Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Catholic teaching is not necessarily that life must be extended using all means and tools possible.
Rather, it's more nuanced than that. There's a distinction between ordinary means and extraordinary means. Feeding and hydration would be ordinary means; drastic surgeries would be an example of extraordinary means.
Withholding ordinary means is tantamount to homicide or suicide, and therefore usually immoral, even when the person is suffering greatly.
Extraordinary means do not have to be administered, and perhaps it is even sometimes virtuous to forego them.
From what I understand, this mom already HAS the legal ability to cut off all nutrition to her kids. She COULD starve/dehydrate them to death.
THAT is within the parameters of the law.
She doesn't want to go that route.
She would prefer it be quicker than weeks of starvation and dehydration.
Now, let's get some common friggin' sense together and what would you prefer she do? Because she is going to do something. She'd just prefer a more humane way to go about it.
Those "kids" aren't kids. They're what, late 30's early 40's? They have no quality of life. They barely exist.
So here's the choice: legally starve/dehydrate them OR make it a lot quicker.
It doesn't matter if you approve or don't approve or what you would do or would not...she can pull the plug on their nutrition/hydration at any given moment. She is looking for a more merciful way for her children to not have to suffer through the only choice available to her right now because she wants to end their misery.
They have a disease, apparently a progressive disease that there is no cure or treatment for. They didn't end up in a coma one day, there is no hope for these two to recover. They exist, and barely.
Spoken exactly like somebody indoctrinated by the culture of death.
I am a nurse to people like this. I find some of you guys comments offensive.
Camparing them to grass? Really?
Last time I checked grass didn't have heartbeats.
Whatever you think separates humans from other life on this planet, is missing in this case. Her choice is to remove the feeding tubes and let them starve to death, a merciful injection, or deliver them to an institution for the rest of their days. This is an act of kindness and selflessness.
The Catholic teaching is not necessarily that life must be extended using all means and tools possible.
Rather, it's more nuanced than that. There's a distinction between ordinary means and extraordinary means. Feeding and hydration would be ordinary means; drastic surgeries would be an example of extraordinary means.
Withholding ordinary means is tantamount to homicide or suicide, and therefore usually immoral, even when the person is suffering greatly.
Extraordinary means do not have to be administered, and perhaps it is even sometimes virtuous to forego them.
Would it then surprise you that at least some Catholic hospitals have no issues with the withdrawal of artificial nutrition (ie, tube feeds/TPN, wherein the patient cannot feed orally) or ventilation?
Would it then surprise you that at least some Catholic hospitals have no issues with the withdrawal of artificial nutrition (ie, tube feeds/TPN, wherein the patient cannot feed orally) or ventilation?
I've worked for several.
For artificial hydration / nutrition, the issue is a little bit blotchier.
Here's an article from an orthodox Catholic website:
Catholic morality has long (if not always) been oriented not exclusively on the outcome but also on the intention of the actor. In addition, there are some absolute rules that apply in every circumstance. Homicide of an innocent is always wrong in Catholic theology; hence, acting with a homicidal intent is always wrong, even if motivated by "mercy". On the other hand, accepting death as a side effect is not always wrong. So giving a patient - with their consent - an overdose of pain medication to intentionally kill them would be unethical, but to do it to relieve pain, even though the outcome is the same, could possibly be licit (I don't quite know when, but I believe I've heard that before).
The liberals here said their lives are worthless, which is the most disgusting thing I've ever read on this board. I can't believe liberals try to pretend to be these quality of life experts about caring for the poor, yet actually think they have the moral capacity to determine the worth of other people's lives.
Who or what gives you the authority to make this decision. It should be made by the person themselves, or someone close to them that has their best interest at heart. If no one can speak on their behalf, and the person never made their wishes known, then a committee of medical personnel should be given that authority. Every person with a pulse should not be forced to endure a life of dependency and hopelessness, particularly if there is physical suffering that cannot be relieved.
Catholic morality has long (if not always) been oriented not exclusively on the outcome but also on the intention of the actor. In addition, there are some absolute rules that apply in every circumstance. Homicide of an innocent is always wrong in Catholic theology; hence, acting with a homicidal intent is always wrong, even if motivated by "mercy". On the other hand, accepting death as a side effect is not always wrong. So giving a patient - with their consent - an overdose of pain medication to intentionally kill them would be unethical, but to do it to relieve pain, even though the outcome is the same, are morally two different acts.
It's very clear where the mom in this case is coming from.
The Catholic church and it's minions can sit around all day long and debate it.
No one cares.
The law, where this mom lives, is what it is.
The question, as it stands, is would you prefer she starve her adult children to death over the course of 10-20 days, or give her a more merciful way to do the same.
At the same time, if one isn't Catholic WHO CARES what the Catholic church thinks?
Do YOU care that you eat bottom feeders b/c the orthodox Jews refuse to and what that means to them? Are you keeping kosher, because Jewish law says...?
This has NOTHING to do with the Catholic church. Stop dragging my beloved church and religion through the mud and making us all look NUTS.
These poor wretches can't even speak to their wishes any more but we presume to deny their mother knowing what they would wish?
I think this is really the issue here. Who speaks for those who can't speak for themselves? Who should decide for those incapable of making their own decisions? The state? The public at large? Or the woman who gave birth to them?
This mother, God bless her soul has suffered beyond the causal observer's imagination, having to watch her children live a non-living existence, trapped in their non-functioning bodies by modern medical techniques.
We've become a twisted, illogical and callous society ... not blinking an eye at the termination of over a Million babies each year, flushed down the toilet, more often than not, for the sake of mere convenience. Yet, the self righteous keepers of morality have such heartburn with the wishes of this mother who is obviously acting out of pure selfless, loving compassion .. as any mother should do. How dare her to assume that her children would wish the same thing most of us would wish for ourselves? She should ignore the likely plea (if these poor souls could actually manage it) "please don't let me be trapped and let me suffer for DECADES"?
Now, I understand the aversion to "euthanasia" because I share it. If any hope exists, I believe we are obligated as human beings to employ every technology that exists, and extend any effort necessary to preserve a person's life, if indeed there is life to preserve. By the same measure, we have an equal obligation to honor others, including their dignity and comfort and best interests, irrespective of our personal sense of moral righteousness, as that might pertain to someone else. Better to ask ourselves, what would we choose if we were stricken such as these two people are, and follow that course.
I know what I would want .. and if ever that fate should befall me, I hope someone is there that loves me enough to make the difficult decision that this mother is trying to make for her children.
There is no greater show of love and compassion than to ignore your own feelings, and think only of someone else's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
