| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
24 Mar 2005 05:52:02 PM |
| Object: |
'No Moral Sense' |
'No Moral Sense'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276850/site/newsweek/
A Jesuit bioethicist believes the religious right is exploiting Terri
Schiavo and that there is no moral or legal obligation to keep her
alive.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 12:40 p.m. ET March 24, 2005
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case on
Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling.
March 23 - Despite congressional intervention, a three-judge panel of
the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit refused to
order the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted,
intensifying the fight over the fate of a woman who has become a
symbol-some say pawn-for both the right-to-life and the
right-to-die movements. Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler,
said Wednesday that they plan to appeal one last time to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
.
|
|
| User: "someone" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
24 Mar 2005 06:19:36 PM |
|
|
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case on
Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling
Why don't they just feed her until the decision is made (as to whether
she should be put to death or not), then (assuming they don't change
their mind) inject her, and put here out of her misery.
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "R" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
25 Mar 2005 04:16:05 AM |
|
|
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case on
Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling
Why don't they just feed her until the decision is made (as to whether
she should be put to death or not), then (assuming they don't change
their mind) inject her, and put here out of her misery.
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
Why?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die. If I were in
Terri's position I would want the needle. Quick, painless, and over in a
few minutes. As matter of fact, she should be given cocaine first. Turn
on all the pleasure centers at once and then the big sleep.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
27 Mar 2005 11:47:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:16:05 GMT, R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote:
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case on
Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling
Why don't they just feed her until the decision is made (as to whether
she should be put to death or not), then (assuming they don't change
their mind) inject her, and put here out of her misery.
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
Why?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die. If I were in
Terri's position I would want the needle. Quick, painless, and over in a
few minutes. As matter of fact, she should be given cocaine first. Turn
on all the pleasure centers at once and then the big sleep.
The loving Christians have made the compassionate and empathic
response illegal.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
26 Mar 2005 04:54:27 AM |
|
|
R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns96242B6ACEF81mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>...
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die. If I were in
Terri's position I would want the needle. Quick, painless, and over in a
few minutes. As matter of fact, she should be given cocaine first. Turn
on all the pleasure centers at once and then the big sleep.
Doctors who examined her said the only part of her brain that remains
intact is the brain stem, that all other parts of her brain are liquid.
Her cerebrum and cerebellum no longer exist. She no longer has the
brain of a mammal, let alone a human being. All that is left of her brain
is the stem, the reptilian part, which controls waking, sleeping, heart,
breathing, etc.
The body has the brain of a lizard; Terri Schaivo died 15 years ago.
Suffering requires awareness, the ability to feel pain. Even *if* her
_body_ is suffering, her human consciousness is long gone so
"Terri" feels nothing and is thus not suffering.
The only suffering being inflicted is on Michael by the parents.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
28 Mar 2005 01:00:25 AM |
|
|
"Bob Dog" <bg12345@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fa573de.0503260254.57a60896@posting.google.com...
R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns96242B6ACEF81mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>...
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die. If I were in
Terri's position I would want the needle. Quick, painless, and over in
a
few minutes. As matter of fact, she should be given cocaine first.
Turn
on all the pleasure centers at once and then the big sleep.
Doctors who examined her said the only part of her brain that remains
intact is the brain stem, that all other parts of her brain are liquid.
Her cerebrum and cerebellum no longer exist. She no longer has the
brain of a mammal, let alone a human being. All that is left of her brain
is the stem, the reptilian part, which controls waking, sleeping, heart,
breathing, etc.
The body has the brain of a lizard; Terri Schaivo died 15 years ago.
Suffering requires awareness, the ability to feel pain. Even *if* her
_body_ is suffering, her human consciousness is long gone so
"Terri" feels nothing and is thus not suffering.
I've heard that she's being given morphine to ease any pain that she might
experience, just in case.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
28 Mar 2005 12:03:07 AM |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2005 02:54:27 -0800, (Bob Dog) wrote:
R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns96242B6ACEF81mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>...
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die. If I were in
Terri's position I would want the needle. Quick, painless, and over in a
few minutes. As matter of fact, she should be given cocaine first. Turn
on all the pleasure centers at once and then the big sleep.
Doctors who examined her said the only part of her brain that remains
intact is the brain stem, that all other parts of her brain are liquid.
Her cerebrum and cerebellum no longer exist. She no longer has the
brain of a mammal, let alone a human being. All that is left of her brain
is the stem, the reptilian part, which controls waking, sleeping, heart,
breathing, etc.
