Withdrawal of Schiavo Feeding Tube Justified


#1

After examining the issue, I’m not so sure we can say or certain that the removal of Terri’s feeding tube was murder.

Whether a feeding-tube qualifies as an “ordinary” or “proportionate” level of care is today a matter of intense debate among theologians, and the Church has not made a definitive ruling on this subject. Dr. Peter Kreeft, for instance, on the subject of euthanasia in his book Catholic Christianity, gives tube-feeding as an example of an extraordinary means of treatment that is not morally obligatory.

Even if we were to argue that, as Catholics, we must follow the Church’s prudential (though non-definitive) judgement on this matter, it seems to me that we cannot hold Michael Schiavo, a non-Catholic, to this standard.

I don’t believe this issue to be clear-cut as many on the pro-life movement say it was.

Thoughts?


#2

Whether a feeding-tube qualifies as an “ordinary” or “proportionate” level of care is today a matter of intense debate among theologians

I believe that Pope John Paul II said that it was ordinary care and should not be withheld.

After examining the issue, I’m not so sure we can say or certain that the removal of Terri’s feeding tube was murder.

Terri was not dying. I was much amused at the media empahsis on her cause of death was dehydration and she didn’t starve to death as if that made her death more palpable. The autopsy changed nothing. Legalized murder it was.


#3

[quote=Sacramentalist]After examining the issue, I’m not so sure we can say or certain that the removal of Terri’s feeding tube was murder.

Whether a feeding-tube qualifies as an “ordinary” or “proportionate” level of care is today a matter of intense debate among theologians, and the Church has not made a definitive ruling on this subject. Dr. Peter Kreeft, for instance, on the subject of euthanasia in his book Catholic Christianity, gives tube-feeding as an example of an extraordinary means of treatment that is not morally obligatory.

Even if we were to argue that, as Catholics, we must follow the Church’s prudential (though non-definitive) judgement on this matter, it seems to me that we cannot hold Michael Schiavo, a non-Catholic, to this standard.

I don’t believe this issue to be clear-cut as many on the pro-life movement say it was.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

I believe Michael was dead wrong. The Holy Father before his death felt it was wrong. Terry was not dying…she was killed by starvation/dehydration. While it is a difficult call…Terry’s was pretty clear cut. Other cases are not so simple, or perhaps so loaded with malice from a spouse who has deserted to take up life with another. Yet said spouse wants to retain the right to make decisions, and dispatch the disabled spouse to Eternity, and take possession of the money that he promised to use to care for her during the rest of her Natural life. Money awarded because it was deemed she had a natural right to life, however distressing it might appear.

Now extrodianry means to me (as regards to feeding tubes) is undergoing a treatment which will cause further problems to avoid a problem that is not going away anytime soon, and such treatment will render a person in need of a feeding tube for the remainder of their life (short or long).

My husband has decided not to have said treatment and chooses to take his chances that the cancer will spread. I stand by his decision. He at least can speak for himself. If it becomes nessecary later because of the cancer, then we will deal with it. I am not going to let him die of starvation or dehidration. He approves of the feeding tube in that regard only.

Terry unfortunately could not. Michael’s motives changed rather quickly once he got the settlement. If it smells like a Rat…it usually is a rat. And Michael smells like a Rat to me.


#4

I believe that Pope John Paul II said that it was ordinary care and should not be withheld.

So what?

This does not make it definitive or infallible.

And even if authoritative for Catholics, we can’t expect it to be so for non-Catholics like Mr. Schiavo.


#5

[quote=Sacramentalist]So what?

This does not make it definitive or infallible.

And even if authoritative for Catholics, we can’t expect it to be so for non-Catholics like Mr. Schiavo.
[/quote]

Terri was Catholic:eek: Now not only do you assume her life was expendable but her freedom of Religion was too?:eek: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=60755
Read this.


#6

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]Terri was Catholic:eek: Now not only do you assume her life was expendable but her freedom of Religion was too?:eek:
[/quote]

This is perhaps the only possible ground for keeping the feeding tube in. The only one, given the situation.

