 |
|
Posted on 10/28/2003 11:46:53 AM PST by Salvation
August 27, 2003
|
|
Florida Bishops Urge Safer Course For Terri Schiavo
We continue our fervent prayers for Terri Schiavo, for her family, and all involved in this most difficult and heart wrenching situation. After a fourth consideration of her case, the 2nd District Court of Appeals has upheld the latest order of the trial court judge to withdraw her hydration and nutrition tube. An emergency appeal to the Florida Supreme Court was denied. Barring unforeseen legal intervention, the trial court will soon re-schedule the removal of Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube. It is most unfortunate that family members have not been able to agree on her care, forcing the Court’s involvement.
Bishop Robert N. Lynch of the Diocese of St. Petersburg has spoken in detail to this case (Concerning Terri Schiavo).* His statement followed careful consultation with his brother Bishops and we fully support it. Because of so much uncertainty and dispute, we reiterate his plea that her treatment be continued while all parties pursue a more clear understanding of her actual physical condition.
Bishop Lynch’s statement clarifies the teaching of the Church that nourishment or hydration may be withheld or withdrawn where that treatment itself is causing harm to the patient or is useless because the patient’s death is imminent. Church teaching is clear that there should be a presumption in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients as long as it is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.
The Church cannot make this decision, but her teaching guides those who must: the patient or those legally entitled to do so if the patient is unable. If Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube were to be removed because the nutrition she receives is of no use to her, or because she is near death, or because it is unreasonably burdensome for her, her family, or caregivers, it could be seen as permissible. But if her feeding tube were to be removed to intentionally cause her death, or because her life is perceived to be useless, or because it is believed that the quality of her life is such that she would be better off, this would be wrong.
Without question, removal of Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube will result in her death. We respect the need for finality of the court’s decision, but we urge additional time to allow greater certainty as to her true condition. We respect, too, the limitations on new evidence being considered by the court, but in matters of life and death, exceptions should be made. If additional medical treatment can be shown to be helpful to her condition, we urge that all parties involved take the safer course and allow it to be used.
Just as we are concerned for Terri Schiavo, we are also concerned for others who are weak and vulnerable. There is an inherent danger in assuming that food and water can simply be withheld without clearly knowing a patient’s wishes. There is reason to be circumspect and ever careful in these cases. We reject outright the euthanasia movement and its utilitarian standard that some lives are not worth living. Every life is precious and unrepeatable.
And finally, we remember there are times when one may refuse treatment that will result in a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life. Properly, this may be seen as an expression of our hope in the life to come. Let each of us communicate ahead of time with our families and loved ones, our wishes for treatment at the end of our lives. To do so will give great comfort to them in an emotionally stressful time.
We join our prayers with the family and loved ones of Terri Schiavo in this most difficult time.
http://www.flacathconf.org/Publications/BishopsStatements/Bpst2000/TerriSchiavo.htm
| Archbishop John C. Favalora Archdiocese of Miami |
Bishop John J. Nevins Diocese of Venice |
Bishop Norbert M. Dorsey, CP Diocese of Orlando |
| Bishop John H. Ricard, SSJ Diocese of Pensacola/Tallahassee |
Bishop Victor Galeone Diocese of St. Augustine |
Bishop Robert N. Lynch Diocese of St. Petersburg |
| Bishop-Designate Gerald M. Barbarito, JCL Diocese of Palm Beach |
Coadjutor Bishop Thomas G. Wenski Diocese of Orlando |
Bishop Lynch's statement concerning Terri Schiavo
* ( http://www.dioceseofstpete.org/news_releases/statement_of_bishop_robert_n.htm )
|
|
More to follow.
STATEMENT OF BISHOP ROBERT N. LYNCH CONCERNING THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE August 12, 2003
In this nation, many families face end-of-life issues each day involving loved ones and family members. Most of these decisions are made quietly with the assistance not only of medical doctors and health care professionals but often with the advice of members of the clergy and counselors. Few decisions reach the level of public notice as the case involving Terri Schiavo. Despite the prayers of many, myself included, her family has not been able to come together to make a single, unified, mutually agreed upon decision concerning Terri’s situation. Now the matter is approaching a legal climax with judges making decisions properly reserved for families. How sad.
Some in Terri’s family believe that her condition calls for the removal of her feeding tube and others do not. Even physicians, who have evaluated Terri’s condition, with varying degrees of access for clinical analysis, disagree on her condition. In Florida, when families cannot agree, trial judges are permitted to act as proxies and make decisions about life-prolonging procedures. In so doing, we ask our judges to make decisions that they might not make for themselves or their loved ones, but ones that clear and convincing evidence shows the individual would make for herself or himself.
Proper care of our lives requires that we seek necessary medical care from others but we are not required to use every possible remedy in every circumstance. We are obliged to preserve our own lives, and help others preserve theirs, by use of means that have a reasonable hope of sustaining life without imposing unreasonable burdens on those we seek to help, that is, on the patient and his or her family and community. In general, we are only required to use ordinary means that do not involve an excessive burden, for others or for our ourselves. What may be too difficult for some may not be for others.
