Pope declares feeding tubes a 'moral obligation'

USA TODAY ^ | 4/01/04 | Cathy Lynn Grossman

[TaxRelief]

Let's be honest. The Schindlers' current legal representation is neither proactive nor clever. They seem to take "No!" for an answer much too easily.

I've met Ms. Anderson, and she is knowledgable and has their best interests at heart, but she is too "by the book" in an anything but "by the book" battle.

Some one had to say it.

[TaxRelief]

We need to start convincing people to rewrite their living wills to state simply:

"Feed me, clothe me, clean me, love me."

[Future Useless Eater]

>>the news from the Pope should be considered compelling evidence that could change how Greer ruled in her case, as local priests gave testimony that it was not against Catholic doctrine to oppose the withdrawal of feeding tubes when terminal.

AND

>>I'm a little surprised to see so many who do not understand the distinction between PVS and being terminal, comas, and such...

AND

>>people do not understand the difference between a terminal illness such as cancer


ummm, I'm missing your points about the phrase 'terminal'... are you saying Terri is clearly NOT terminal? (I would most certainly agree)

But Judge Greer, I'm sure feels otherwise, and he NEEDS to consider her 'terminal' in order to remove her nutrition. There were 2 or 3 tiny phrases added to state law around 1999 [senator King's legacy] that Greer is using.

One of these additions is vital to Judge Greer's actions against Terri: That one refers to an 'end of life condition' (ie: a 'terminal condition'), in which:

 
    1) the patient has suffered a significant loss of function,
    2) the patient can no longer feed him/herself, AND
    3) there is no compelling proof the patient can ever get better

Every person in Florida who meets 1+2+3 is a strong candidate for euthanasia!

---

although I have also heard it said that the 1999 law is being mis-interpreted by these courts...

Rep Fiorentino:

“This bill from 1999 was written for comatose individuals, not brain-damaged individuals. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, or physical disability.”
- posted on 10/20/2003 by Gelato

[Ohioan from Florida]

>>But Judge Greer, I'm sure feels otherwise, and he NEEDS to consider her 'terminal' in order to remove her nutrition. There were 2 or 3 tiny phrases added to state law around 1999 [senator King's legacy] that Greer is using.

One of these additions is vital to Judge Greer's actions against Terri: That one refers to an 'end of life condition' (ie: a 'terminal condition'), in which:


1) the patient has suffered a significant loss of function,
2) the patient can no longer feed him/herself, AND
3) there is no compelling proof the patient can ever get better <<

Do you know where those words are written in the statutes? I'm having trouble finding them. Obviously, I define the word "terminal" as in the end of her life. For hospice care, that period of time has been defined as six months or less. Since Terri was in a hospice situation for at least four years, she clearly doesn't fit the meaning of the word "terminal" the way hospice intended it. Or is hospice enough of a money-making venture that they are willing to "overlook" the intent? Certainly Mary Labyak would like to have it redefined.

[kms61]

There are some things worse than death. IMHO existing indefinitely in a persistent vegetative state would be one of them. Speaking only for myself here, but I don't want that kind of "care."

[Future Useless Eater]

I'm not in a position to do much searching right now, and i see I didn't use the exact correct phrases since I was recalling the details from memory...

but here's a post that had some FL statute numbers defining
'end-stage' and 'terminal'

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971896/posts?page=672#672

To: kimmie7; dandelion; windchime
Here's a portion of the Supreme Court of Fla's denial. If this is the way the law is written, a person can be murdered even if they're not in a coma. Check out that Fla. Statute which is referenced in the following paragraph. It's a bad piece of legislation.

SCOFLA "cognition is not a prerequisite for withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures when there are no advance directives. Section 765.401(3), Florida Statutes, provides that absent evidence of patient intent, such medical procedures can be withheld or withdrawn when that decision is in the “patient’s best interest.” That statute by reference to Section 765.305, allows such decisions to be made for patients who are in “end-stage” or “terminal” conditions (765.305(2)(b)), said conditions not defined by lack of cognition (765.101(4) and (17)). 6. The affidavit attached to Petitioners’ motion has also been filed in the trial court, and no doubt will, upon the resolution of this round of appeals, form the basis of Petitioners’ next motion for relief from final judgment. After a fulltrial, and now after an additional 2 years of extensive medical tests and examinations and an eight-day hearing with six medical experts including four neurologists, Petitioners now seek to challenge the conclusions of the trial and appellate courts with the opinion of a speech pathologist who has worked for seven years. That fact that someone disagrees with the findings of eminent neurologists and the opinions of the courts is insufficient for this court or any court to further delay the implementation of the ward’s medical treatment wishes. 7. Again, for the reasons set forth in the Emergency Motion to Vacate Stay,Respondent requests that the emergency motion for stay be denied.

