Posted on 04/05/2005 2:22:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used. It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity. It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected.
To concur with the intention of another person to commit suicide and to help in carrying it out through so-called "assisted suicide" means to cooperate in, and at times to be the actual perpetrator of, an injustice which can never be excused, even if it is requested. In a remarkably relevant passage Saint Augustine writes that "it is never licit to kill another: even if he should wish it, indeed if he request it because, hanging between life and death, he begs for help in freeing the soul struggling against the bonds of the body and longing to be released; nor is it licit even when a sick person is no longer able to live".Even when not motivated by a selfish refusal to be burdened with the life of someone who is suffering, euthanasia must be called a false mercy, and indeed a disturbing "perversion" of mercy. True "compassion" leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear. Moreover, the act of euthanasia appears all the more perverse if it is carried out by those, like relatives, who are supposed to treat a family member with patience and love, or by those, such as doctors, who by virtue of their specific profession are supposed to care for the sick person even in the most painful terminal stages.
The choice of euthanasia becomes more serious when it takes the form of a murder committed by others on a person who has in no way requested it and who has never consented to it. The height of arbitrariness and injustice is reached when certain people, such as physicians or legislators, arrogate to themselves the power to decide who ought to live and who ought to die. Once again we find ourselves before the temptation of Eden: to become like God who "knows good and evil" (cf. Gen 3:5). God alone has the power over life and death: "It is I who bring both death and life" (Dt 32:39; cf. 2 Kg 5:7; 1 Sam 2:6). But he only exercises this power in accordance with a plan of wisdom and love. When man usurps this power, being enslaved by a foolish and selfish way of thinking, he inevitably uses it for injustice and death. Thus the life of the person who is weak is put into the hands of the one who is strong; in society the sense of justice is lost, and mutual trust, the basis of every authentic interpersonal relationship, is undermined at its root.
The condemnation of euthanasia expressed by the Encyclical Evangelium vitae since it is a "grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person" (n. 65), reflects the impact of universal ethical reasoning (it is founded on natural law) and the elementary premise of faith in God the Creator and protector of every human person.6. The approach to the gravely ill and the dying must therefore be inspired by the respect for the life and the dignity of the person. It should pursue the aim of making proportionate treatment available but without engaging in any form of "overzealous treatment" (cf. CCC, n. 2278). One should accept the patient's wishes when it is a matter of extraordinary or risky therapy which he is not morally obliged to accept. One must always provide ordinary care (including artificial nutrition and hydration), palliative treatment, especially the proper therapy for pain, in a dialogue with the patient which keeps him informed.
At the approach of death, which appears inevitable, "it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life" (cf. Declaration on Euthanasia, part IV) because there is a major ethical difference between "procuring death" and "permitting death": the former attitude rejects and denies life, while the latter accepts its natural conclusion.
4. Medical doctors and health-care personnel, society and the Church have moral duties toward these persons from which they cannot exempt themselves without lessening the demands both of professional ethics and human and Christian solidarity.The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.
TS was capable of walking, talking and chewing gum?
Hey, none are so blind. I'm not gonna try to convincew you that white is white if you're seeing red. Not worth my time.
My conscience is fine. I've never been bothered by my position on this case.
The "1980 encyclical" you refer to was not an encyclical; it was a declaration from the prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, and was written by Franjo Cardinal Seper, the prefect of the CDF at the time.
It did not address the issue of nutrition and hydration directly, but reiterated that normal care must always be given:
When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted.
If you're going to lecture people on what the Church teaches, get your facts straight.
Certainly it is. Name me one other case where the state ordered the death of a citizen absent a jury.
You know that last statement about hydration and nutrition is the Pope's, don't you?
No that's incorrect. The event that spurred the march was the Supreme Court declaring it unconstitutional to execute cold-blooded, heinous murderers.
SCOTUS has already declared it constitutional to murder children.
Not only that, but the sentiments it expresses are directly opposite to others Madison most certainly expressed. For example.
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported.
well, whoever thinks so can see the extreme nature of my response when they see my extended middle extremity.
Apples and oranges.
OK, we're done. Ignorance truly is bliss and you're one blissful guy on this thread. Adios.
Then you've successfully convinced yourself she died 15 years ago, just as I've said.
He issued an execution order. That is a fact. If you don't know this, you should go back and look it up yourself
Yes any process that arrived at the result of death by starvation, must have been completely unfair.
Now what I have heard and believe to be true, is that facts of the case were never reviewed after being arrived at many years back. And I do believe Congress directed the courts to review the facts of the case and the courts refused. That seems unfair to me, since a review is mandated it all death cases. All except Terri's that is.
Not only am I an extremist, but I saw a pic of Catherine Zeta-Jones (who is almost a lovely as my wife) today and I found out I am a lesbian, too!
Criminal defendants have the right to waive a jury trial, so I imagine it has happened at some point or another.
But we're not even talking about a criminal defendant here.
Eargo, the courts sentenced Terri to death.
Wonderful news!
Perhaps we can all get accused of such.
Read on Dummie trolls. There's lots of us extremists about.
Praise the lord and pass the Ammo!
That's what I'm referring to, not yours.
The former Pope decided, for himself, that a feeding tube did not meet this definition. The Church has not done so.
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.