Posted on 01/25/2006 12:22:59 PM PST by SirLinksalot
After several months in this forum, I have never posted a vanity post before and this will be my first time, but I am posting this to find out whether anyone can help me find some moral direction on a life choice dilemma which is not different from the Terry Schiavo case...
I have a friend in Texas who was taking high blood medicine not knowing she was pregnant.
Very early in the pregnancy they took tests and were told that their baby will practically have no brain but being devout christians, they decided to go thru anyway.
Last week their baby was born and as predicted, without a brain but somehow she's breathing and "alive".
Now the parents are having second thoughts and just waiting for her to stop breathing and die.
What would be the most moral thing to do in this situation ?
Thanks for your feedback.
I believe you, SirLinksalot. And I along with nearly-everyone else here are so glad that You brought up this question.
If you have no brain, aren't you, by definition, brain dead?
No question, no matter what the law says, temptation to commit an abortion are higher in poorer countries and where out of wedlock pregnancies are a cultural taboo. It does not follow from these data that pro-life laws do not reduce abortion.
What is especially shameful is that the US, where poverty is virtually non-existent and no social stigma applies to anything except child molestation (God knows why...), the abortion rate is so high. It also would be instructive to look into the reason for committing an abortion, per country. In the US they are overwhelmingly frivolous: no medical or economic justification, just plain convenience. If abortion were criminalized at least for those cases, the rate of abortion would be drastically reduced.
Apparently the portion of the brain that controls involuntary functions like breathing is intact.
Please, do give out this nonsense. Many people 'truly, sincerely' believe that they did 'nothing wrong', and God does not say "Well, no problem because they really thought it was ok."
Prov 21:2 "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes"
Does it really matter becuse as a Freeper posted a link above shows, they can't really point to a single thing that causes it.
Truly impressive.
(And rather Germanically clever at getting around social medicine, too.)
See post #104, that pretty well says it.
The basic functions of the body don't require much brain material, from what I understand.
This happened to some good friends of ours almost 20 years ago. They were counseled by the doctors to abort the baby, which they of course refused. When the baby was born, they were then pressured to allow the hospital to "expose" her in a pan on the counter till she died.
They wrapped their little girl up and took her home. They sang to her and loved her for three days till she peacefully died in her sleep.
Nobody involved has ever regretted doing this.
Other friends of ours had a child they were pressured to abort due to extreme abnormalities indicated by an amniocentesis. The tests were wrong. Their little girl was born absolutely perfect.
What?
I don't buy this story the poster put out. If the poster was serious, he should respond to some of the answers given. Instead his only responses were on flippid response and one defensive response both late in the thread. It just doesn't look sincere.
I can only say that I had friends who had a baby boy born with some fairly severe abnormalities. They took the best care they could of the child and gave him as much love as they could. He seemed reasonably happy, though he never learned to talk, walk or even sit up by himself.
He died peacefully in his sleep one night when he was about 3 or 4 years old. They've never regretted how they handled the situation.
My daughter-in-law makes little quilted blankets the hospital can then give parents who might be losing a young baby.
It sounds like the parents already know the moral thing to do, and plan to do it. As a friend, I would bring a gift for the baby, and be ready to listen. I'd take picture when visiting. The parents will appreciate those photos. The family will be in my prayers, as I'm sure many others will be praying for them. I'm sure it would be a comfort to them to know that.
<<<<
I believe you, SirLinksalot. And I along with nearly-everyone else here are so glad that You brought up this question.
>>>>
Thanks very much sir. This affirms the inherent compassion and reasonability of the members of this forum contrary to the dirty and dishonest snipings against FR from the guys at DU.
The way it was written indicated that the drug was the cause.
So, I was wondering what drug it was to see what drug could cause such a birth defect.
My opinion is as the Catholic Church teaches. There is a difference between permitting death and procuring death. Additionally, food & water even by feeding tube are not considered an extraordinary measure or medical procedure if the person can digest and or process the nutrition.
What the Catholic Church teaches -here are some linked documents and excerpts that may answer questions:
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.
It's good to know that Germans learned a lesson from history. There are a few Americans who need to learn that lesson.
Bears repeating - well said.
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.