Replies

Am I missing something? Sounds like the bishop accepts the Texas Futile Care law as something workable here. He makes "comfort care" sound fun. I may be blinded myself in thinking we should act to help a mom save her kid's life rather than relying on "ethicists", shrugging our shoulders, wringing our hands a lot and moving on...

Suicide, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not morally acceptable; they violate the very sacredness of human life. We hold the teaching on the sacredness of life as fundamental. And we believe that our lives do not end with death, that we are called to everlasting life. Catholic teaching on ethically required medical care states that we should use all reasonable means to preserve human life and to promote the profound dignity that belongs to it. Yet we recognize that sometimes we should not use technology if it inflicts greater suffering on loved ones and holds them back from being able to go home to God.

The decision to forego extraordinary medical care must be made by the patient or the patient's proxy with a great deal of prayer and consultation with ethicists, spiritual mentors and health care professionals. In some situations, we would be obligated to use extraordinary medical care. There is no "one size fits all."

Physicians have stated that Emilio's condition is irreversible and will result in his death. There is great concern that continued extraordinary treatment will only result in greater pain for Emilio, without curing or improving his condition. Based on this information and a review of the case by ethicists, moving to a "comfort care" plan for Emilio would be morally acceptable. Emilio would still receive food, water, pain medication and other "ordinary" treatment. Some compare Emilio's situation to Terri Schiavo's. They are very different; in the Schiavo case, ordinary means — food and water — were withdrawn, which caused her death.

Aymond: Like life, death is sacred Bishop Gregory Aymond, DIOCESE OF AUSTIN

8mm

I would have to suppose that a person who flees from a serial killer trying to stab her is an "Aid in dying opponent". Some words twist very easily in twisted minds...

...............................

A bill making its way through the Legislature - AB374 - would bring a version of Oregon's aid-in-dying law to the state. Opponents of the bill are conducting a media campaign to portray themselves as not just the traditional opponents of choice in dying - the Religious Right - but also representing diverse political and social movements.

For example, in a recent article in the Mercury News (Another View, March 1), Marilyn Golden of the Disability Rights, Education and Defense Fund claims that "while religious groups are in the mix" against AB374, "the opposition to assisted suicide is a broad coalition of left, right and center." Similarly, in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Wesley J. Smith claims that AB374 is opposed by "a broad and diverse political alliance" consisting of "civil rights activists," "medical, nursing and hospice professionals" and "advocates for the poor," with "disability rights advocates" at the vanguard.

The truth, however, is that the leading opponents of the bill are among the same folks who brought us the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Let's have a close look at the "broad coalition." Take, for example, those "civil rights activists" whom Golden and Smith say oppose the measure. They mention only one relatively obscure group. On the other hand, support for it comes from major national civil rights organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (500,000 members), the National Organization for Women (500,000 members) and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Those "medical, nursing and hospice professionals" Golden and Smith mention are the California Medical Association and the American Medical Association, powerful groups representing doctors' interests. But many others support AB374, including the California Association of Physicians Groups (America's largest association representing physicians who practice in groups), the American Medical Students Association (68,000 members) and the American Medical Women's Association (10,000 members).

Those "advocates for the poor?" Again, they list only one group - the Coalition of Concerned Medical Professionals, which Wikipedia describes as a "front group" for "a network of American political cults" which "pose as social welfare and advocacy organizations." Legitimate advocates for the poor and elderly that support the bill include the National Association of Social Workers (150,000 members), the Congress of California Seniors and the Gray Panthers.

As for those "disability rights advocates," the truth is that they do not represent the majority view of their own constituency on aid in dying. Two Harris Poll surveys indicate that about two-thirds of disabled persons support laws like AB374 - roughly the same as California's general population, as shown by a recent California Poll survey.

The opponents are blowing smoke. Scratch the surface of their "broad coalition" and you'll find Terri Schiavo redux.

Aid-in-dying opponents represent narrow viewpoint

8mm

>> ...The decision to forego extraordinary medical care...

He talks like a party-lining butt monkey. Yes, the church teaches thus-and-so, but.....

The "decision" -- that's the camel's nose in the tent. First it's OK for the PATIENT to refuse EXTRAORDINARY care. Then it's OK to refuse all care -- water and food. Then it's OK for a guardian or proxy to make the "decision" supposedly as the patient would wish. Then it's OK for the proxy to make the "decision" that the patient would be better off dead. Then it's OK for doctors, guardians, proxies or a passing taxi driver to kill the patient.

From the beginning, the "decision" has been a license to murder. That's all it's about.