Replies

A mom pins the tail on the donkey, AKA Bp. Aymond et al. His hiding behind doctor opinions is transparent like a fat guy hiding behind a bamboo. Throughout the years of our son's happy life, we never received from doctors any but the most grim news that our son was suffering and about to die. It continued for twenty six years. His prognosis was always that death was months away at the most. Even his death was from natural causes, an adult sickness.

The bishop would have had him killed at the beginning.

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

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situation to Terri Schiavo's. They are very different; in the Schiavo case, ordinary means — food and water — were withdrawn, which caused her death. http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/04/15/15aymond_edit.html

In deciding the fate of Terri Schiavo, some physicians stated that Terri's condition was irreversible and would result in her death. There were concerns that continuing providing her food and water through a feeding tube would result in extending her life for many years, without improving her condition.

of Austin, Texas, is chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People. He says in his article that "I cannot imagine the pain that Catarina Gonzales is experiencing as she faces terrible questions no mother wants to face...."

I agree, there is no way that Aymond can know the pain that Catarina Gonzales is experiencing thinking about someone robbing her of precious moments with the child that enter the world through her womb.

Instead of excusing those who would rob this mother and child of their natural right that come with 'Motherhood,' it would seem to me , that the religious part of our American society would join Catarina in her effort to make sure that her son gets every opportunity at living a healthy-normal life.

~Snip~

As a mother who knows the pain of losing a child(ren), I can assure you that when God gets ready to call one home, whether or not the child is receiving food through a tube, or oxygen by way of a machine, won't make any difference.

"They are very different; in the Schiavo case, ordinary means — food and water — were withdrawn, which caused her death." -Bishop Gregory Aymond

Different methods of killing don't make the deliberate taking of a human life any less of an evil.

Baby Emilio Life Support _-v- Miracles

8mm

Now here is an analogy one doesn't see every day!

We have the same problem in Iraq we had with Terri Schiavo -- we can't pull out the feeding tube.

More than four years ago, after shock and awe felled the country to civil unconsciousness, our national security physicians inserted a feeding tube into Iraq to restore its health. This treatment was supposed to nourish Iraq while it recovered from its ills, but it has not given the result we wanted. Like Schiavo, our patient has not awakened, Iraqi civil society is in a persistent vegetative state and our own society is fighting about whether to withdraw the feeding tube.

When Schiavo fell unconscious, a feeding tube was imperative to sustain her life until she could regain consciousness. When Iraqi society fell unconscious, a feeding tube was imperative to sustain its life until it could regain civil consciousness. True, the original goal was surgical extirpation of weapons of mass destruction, after which the healthy patient would make a quick recovery without needing a feeding tube, but this was flawed medicine from the start. Mp>

Feeding tube isn't sustaining Iraq

8mm

>> In deciding the fate of Terri Schiavo, some physicians stated that Terri's condition was irreversible and would result in her death.

Irreversible, yes, some did. Terminal, no. The original malpractice jury based her award on the expectation of a normal life span -- 50 more years! (That alone rules out PVS.) She was allowed to live 12 of those years before her murder. The coroner said her heart was strong. He gave her 10 more years. She certainly did not belong in a hospice for the terminally ill.

Just for the armchair lawyers out there, neither the severity or irreversibility of her injuries were relevant to a decision to kill her. It has to be based solely on HER informed consent not to continue medical treatment.

In Terri's case, informed consent was impossible because the law was changed after her injury. An ordinary feeding tube was redefined by statute to be extraordinary and life-prolonging care that a patient could refuse. Terri did not refuse medical care, and even if she had, she could not have known that it would be a horrible death by dehydration and starvation.