Our Catholic Church has traditionally viewed medical treatment as excessively burdensome if it is “too painful, too damaging to the patient’s bodily self and functioning, too psychologically repugnant to the patient, too suppressive of the patient’s mental life, or too expensive.” [cf. “Life, Death and Treatment of Dying Patients: Pastoral Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Florida, 1989]
Our Catholic teaching is also clear that “nourishment or hydration may be withheld or withdrawn where that treatment itself is causing harm to the patient or is useless because the patient’s death is imminent, as long as the patient is made comfortable. In general, the terms ‘death is imminent’ and ‘terminally ill’ imply that a physician can predict that the patient will die of the fatal pathology within a few days or weeks, regardless of what life prolonging methods are utilized.” [Statement of Florida bishops cited above]
Terri Schiavo’s case is especially difficult because her actual medical situation is in dispute. The court has determined based on the medical evidence which was presented to it that she is in a “persistent or permanent vegetative state,” commonly referred to as PVS. Her husband agrees with this. Her parents and other family members do not. Physicians who have examined her also have opposing opinions. It is currently assumed that Terri cannot swallow food naturally. All agree, however, that there is extensive and permanent damage to her brain but it is not clear whether the medically assisted nutrition and hydration is delaying her dying process to no avail, is unreasonably burdensome for her, and contrary to what she would wish if she could tell us.
In these most difficult cases, our Church teaching is that there should be a presumption in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients as long as it is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.
If Terri’s feeding tube is removed, it will undoubtedly be followed by her death. If it were to be removed because the nutrition which she receives from it is of no use to her, or because it is unreasonably burdensome for her and her family or her caregivers, it could be seen as permissible. But if it were to be removed simply because she is not dying quickly enough and some believe she would be better off because of her low quality of life, this would be wrong.
This situation is tragic. I strongly recommend that
1. in the presence of so much uncertainty and dispute about her actual physical state, all parties pursue a clearer understanding of her actual physical condition;
2. Terri’s family be allowed to attempt a medical protocol which they feel would improve her condition;
3. Excessive rhetoric like the use of “murder” or the designation of the trial judge or appellate judges as “murderers” not be used by anyone from our Judeo-Christian tradition. This is a much harder case than those who use facile language might know.
Please join me in praying for a peaceful, moral, legal and just resolution of this case.
At some point in time, we will all face “end of life.” Each person has an uncertain future and we live in a world of constant technological changes and developments. When a person is not competent to make his or her own decisions, it is very appropriate for a family member or guardian to be designated as a proxy to represent the patient’s interests and interpret his or her wishes. Decisions made by those legally entitled to act for the patient must always be respected. For this reason, I wish to use this moment to remind all our Catholic people that it is extremely important for all to have designated a medical proxy to someone who is trusted and to leave a “living will” in which you indicate your wishes. It is also important to note that such proxies and medical directions can never “trump” or override appropriate moral considerations. In this regard, Catholic teaching notes that the proxy may not deliberately cause a patient’s death or refuse ordinary and normal treatment, even if he or she believes a patient would have made such a decision. I encourage everyone to
1. Become informed about the complexities surrounding end of life issues, discuss them with your families and doctors, and formulate your own wishes that could direct treatment;
2. Designate a medical surrogate to act on your behalf in the eventuality that your own competence is impeded at some time in the future.
3. Have in place and on file, with your family, medical surrogate, attorney, or perhaps even your pastor, a “living will.”
My prayer is that these words will help others in the future avoid the situation that surrounds the case of Terri Schiavo.
|
The flaw in this reasoning is that "the family" does not include --so far as the law is concerned--anyone except her legal guardian. Her natural family is only able to put moral pressure on the guardian and the court has, in effect, said that he does not have to listen to them at all. Neither Lynch nor the rest of the Florida is look at the matter square in the face: The family is broken and MS had broken it.
Regardless of the outcome in this case, the husband doesn't seem to want the family to even have a body to bury; it sounds like he will dispose of her ashes, if he is allowed to remain guardian, in such a manner as to give the family a final and eternal slap in the face.
For the last several years I'd find myself saying the same thing. Then I thought--hey I'm not ashamed, in fact, I thank God I'm a Catholic!
LOL--So now I have a new twist on this frequent thought:
Bishop Lynch's statement makes me ashamed that he's a Catholic
YES! Also works if you do it this way: "[New Age Apostate Liberal Feel-Good-Spiritual Pro-Abortion Cretin]'s statement makes me ashamed that he's a Catholic."
First of all, is this Catholic Doctrine or is it the opinion of the Bishops in Florida? I know the USCCB can issue 39 "teachings" per day every day of the year and they have zero authority unless confirmed by the Pope. I assume the same goes for our glorious Bishops here in Florida.
Since when is food and water "treatment?"
Secondly, of COURSE her death is "imminent" if one undertakes to thrist and starve her. How long would Bishops last without food and water?
I understand she was denied Viaticum? Is denial of the Sacraments something they will give attention to? Canons 921 & 922 & Canon 213 ("Christ's faithful have the right to be asisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments") would seem to apply here
The Bishops have have not gone gently into this good fight. They have been embarassed into action having been inundated with requests to intercede on behalf of this innocent woman's life and they have been dragged kicking and screaming into this matter. Their silence has been a HUGE embarassment for us Catholics down here. They have had NO trouble volunteering to intercede on behalf of guilty men about to have their butt's strapped into Old Sparky though.
Seamless Garment of Life? Yeah, right.
There was one priest down here who wrote a letter to the editor denouncing homosexual unions and specifically opposing ordaining the gay anglican bishop.
Within a week he was removed from his parish and exiled to St. Mary's hospital. Avoiding controversy results in avoiding publicly defending Truth.
They may be called, but would they ever answer. I have to doubt it.
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.