FV SAYS: Terri is not in end-stage or terminal condition and it's not in her best interest to be starved to death. Florida's Supreme Court argued themselves into a conundrum. I don't think they followed one of the statutes they cited about "in the best interest". The Supreme Court of Florida wants Terri dead too, no matter what.
672 posted on 09/02/2003 by floriduh voter

[Future Useless Eater]

Apparently 765.305 is the scum legislation being cherished
as a legacy by Senator King....


Terri Schiavo’s life can be terminated only under certain narrow conditions. Those conditions are set forth in Fla. Stat.§ 765.305(2): there is no “reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity”

and the “patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetativestate, or the patient’s physical condition is terminal.”

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004173/posts?page=367#367
=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=


Title XLIV
CIVIL RIGHTS
Chapter 765
HEALTH CARE ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
View Entire Chapter

765.305 Procedure in absence of a living will.--

(1) In the absence of a living will, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures
from a patient may be made by a health care surrogate designated by the patient pursuant to part II
unless the designation limits the surrogate's authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of
life-prolonging procedures.

(2) Before exercising the incompetent patient's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must be
satisfied that:

(a) The patient does not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that the
right could be exercised by the patient.

(b) The patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the
patient's physical condition is terminal.
posted on 10/30/2003 by AbsoluteJustice

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011241/posts?page=71#71




..........and somewhere there are more details of FL's legal
definition for 'end-stage'

[Future Useless Eater]

BEFORE: GEORGE W. GREER
Circuit Court Judge

PLACE: Clearwater Courthouse
Clearwater, FL 33756

DATE: January 24, 2000

FELOS: You will also receive testimony, Your

 Honor, from some experts. One will be an expert

 witness testifying as to the doctrine and policies

 of the Catholic church regarding artificial life

 support. That testimony will show that the

 request of the petitioner in this case is highly

 consistent with the teachings of the Catholic

 faith.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1107794/posts?page=493#493


Now that the 'expert testimony' that helped condemn Terri is NULL AND VOID, You'd think the sum total of the evidence (and new evidence Greer refused to hear) should be looked at again with a JURY TRIAL.

[Ohioan from Florida]

>>(b) The patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the
patient's physical condition is terminal. <<

In light of the Pope's information that this is euthanasia by omission (this being the withdrawal of a feeding tubes from someone in the PVS state), perhaps we should call and write to the state legislature regarding a change in the wording of this law.

I am of the opinion that when the law was passed in 1999 to include those changes, that the legislators weren't thinking about situations like Terri's where there were opposing points of view by the interested family members. They were thinking that for people like Terri, the guardianship laws would have already intervened on behalf of the patient, and so they didn't foresee Terri's predicament. Unfortunately, they also didn't know that George Felos was trying to bring about the death of one of his clients, to his own gain.

What do y'all think? Shall we go to the legislature again?

[Wampus SC]

"Pope declares feeding tubes a 'moral obligation'"

"Terri PING…."

I'm not a Catholic, but I know it's right to be pro-life and anti-euthanasia, so -- HOORAY for the Pope!

Yes, it's a Terri ping. This decision affects her directly, and I'd like to believe it was somewhat inspired by her.

I don't know what the penalty is, if any, for disobeying the Pope and/or the church on something like this, but I hope it's excommunication. Why? Because Michael Schiavo (falsely) claims to be a Christian and Catholic, and has said things about wanting a Catholic wedding with this girl he lives with, once Terri's out of the way. It'd serve him right not to be able to.

Also, John Kerry claims to be a Catholic -- and I'd like to see him pinned down on this issue, and get something on record about it. I doubt he'd be on the side of life.

