Cardinal says enough of euphemisms—Terry Schiavo was killed

"Let’s stop with the euphemisms—they killed her,” he stated.

Amen. Euphemisms kill.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

Wouldn't this cover any situation where artificial means prolonging life are discontinued? And wouldn't it also mean that the Church considers any sort of living will detailing what measures a person wants used to extend their life to be intrinsically evil?

If she died a decade ago, why was in necessary to murder her in 2005?

Quote:
“Law consists of a rational ordering that seeks the common good and not the common evil,” Cardinal Lozano noted, “but many times there are laws that are called laws but are nothing more than arbitrary norms. In fact, the President of the United States was against this court decision because he had enough sense to realize it was incorrect.”

I didn't want anyone to miss this statement. The judge was hot upholding the law when he ruled it was okay to withhold water and food from Terri. In fact, there is no law which allows under ANY circumstance for a person to be starved to death. This was a mis-carriage of justice. Murder, simply put. We don't know if Terri wanted to live or die -- or if she was aware of anything.

Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only jurisdictions in the world where laws specifically permit euthanasia or assisted suicide. Oregon permits assisted suicide. The Netherlands and Belgium permit both euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Sooner or later the people who killed Terri will have to sit down to a meal of consequences. It's in God's hands. Because, God knows, our government is too weak to bring them to justice.

If she died a decade ago, why was in necessary to murder her in 2005?

If she died a decade ago, why was it necessary to change to laws so that it would become okay to withhold her food and water via tube? When did a doctor declare her dead ten years ago? Why, instead, did the physicians try to sustain her and rehabilitate her, if she were dead?

Terry Shivo, may she rest in peace, died a decade ago.

LIAR

CHARTER FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS
Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance

III. Death

114. For the health care worker, serving life means assisting it right up to its natural completion.

Life is in God's hands: He is the Lord, He alone decides the final moment. Every faithful servant guards this fulfillment of God's will in the life of every person entrusted to his care. He does not consider himself the arbiter of death, just as and because he does not consider himself the arbiter of anyone's life.

Terminal illnesses

115. When the state of one's health deteriorates to an irreversible and fatal condition, a person enters into a terminal state of earthly existence. For him life is particularly and progressively precarious and painful. To illness and physical suffering is added the psychological and spiritual drama of detachment which death signifies and implies.

As such, the terminally ill patient is one who needs human and Christian accompaniment, and it is here that doctors and nurses are called on to make their expert and unrenounceable contribution. What is in question is special medical assistance for the dying person, so that also in dying he must know and will as a living human being. "Never more than in the proximity of death and in death itself is life to be celebrated and extolled. This must be fully respected, protected and assisted even in one who is experiencing its natural end.... The attitude to the terminally ill is often the acid test of a sense of justice and charity, of the nobility of mind, of the responsibility and professional ability of health care workers, beginning with doctors."[221]

116. Dying is part of life as its ultimate phase. It should be cared for, then, as belonging to it. Hence it calls for the therapeutic responsibility of the health care worker just as much and no less than every other moment in human life.

The dying person should not be dismissed as incurable and abandoned to his own resources and those of the family, but should be re-entrusted to the care of doctors and nurses. These, interacting and integrating with the assistance given by chaplains, social workers, relatives and friends, allow the dying person to accept and live out his death.[222] To help one to die means intensely the final experience of his life. Where possible and when the one concerned wishes, he should be given the opportunity of spending his last days at home with suitable medical assistance.

117. A terminally ill person should be given whatever medical assistance helps to alleviate the pain accompanying death. This would include the so-called palliative or symptomatic treatment.

The most important assistance is "loving presence" at the bedside of the dying person.[223] There is a proper medical-health presence which, though not deceiving him, makes him feel alive, a person among persons, because he is receiving, like every being in need, attention and care. This caring attention gives confidence and hope to the patient and makes him reconciled to death.[224] This is the unique contribution which doctors and nurses, by their being human and Christian—more than by their expertise—can and should make to the dying person, so that rejection becomes acceptance and anguish gives way to hope.

In this way human dying is withdrawn from the phenomenon of "being overly medicalized," in which the terminal phase of life "takes place in crowded and activity-dominated environments, controlled by medical health personnel whose principal concern is the biophysical aspect of the illness." All of this "is being seen increasingly as disrespectful to the complex human state of the suffering person."[225]

118. "Before the mystery of death we are powerless; human certainties waver. But it is precisely in the face of such a checkmate that Christian faith...becomes a fount of serenity and peace.... What seems meaningless takes on meaning and worth."[226]

When this "checkmate" takes place in the life of a person, in this decisive hour of his existence, has a determining role. It displays new horizons of meaning, that is, of resurrection and life, to the one who sees the prospects of earthly existence being closed to him.

