medication is given to prevent suffering
No, it's a rational response to the patient's prognosis and the cost of care
No, each of us has to determine what is moral or immoral
No, but I would not want to die that way
Other
Thanks, in part, to the dedicated efforts of FReepers to bring America's attention to the barbaric court ordered death sentence of Terri, I believe we have dramatically raised media awareness, and that of the Holy Father of the Roman Catholic Church about Terri's true condition.
This intense FReeper effort has not deterred the Florida courts. They are adamant in holding to the official finding of a local circuit court judge who imho should have removed himself from hearing the case do to his social ties with Terri's opposition counsel. Florida injustice long ago wrongly determined Terri is in a vegetative state and refuse to budge from this incredulous abuse of judicial authority.
Pope reprimands ‘euthanasia by omission'Associated Press
POSTED AT 3:19 PM EST Saturday, Mar. 20, 2004Vatican City — The Pope 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 II 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 several countries.
The Pope said even the medical terminology used to describe people in so-called “persistent vegetative states” was degrading to them.
No matter how sick a person was, “he is and will always be a man, never becoming a vegetable or animal,” he said.
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.
The other clips I saw such as her mother talking to her or the so-called responding to music are bogus, wishfilled fictions, imho.
I'm not sure this case calls for removing basic nutrition. TWO WEEKS, the one video said it could take for her to starve to death? That is certainly inhumane (starvation), not that there's anything particularly humane about her existing state of being.
What does it means to me??.....there is a awareness of something annoying, means there is a " feeling" level. Withdrawal of food will also mean pain and suffering.....doesn't take much to figure that out.
You begin your message, "As human beings, we should do everything in our power to keep Terri alive....", and conclude your post by writing, "STARVING a person to death is not GOD'S WILL."
I'm in full agreement with those words. However, between those two thoughts your reasoning takes you elsewhere. You wrote, "WHEN we are voiding GOD'S WILL by keeping someone alive ONLY BY ARTIFICIAL MEANS, and MEDICAL OPINION AND EVIDENCE demonstrate NO CHANCE OF RECOVERY, then we should allow GOD'S WILL to take place."
Your message is blured by that thought.
As for myself, I do believe we were endowed by our Creator with a thought process which has raised our civilization from a Neanthathal existence to our present state. Within that refinement process ( I pray it hasn't stopped. ) We have been gifted with the ability to prolong life. At one time if one rose pass their 30th year they were old. Our Creator gave us the ability to discern poisonous vines from nourishing vines. Likewise, our Creator has allowed us to progress in our ability to save life today that would have otherwise perished. Vaccine inoculations are but one of the incredible discoveries medicine has contributed to our well being.
If those life sustaining approaches are the will of our Creator, why should one find it contrary to His will that we attempt to save life by any means at our collective disposal?
I have a very dear friend who is suffered a heart attack a couple of weeks ago. She has been sustained by artificial means for this length of time. We're told her condition has now stabilized, but her team of doctors have decided to keep her in an unconscious state to accelerate her recovery. Here, artificial means are being used to bring her back to health. Her three year old son, and the child she is holding will one day be grateful to our Creator for giving her back to them, as will I and everyone in our Church.
In brief, I thank my Heavenly Father for giving us the tools to fulfill His will.
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.