[Wampus SC]

"The day is coming when" - I dread the thought but think it also like everyone else. I often wonder if it would not be a good plan as Christian Prolifers to encourage our children/grandchildren to have some medical skills/knowledge - maybe double majors if they have the gifts, so we are not left stranded at the (un)mercy of doctors of death, prolife OBGS, prolife Geriatrics, prolife cancer specialist etc., someone you can go to and know without a shadow of a doubt, there are no unspoken agendas. I hope Christians are not avoiding the medical field because of how messed up it is, but I fear for the future."

An idea worth considering and following up on. It shouldn't be necessary, but now it is.

Recently I had a conversation with a friend I've known since we were first graders. We're now in our early 50's, and our parents are in their 80's. We both concluded that unless we can stop this trend toward euthanasia right now, we won't be allowed to live to be the age our parents are.

[Canadian Outrage]

#43 - EXACTLY!! I'm convinced that This corrupt excuse for a Judge is DELIBERATELY MIS-interpreting that 1999 law. The man is NOT fit to don a Judicial Robe. He's anything but judicious. Frankly, he's repulsive!!

[Spyder]

She could probably feed herself or could eat if someone fed her if they would give her physical therapy.

I heard this argument so many times from parents when I worked as a PT in peds I could scream. If the kid wasn't walking they would imply it was obviously because he wasn't getting enough PT, not because he just didn't have the ability and never would have.

And I'll make sure as I age that my doctor agrees to abide by my directive NOT to put in a feeding tube when there is no chance of recovery of a normal responsive state.

[cpforlife.org]

Wampus SC,

God bless you!

[iowamomforfreedom]

She could probably feed herself or could eat if someone fed her if they would give her physical therapy.

I heard this argument so many times from parents when I worked as a PT in peds I could scream. If the kid wasn't walking they would imply it was obviously because he wasn't getting enough PT, not because he just didn't have the ability and never would have.

I understand your feelings, but this isn't a matter of not having ENOUGH PT; Terri has not had ANY PT since 1993 (none of the award money has been spent on PT). She was making progress before the PT was stopped. In Terri's case, she can swallow her own saliva, and some doctors do believe she can be re-trained to eat. She was put on the feeding tube as a convenience for the nursing home. Don't you think that it is wrong to condemn Terri to death because she is on a feeding tube, yet refuse to even allow her the chance to eat by mouth?

To me, this type of precedent creates a legal loophole for euthanasia. A disabled patient becomes "inconvenient" to a guardian, so they put them on a feeding tube. This causes them to lose the ability to eat by mouth, and the inconvenienced guardian can legally have them put to death.

[kms61]

"Recently I had a conversation with a friend I've known since we were first graders. We're now in our early 50's, and our parents are in their 80's. We both concluded that unless we can stop this trend toward euthanasia right now, we won't be allowed to live to be the age our parents are."

I think you're right, quite apart from the ethical reasons discussed here. I believe some form of health care rationing is inevitable, whether via Medicare or some privatization scheme....Except for those few who are wealthy enough to pay for it out of pocket, I think most of us will eventually die from some ailment that may be treatable, but for which there's no money to pay for it.

[Wampus SC]

"I think you're right, quite apart from the ethical reasons discussed here. I believe some form of health care rationing is inevitable, whether via Medicare or some privatization scheme....Except for those few who are wealthy enough to pay for it out of pocket, I think most of us will eventually die from some ailment that may be treatable, but for which there's no money to pay for it."

There's even a school of thought among some self-styled "ethicists" that those with a condition that won't clear up on its own after a few years should be denied all medical care. Even if it's just a prescription, even if the person has more than enough money.

This person I talked to is in the insurance business, and says that there's anecdotal evidence out there that some HMO's and medical insurance companies are behind some of this push towards euthanasia. He's convinced that sooner or later, someone will dig up the right dirt and have proof of it. He also thinks, based on what he's been told by higher-ups in his company, that in a few years HMO employees won't be able o get life insurance -- to dangerous an occupation.

Following a purely economic/care rationing model will mean bean counters and pencil pushers will hold the power of life and death, and dryly order one administrative killing after another. If this comes about, those bureaucrats consider if involuntary enforced euthanasia is important enough that they'd sacrifice their own lives for their privilege of carrying it out. After it happens a few times they'll be confronted by enraged family members and loved ones who want only one thing: revenge. And won't care at that point what's legal and what isn't.