"Over and above all human consolations, no one can be blind to the enormous help given to the dying and to their families by faith in God and the hope of eternal life."[227] To make faith and hope present is for doctors and nurses the highest form of humanizing death. It is more than alleviating a suffering. It means applying one's skills in order to "make going to God easy for the patient."[228]

Death with dignity

119. The right to life is specified in the terminally ill person as "a right to die in total serenity, with human and Christian dignity."[229]

This cannot be interpreted as the power to kill oneself or to give this power to others, but to experience dying in a human and Christian way and not flee from it "at any cost." This right is being explicitly expressed by people today in order to safeguard themselves at the point of death against "the use of techniques that run the risk of becoming abusive."[230]

Contemporary medicine, in fact, has at its disposal methods which artificially delay death, without any real benefit to the patient. It is merely keeping one alive or prolonging life for a time, at the cost of further, severe suffering. This is the so-called "therapeutic tyranny," which consists "in the use of methods which are particularly exhausting and painful for the patient, condemning him in fact to an artificially prolonged agony."[231]

This is contrary to the dignity of the dying person and to the moral obligation of accepting death and allowing it at last to take its course. "Death is an inevitable fact of human life":[232] it cannot be uselessly delayed, fleeing from it by every means.[233]

120. Aware that he is "neither the lord of life nor the conqueror of death," the health care worker, in evaluating means, "should make appropriate choices, that is, relate to the patient and be guided by his real condition."[234]

Here he will apply the principle—already stated—of "," which can be specified thus: "When inevitable death is imminent, despite the means used, it is lawful in conscience to decide to refuse treatment that would only secure a precarious and painful prolongation of life, but without interrupting the normal treatment due to the patient in similar cases. Hence the doctor need have no concern; it is not as if he had failed to assist the person in danger."[235]

The administration of food and liquids, even artificially, is part of the normal treatment always due to the patient when this is not burdensome for him: their undue suspension could be real and properly so-called euthanasia.

121. For the doctors and their assistants it is not a question of deciding the life or death of an individual. It is simply a question of being a doctor, that is, of posing the question and then deciding according to one's expertise and one's conscience regarding a respectful care of the living and the dying of the patient entrusted to him. This responsibility does not always and in all cases involve recourse to every means. It might also require the renunciation of certain means to make way for a serene and Christian acceptance of death which is inherent in life. It might also mean respect for the wishes of the patient who refuses the use of such means.[236]

The use of painkillers for the terminally ill

122. Among the medicines administered to terminally ill patients are painkillers. These, which help to make the course of the illness less dramatic, contribute to the humanization and acceptance of death.[237]

This, however, does not constitute a general norm of behavior.[238] "Heroic behavior" cannot be imposed on everyone.[239] And then, very often, "pain diminishes the moral strength" of the person:[240] sufferings "aggravate the state of weakness and physical exhaustion, impeding the impulse of the spirit and debilitating the moral powers instead of supporting them. The suppression of pain, instead, brings organic and psychic relief making prayer easier and enabling one to give oneself more generously."[241]

"Human and Christian prudence suggests the use for most patients of medicines which alleviate or suppress pain, even if this causes torpor or reduced lucidity. With regard to those who are unable to express their wishes, one can reasonably suppose that they wish to take painkillers and these can be administered according to medical advice."[242]

The use of painkillers with the dying, however, is not without its problems.

123. First, their use might have the effect, of not only alleviating pain, but also of .

When "proportionate reasons" so require, "it is permitted to use with moderation narcotics which alleviate suffering, but which also hasten death."[243] In this case "death is not intended or sought in any way, although there is a risk of it for a reasonable cause: what is intended is simply the alleviation of pain in an effective way, using for that purpose those painkillers available to medicine."[244]

124. There is also the possibility that painkillers will cause unconsciousness in the dying person. This use must receive special consideration.[245]

"Without serious reasons, the dying person must not be deprived of consciousness."[246] Sometimes the systematic use of narcotics which reduce the consciousness of the patient is a cloak for the frequently unconscious wish of the health care worker to discontinue relating to the dying person. In this case it is not so much the alleviation of the patient's suffering that is sought as the convenience of those in attendance. The dying person is deprived of the possibility of "living his own life," by reducing him to a state of unconsciousness unworthy of a human being.[247] This is why the administration of narcotics for the sole purpose of depriving the dying person of a conscious end is "a truly deplorable practice "[248]