The body has the brain of a lizard; Terri Schaivo died 15 years ago.
Suffering requires awareness, the ability to feel pain. Even *if* her
_body_ is suffering, her human consciousness is long gone so
"Terri" feels nothing and is thus not suffering.
The only suffering being inflicted is on Michael by the parents.
No, don't forget the Gestapo which is most of the Federal Government,
Florida State Government, and the Racketeers in the braying idiocy
department otherwise known as the braying jackasses in the
superstition industry and their mindless sychophants.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
25 Mar 2005 08:34:01 AM |
|
|
R wrote:
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case
on
Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling
Why don't they just feed her until the decision is made (as to
whether
she should be put to death or not), then (assuming they don't
change
their mind) inject her, and put here out of her misery.
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to
death?
Why?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die. If I were
in
Terri's position I would want the needle. Quick, painless, and over
in a
few minutes. As matter of fact, she should be given cocaine first.
Turn
on all the pleasure centers at once and then the big sleep.
rj
Normally they would OD her on morphine, but with all the publicity ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
25 Mar 2005 10:18:26 AM |
|
|
R wrote:
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to
death?
Why?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die.
According to a hospice care physician's article in my
local newspaper, death by starvation is pretty
peaceful - even to those that have brains that still
have a conciousness in them. What causes the agony
is doing it slow - your organs start shutting down,
then you scrabble a little bit of food and they
start up again to digest it, up and down towards
suffering. His patients that decided not to take
sustenance at the end had a peaceful couple of weeks,
even pleasant compared to what they'd been going through
before they made the decision - then they slipped into
a coma and passed. Dying that way is the way most
creatures go, our bodies seem to be built for it.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
25 Mar 2005 11:32:44 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1111767506.242250.244060
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
R wrote:
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to
death?
Why?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die.
According to a hospice care physician's article in my
local newspaper, death by starvation is pretty
peaceful - even to those that have brains that still
have a conciousness in them. What causes the agony
is doing it slow - your organs start shutting down,
then you scrabble a little bit of food and they
start up again to digest it, up and down towards
suffering. His patients that decided not to take
sustenance at the end had a peaceful couple of weeks,
even pleasant compared to what they'd been going through
before they made the decision - then they slipped into
a coma and passed. Dying that way is the way most
creatures go, our bodies seem to be built for it.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
I don't believe that starving is painless. The stomach really complains
loudly after just a short period of time and continues to do so. At least
that is what I have been told and has been my experience. Now if you are
taking heavy doses of painkillers or are very ill, then that might be
different. For a normal healty person is is not nice.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
28 Mar 2005 06:17:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:32:44 -0600, rj wrote
(in article <Xns9624757314078bvzxrpl@10.232.1.1>):
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111767506.242250.244060
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
R wrote:
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to
death?
Why?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die.
According to a hospice care physician's article in my
local newspaper, death by starvation is pretty
peaceful - even to those that have brains that still
have a conciousness in them. What causes the agony
is doing it slow - your organs start shutting down,
then you scrabble a little bit of food and they
start up again to digest it, up and down towards
suffering. His patients that decided not to take
sustenance at the end had a peaceful couple of weeks,
even pleasant compared to what they'd been going through
before they made the decision - then they slipped into
a coma and passed. Dying that way is the way most
creatures go, our bodies seem to be built for it.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
I don't believe that starving is painless. The stomach really complains
loudly after just a short period of time and continues to do so. At least
that is what I have been told and has been my experience. Now if you are
taking heavy doses of painkillers or are very ill, then that might be
different. For a normal healty person is is not nice.
rj
I was in the hospital for 3 and a half weeks, I was "fed" what I call
"scrambled water," (a small helping of jello, water, and black coffee.) I
lost 40 pounds, mostly muscle mass, I have always been pretty skinny. After
the first few days the only hunger pains were mental. It did get bad enough
that by the time I was ready for abdominal surgery after more then 2 weeks I
was hooked on watching the Food Channel. But the hunger was nearly all mental
And I still didn't get fed real food, just more of that "scrambled water"
diet, for another week.
Then I got that Mushburger, I am pretty sure that the Food Channel will never
be showing how to make those.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"Letting loafing leaves lie, leads lamentably to large lizard
liquidation?"-Zamboni
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
25 Mar 2005 12:02:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:32:44 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote:
firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111767506.242250.244060
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
R wrote:
"someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1111709976.508066.20060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to
death?