Terri was brain-dead, and the tube was doing nothing but keeping her alive. The vast majority of doctors said she had no hopeo f recovering. We shoulda just let her alone and had nature take its course.

(I’m being devil’s advocate.)


#7

[quote=Sacramentalist]This is perhaps the only possible ground for keeping the feeding tube in. The only one, given the situation.

Terri was brain-dead, and the tube was doing nothing but keeping her alive. The vast majority of doctors said she had no hopeo f recovering. We shoulda just let her alone and had nature take its course.

(I’m being devil’s advocate.)
[/quote]

The doctors reports from Michael according to the ME,and also I implore you to read and respond to the thread I left.:nope:


#8

[quote=Sacramentalist]This is perhaps the only possible ground for keeping the feeding tube in. The only one, given the situation.

Terri was brain-dead, and the tube was doing nothing but keeping her alive. The vast majority of doctors said she had no hopeo f recovering. We shoulda just let her alone and had nature take its course.

(I’m being devil’s advocate.)
[/quote]

Terri was NOT brain dead. As I’ve said before, when you are brain dead and being “kept alive” your body starts to rot. Basic science. Terri was brain-damaged!


#9

[quote=Sacramentalist]So what?

This does not make it definitive or infallible.

And even if authoritative for Catholics, we can’t expect it to be so for non-Catholics like Mr. Schiavo.
[/quote]

It may not be infallible but it sure makes it definitive.


#10

The whole thing was blown out of proportion by the hungry media and two upset and frantic parents who never liked Terry’s husband in the first place.Terry’s husband was right and the evidence is conclusive. Now please leave it alone. Ding dong the witch is dead and so is the media on this story.


#11

[quote=piety101]The whole thing was blown out of proportion by the hungry media and two upset and frantic parents who never liked Terry’s husband in the first place.Terry’s husband was right and the evidence is conclusive. Now please leave it alone. Ding dong the witch is dead and so is the media on this story.
[/quote]

That by far is the most hateful thing I have ever heard on these boards?http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/6.gifHow dare you say something like that?What is your problem?


#12

I had a big problem with her being dehydrated to death. If her death was so imminent then why would it have been so wrong to give her water by mouth. IF we all KNEW she would die anyway, then why not take the chance that she might be able to swallow water and not have to be dehydrated? Had she gagged and suffocated on the water given her by mouth, why was that less humane then having her dehydrate for two full weeks? Her husband was cruel. May God have mercy on his soul.


#13

[quote=piety101]The whole thing was blown out of proportion by the hungry media and two upset and frantic parents who never liked Terry’s husband in the first place.Terry’s husband was right and the evidence is conclusive. Now please leave it alone. Ding dong the witch is dead and so is the media on this story.
[/quote]

The evidence is conclusive???!!!That’s why the Medical Examiner’s report says that this case is NOT closed. that’s why there’s so many “undetermined” and “inconclusive” findings on there! I read the autopsy report, not the media’s spin on it.


#14

Liza4Catholics

          You must understand that the media takes a story and blows it up beyond truth MOST OF THE TIME. Terry did not want to be on a feeding tube to begin with. This the husband said repeatedly. The parents being upset could not accept truth when confronted with it. The husband was thus painted as a "bad guy" by Schivos parents and the media. But examiners of Terry Schivo's body have proven that Terry Shivo was totally incapable of recovery all along. So please don't rattle my cage door sweetie. The jury is in. You were wrong.

#15

[quote=piety101]The whole thing was blown out of proportion by the hungry media and two upset and frantic parents who never liked Terry’s husband in the first place.Terry’s husband was right and the evidence is conclusive. Now please leave it alone. Ding dong the witch is dead and so is the media on this story.
[/quote]

It was not blown out of proportion. This was a public execution, albeit long, cruel and extremely sad. We tend to treat convicted killers better than Terri.

What makes you think Mr and Mrs Schindler never liked Michael? Do you have personal knowledge of their thoughts and feelings? My understanding based on everything I’ve read was that they were quite fond of him until he decided to kill their daughter.