It is a different matter when there is a serious clinical case for the administration of analgesics which suppress consciousness, as when there is violent and unbearable pain. In this case the anesthetic is said to be licit, provided certain conditions are fulfilled: that the dying person has fulfilled or could still fulfill his moral, family and religious obligations.[249]

Telling the truth to a dying person

125. Telling the truth about the diagnosis and prognosis to the dying person, and more generally to those suffering from an incurable illness, poses a problem of communication.

To inform someone that they are dying is difficult and dramatic, but this is not an exemption from . Communication between a dying person and those in attendance cannot be based on pretense. This is never a human possibility for the dying person and does not contribute to the humanization of dying.

. This right is not lessened where there is a diagnosis and prognosis of a terminal illness, rather, it is heightened.

This information, in fact, is linked to important responsibilities which cannot be delegated to another. There are responsibilities bearing on the treatment to be applied with the informed consent of the patient.

With the approach of death comes the responsibility to fulfill certain duties in one's relationship with the family, settling possible legal matters, resolving obligations to a third party. For a believer the approach of death requires that he be fully aware when he performs certain actions, especially the reconciling encounter with God in the sacrament of Penance.

The person cannot be abandoned to unconsciousness in the decisive "hour" of his life, taking him away from himself and from his final and most important decisions. "Death is too essential a moment for its prospect to be avoided."[250]

126. The duty of being truthful with the terminally ill patient demands on the part of medical personnel.

It cannot consist of a detached and indifferent communication of the diagnosis and relevant prognosis. The truth must not remain unspoken, but neither must it be given in all its bare, crude reality. It should be given in line with love and charity, calling all those who assist the patient in various ways to be attuned to this communion.

There is the need to establish a relationship of trust, receptivity and dialogue with the patient, seeking the appropriate time and words. There is a way of speaking that is discerning and respectful of the patient's moods, and it should be in harmony with these. There is a form of conversation wherein questions are tactfully handled and even provoked, so that the patient is gradually brought to an awareness of his condition. If one tries to be present to the patient and sensitive to his lot one will find the words and the replies which make it possible to communicate in truth and in charity: "giving the truth in love" (Eph 4:15).

127. "Each case has its own requirements, depending on the sensitivity and ability of each person, of his or her relationship with the patient and the patient's condition; to provide for the patient's possible reactions (rebellion, depression, resignation, etc.), one will prepare oneself to face them calmly and tactfully."[251] It is not the exactness of what is said that is important, but the relationship of solidarity with the patient. It is not simply a matter of giving clinical facts, but of meaningful communication.

In this relationship the prospect of death is not presented as inescapable, and it loses its anguishing power: the patient does not feel isolated and condemned to death. When the truth is presented to him in this way he is not left without hope, because it makes him feel alive in a relationship of sharing and communion. He is not alone with his illness: he feels truly understood, and he is at peace with himself and with others. He is himself as a person. His life, despite everything, has meaning, and dying unfolds with optimistic and transcendent meaning.

The moment of death

128. The use of resuscitative technology and the need for vital organs for transplant operations pose anew today the problem of diagnosing when death occurs.

Death is seen and experienced by people as a decomposition, a dissolution, a rupture.[252] "It comes when the spiritual principle which governs the unity of the individual is no longer able to exercise its functions on and in the organism and the elements of the latter, left to themselves, dissociate.

Certainly, this destruction does not effect the entire human being. The Christian faith—and not it alone—affirms the continuance, beyond death, of man's spiritual principle." Faith nourishes in the Christian the hope of again finding his personal integrity transfigured and definitively possessed in Christ" (1 Cor 15:22).[253]

This faith filled with hope does not prevent "death [from] being a painful rupture." But "the moment of this rupture is not directly perceptible, and the problem is to identify the signs."[254] To ascertain and interpret these signs is not a matter for faith or morals but for medical science: "it is for the doctor...to give a clear, precise definition of death and of the moment of death."[255] "Scientists, analysts and scholars must continue their research and their studies to determine in the most precise way possible the exact moment and the irrefutable sign of death."[256]

Once this determination has been achieved, in its light the questions and moral conflicts arising from new technologies and new therapeutic possibilities can be resolved. Moral theology, in fact, cannot but acknowledge the biomedical determination as the decisive criterion.

