Catholic teaching condemns as euthanasia "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated."...
The harsh reality is that some who propose withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from certain patients do directly intend to bring about a patient's death, and would even prefer a change in the law to allow for what they see as more "quick and painless" means to cause death.[13] In other words, nutrition and hydration (whether orally administered or medically assisted) are sometimes withdrawn not because a patient is dying, but precisely because a patient is not dying (or not dying quickly) and someone believes it would be better if he or she did, generally because the patient is perceived as having an unacceptably low "quality of life" or as imposing burdens on others.[14]...
...An unconscious [in the context, PVS is mentioned] patient must be treated as a living human person with inherent dignity and value. Direct killing of such a patient is as morally reprehensible as the direct killing of anyone else.
It's not permissible to remove the tube in order to directly cause death. Period. That is what is going on in this case, because Terri is not dying of anything except deprivation of nutrition and water. There are tough cases, but this one is black and white for Catholics.
Thanks for the Catholic teaching on this...
" ...An unconscious [in the context, PVS is mentioned] patient must be treated as a living human person with inherent dignity and value. Direct killing of such a patient is as morally reprehensible as the direct killing of anyone else."
You say:
"There are tough cases, but this one is black and white for Catholics."
Yes, there *are* tough cases - a terminally ill degenerative case, for example, needing a respriator, or herioc life-extension ... this is *not* such as case. food and water for a disabled person should always be given.