And what do you mean Michael was 'right." Right to kill his wife so he could keep his ill gotten gains?

Your last remark was tasteless and not becoming of someone who is as old as your profile indicates. You might want to rethink your approach to these issues.

Lisa N


#16

Hi Sacramentalist,

Quote:"After examining the issue, I’m not so sure we can say or certain that the removal of Terri’s feeding tube was murder.

Whether a feeding-tube qualifies as an “ordinary” or “proportionate” level of care is today a matter of intense debate among theologians, and the Church has not made a definitive ruling on this subject. Dr. Peter Kreeft, for instance, on the subject of euthanasia in his book Catholic Christianity, gives tube-feeding as an example of an extraordinary means of treatment that is not morally obligatory.

Even if we were to argue that, as Catholics, we must follow the Church’s prudential (though non-definitive) judgement on this matter, it seems to me that we cannot hold Michael Schiavo, a non-Catholic, to this standard.

I don’t believe this issue to be clear-cut as many on the pro-life movement say it was.

Thoughts?"

My comment: I appreciate your thoughts, I really do. I, however, disagree. If you look only at what was done and nothing else, food and water was taken away from her. If we did this to an animal, we could be thrown into prison! She was starved to death. I don’t know enough on what the Church teaches on this to say much on it but I’m going to find out. With the Terry Schiavo case, we learned that this was happening all over the country. The danger in letting this happen is that soon almost any excuse will be good enough legally to kill someone.

May God bless,

James224


#17

[quote=piety101]Liza4Catholics

You must understand that the media takes a story and blows it up beyond truth MOST OF THE TIME. Terry did not want to be on a feeding tube to begin with. This the husband said repeatedly. The parents being upset could not accept truth when confronted with it. The husband was thus painted as a “bad guy” by Schivos parents and the media. But examiners of Terry Schivo’s body have proven that Terry Shivo was totally incapable of recovery all along. So please don’t rattle my cage door sweetie. The jury is in. You were wrong.
[/quote]

No the jury is not in:mad: And this will be the last post to you because you lack of heart is beyond uncooth:banghead:


#18

[quote=piety101]Liza4Catholics

You must understand that the media takes a story and blows it up beyond truth MOST OF THE TIME. Terry did not want to be on a feeding tube to begin with. This the husband said repeatedly. The parents being upset could not accept truth when confronted with it. The husband was thus painted as a “bad guy” by Schivos parents and the media. But examiners of Terry Schivo’s body have proven that Terry Shivo was totally incapable of recovery all along. So please don’t rattle my cage door sweetie. The jury is in. You were wrong.
[/quote]

Then why did the husband sue to get money for her care, saying, IN A COURT OF LAW, that she wanted to live? It was only after the money came in that he started “remembering” this. This is not media bias, this is straight for court testimony! There are also multiple people that said that Terri did want to live. It was only her husband and one or two of his family members that said otherwise.


#19

Terry did not want to be on a feeding tube to begin with. This the husband said repeatedly.

That is a bunch of hogwash. He came up with that story a full seven years after she failed to die quick enough to suit him. Simply because he said that repeatedly does not make it true.

The report stated that Teri died of dehydration. Since when is giving somebody water considered “extraordinary” means.
What did Jesus say? “…When I was hungry you gave me no food, when I was THIRSTY, you gave me no drink… Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do that unto me.” Michael, his lawyers and doctors **refused to give ****Jesus one drop of water. **


#20

[quote=TobyLue]That is a bunch of hogwash. He came up with that story a full seven years after she failed to die quick enough to suit him. Simply because he said that repeatedly does not make it true.

The report stated that Teri died of dehydration. Since when is giving somebody water considered “extraordinary” means.
What did Jesus say? “…When I was hungry you gave me no food, when I was THIRSTY, you gave me no drink… Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do that unto me.” Michael, his lawyers and doctors **refused to give ****Jesus one drop of water. **
[/quote]

:clapping: :tiphat: Very well said!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.