129. With regard to this determination, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has made an authoritative contribution. First with regard to the : "a person is dead when he has irreversibly lost all ability to integrate and coordinate the physical and mental functions of the body."

Second, with regard to the precise moment of death: "death comes when: a) the spontaneous functions of the heart and breathing have definitively ceased, or b) the irreversible arrest of all brain activity." In reality "brain death is the true criterion of death, although the definitive arrest of cardio-respiratory activity very quickly leads to brain death."[257]

Faith and morals accept these findings of science. However, they demand of health care workers the most accurate use of the various clinical and instrumental methods for a certain diagnosis of death so that a patient is not declared dead and treated as such when in fact he is not dead.

Religious assistance for the dying

130. The crisis which the approach of death involves prompts the Christian and the Church to be a bearer of the light of truth which faith alone can cast on the mystery of death.

Death is an event which brings one into the life of God, and revelation alone can pronounce a word of truth about it. This truth must be brought in faith to the dying person. The annunciation "full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14) of the Gospel accompanies the Christian from the beginning to the end of life. The last word of the Gospel is the word of life that conquers death and opens up the greatest hope to the dying person.

131. , then, : the Gospel must be announced to the dying person. It is a pastoral duty of the ecclesial community in each one of its members, according to the responsibilities of each. The hospital chaplain has a special obligation here, since he is called to minister to the dying within the broader limits of the pastoral care of the sick.

For him this duty implies not only the role he personally carries out at the side of the dying entrusted to his care, but also the promotion of this pastoral activity, through organizing religious services, forming and sensitizing health care workers and involving relatives and friends.

The announcement of the Gospel to the dying finds especially expressive and effective forms in charity, prayer and the sacraments.

132. means that giving and receptive presence which establishes with the dying person a communion born of attention, comprehension, concern, patience, sharing and selflessness.

Charity sees in the dying person, as in no other, the face of the suffering and dying Christ calling out for love. Charity to the dying person—this "poor one" who is renouncing all the goods of this world—is a privileged expression of love of God in one's neighbor (cf. Mt 25:31-40).

Loving the dying with Christian charity is helping them to recognize and feel vividly the mysterious presence of God at their side: in the charity of a brother the love of God becomes visible.

133. Charity enables the relationship with the dying person to expand in prayer, that is, in communion with God. In this communion one relates to God as the Father who welcomes his children returning to Him.

To help the dying person to pray and to pray with him means opening up to him the horizons of divine life. It means, at the same time, entering into that "communion of saints" in which all the relationships, which death seems to break irreparably, are re-knit in a new way.

134. A privileged moment of prayer with the dying person is the celebration of the : the grace-filled signs of God's salvific presence.

Foremost is the sacrament of the through which the Holy Spirit, completing in the Christian his assimilation to Christ begun in baptism, makes him participate definitively in the paschal triumph over sickness and death.

is eucharistic nourishment, the bread of communion with Christ which gives the dying person the strength to face the final and decisive stage of life's journey.

is the sacrament of reconciliation: at peace with God, the dying person is at peace with himself and with his neighbor

135. In this , filled with the powerlessness experienced when faced with the mystery of death is not agonizing and paralyzing. The Christian finds and in it the possibility, despite everything, to live and not suffer death.

The suppression of life

136. The inviolability of human life means and implies in the last analysis the unlawfulness of every act which directly suppresses human life. "The inviolability of the right to life of the innocent human being from conception to death is a sign and a requirement of the very inviolability of the person, to whom the Creator has given the gift of life."[258]

God himself "is the vindicator of every innocent life." "He will call man to account for the life of man: each one will have to answer for his brother" (Gen 9:5; cf. Mt 19:18; Rom 13:9). And his commandment is categorical: "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex 20:13): "Do not kill the innocent or the just one because I will not absolve the guilty one" (Ex 23:7).[259]

137. This is why "no one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God's love for that person, without violating a fundamental, unrenouncable and inalienable right."[260]

This is a right that one has come from God (not from others: parents, society, human authority). "Hence there is no one, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral 'indicator' which can show or give a valid juridical justification for direct, deliberate disposal of an innocent human life, that is, a disposal aimed at its destruction, either as an end or as a means to another end which in itself may not be at all illicit."[261]

In particular "nothing and no one can authorize the killing of an innocent human being, whether it is a fetus or an embryo, a child or an adult, elderly, ill, incurable or dying. Moreover, no one can request this homicidal act for themselves or for another for whom they are responsible, nor can they consent to it explicitly or implicitly. No authority can legitimately impose it or permit it. It is, in fact, a violation of divine law. an insult to the dignity of the human person, a anti-life crime, an attempt on humankind "[262]

138. "Ministers of life and never agents of death,"[263] it is for health care workers "to safeguard life, to be watchful over its evolution and development throughout its whole existence, respecting the plan drawn up by the Creator."[264]

This vigilant ministry of safeguarding human life rejects as a morally grave act, contrary to the medical mission, and opposes voluntary death, , as "unacceptable," dissuading anyone tempted to do so from carrying it out[265]

Among the modalities of the suppression of life, homicide or suicide, there are two—abortion and euthanasia—against which this ministry should be particularly vigilant and in a certain way prophetic, due to the cultural and legislative context which is rather frequently insensitive if not, indeed, favorable to their propagation.

The left believes that fetal tissue research will keep them alive forever. They deep down fear the wrath of Whom they do not believe exists.

And wouldn't it also mean that the Church considers any sort of living will detailing what measures a person wants used to extend their life to be intrinsically evil?

NO.

Thanks for the post! Here's the answer to your question, non-Sequitur

Sorry, but in reading your post number 1 it would seem that it must be true. If no person has the right to take his or her own life then how can they decide that every means possible to extend their life cannot be used? Isn't telling the doctor to turn off a machine and let a person die euthanasia? Same with telling a doctor NOT to use a machine? And let me make it clear that I'm not talking about the Schiavo case here. I'm trying to clarify the ruling you posted in a general sense.

Gospel of Life Ping

According to the Church, one is not required to go to extraordinary means to susatin a life, such as in cases of brain death. Food and water however, are NOT extraordinary means. To restrict intake of either of these is cold and brutal, and the result is a murdered victim and Satan laughing on his throne in hell.

Amen Cardinal! Well said!

This is worth repeating:

THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES

These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those which fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.

1. Abortion

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

2. Euthanasia

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.

4. Human Cloning

"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp

According to the Church, one is not required to go to extraordinary means to susatin a life, such as in cases of brain death. Food and water however, are NOT extraordinary means.

What are extraordinary means?

You asked: " Wouldn't this cover any situation where artificial means prolonging life are discontinued? And wouldn't it also mean that the Church considers any sort of living will detailing what measures a person wants used to extend their life to be intrinsically evil?"

Good questions,deserving thoughtful answers.

First, feeding is not really a "medical treatment," whether the person being fed uses a cup, a spoon, a straw, or a tube. Feeding is "ordinary care," inasmuch as ALL human beings need food, and ALL human beings, at some point in our lives, need to be "assisted" in order to be fed, whether in infancy, illness, injury, or the debility of old age.

Please note that in Terri's case, the nutrition/hydration was not in itself futile, since it was doing exactly what nutrition is supposed to do: it was sustaining all her tissues, organs, and systems, maintaining her life, preventing her death by starvation.

Second, the Church teaches that using "extraordinary" means to prolong life is NOT morally obligatory. "Extraordinary" means could include surgery, implants, transplants, radiation, chemotherapy, ventilators, kidney dialysis, or any other interventions which might be experimental, painful, burdensome, or futile, especially if the patient is clearly dying.

Note, too, that Terri's struggle was almost universally tagged by he MSM as a "right-to-die" case; yet she was not dying! Terri Schiavo was an otherwise-healthy 41-year-old brain-injured woman who was not (barring court-ordered starvation) at the "end" of her life and who had asserted no documentable "right to die."

Anyone who is actually interested in what the Catholic Church teaches, can get a good start by googling with keywords like VATICAN DOCUMENT EUTHANASIA CATHOLIC NUTRITION HYDRATION (you get the picture) --- or you can read the summary found here:

http://www.cogforlife.org/euthanasia.htm

BTW, Don-o and I just helped Grandma wrote up a legal document specifying Grandma's preferences for medical treatment and appointing a health care proxy (medical power of attorney). The legal forms vary from state to state, but they are excellent and can be found at: http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/willtolive/StatesList.html What Grandma wants is, I think, what most of us want: to avoid the extremes of futile, burdensome excessive treatment on the one hand, or grease-the-skids medical neglect/abandonment on the other; to be kept as pain-free and comfortable as possible with no cut-off of "ordinary care"; to have all her loved ones in agreement beforehand!

Guaranteed NOT to hit the MSM.

bttt

It's past time!!