Why?
A very good point. There should be a better way to die.
According to a hospice care physician's article in my
local newspaper, death by starvation is pretty
peaceful - even to those that have brains that still
have a conciousness in them. What causes the agony
is doing it slow - your organs start shutting down,
then you scrabble a little bit of food and they
start up again to digest it, up and down towards
suffering. His patients that decided not to take
sustenance at the end had a peaceful couple of weeks,
even pleasant compared to what they'd been going through
before they made the decision - then they slipped into
a coma and passed. Dying that way is the way most
creatures go, our bodies seem to be built for it.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
I don't believe that starving is painless. The stomach really complains
loudly after just a short period of time and continues to do so. At least
that is what I have been told and has been my experience. Now if you are
taking heavy doses of painkillers or are very ill, then that might be
different. For a normal healty person is is not nice.
Where does it send the pain signals to?
rj
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
28 Mar 2005 08:10:44 AM |
|
|
rj wrote:
I don't believe that starving is painless.
That's fine. What studies have you done of the body's
starvation process, besides missing breakfast on your
way to work?
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
28 Mar 2005 10:10:00 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1112019044.507517.182600
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
rj wrote:
I don't believe that starving is painless.
That's fine. What studies have you done of the body's
starvation process, besides missing breakfast on your
way to work?
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Actually I found out that Terri and all other patients that are starving to
death are put on a morphine drip to relieve any pain. Opioids tend to
reduce the appetite anyway as they decrease G.I. motility, smetimes to a
near standstill.
When my blood sugar drops too low due to lack of food I get a blinding
headache and feel nauseated which continues until I do eat. I have gone 24
hours without eating and after about 12 hours the headache started and
didn't subside until I ate. I was not dehydrated as I had plenty of water
to drink.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
29 Mar 2005 02:15:51 PM |
|
|
rj wrote:
Actually I found out that Terri and all other patients that are
starving to
death are put on a morphine drip to relieve any pain. Opioids tend
to
reduce the appetite anyway as they decrease G.I. motility, smetimes
to a
near standstill.
Looks like the caregivers think that a couple of morphine
suppositories - a *very* low dose - have been more than
enough in Mrs. Schiavo's case. They were probably put
in more to make a nurse more comfortable than for
TS's sake, for all the difference they'll make - the
parts that sense what the morphine could dull aren't
there anymore.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
24 Mar 2005 07:35:06 PM |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2005 16:19:36 -0800, "someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case on
Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling
Why don't they just feed her until the decision is made (as to whether
she should be put to death or not), then (assuming they don't change
their mind) inject her, and put here out of her misery.
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
Why?
The decision was made. The repubs are just trying to go around it for
political gain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
24 Mar 2005 09:12:05 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 16:19:36 -0800, "someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case
on Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling
Why don't they just feed her until the decision is made (as to
whether she should be put to death or not), then (assuming they
don't change their mind) inject her, and put here out of her misery.
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
Why?
The decision was made. The repubs are just trying to go around it for
political gain.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20050325/ap_on_go_co/schiavo_politics
points out that this may backfire "with polls showing as much as 70 to 80
percent of the public wanted politicians to stay out of Schiavo's family
struggle. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
27 Mar 2005 11:47:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:12:05 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 16:19:36 -0800, "someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case
on Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling
Why don't they just feed her until the decision is made (as to
whether she should be put to death or not), then (assuming they
don't change their mind) inject her, and put here out of her misery.
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
Why?
The decision was made. The repubs are just trying to go around it for
political gain.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20050325/ap_on_go_co/schiavo_politics
points out that this may backfire "with polls showing as much as 70 to 80
percent of the public wanted politicians to stay out of Schiavo's family
struggle. "
Backfire won't happen. By the time elections roll around again this
will be 'old news' and the marks will gobble up the new ***** with
a redoubled frenzy. Never overestimate the intelligence of the
general public.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
27 Mar 2005 11:30:23 PM |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2005 16:19:36 -0800, "someone" <glenn.spigel@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case on
Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling
Why don't they just feed her until the decision is made (as to whether
she should be put to death or not), then (assuming they don't change
their mind) inject her, and put here out of her misery.
Christians made compassion and empathy illegal.
Why even take the risk of causing suffering by staving her to death?
No risk as there's nothing but automatic systems.
Why?
That's the only avenue, due to Christian inhumanity, that's open.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
27 Mar 2005 10:32:03 PM |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2005 15:52:02 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
'No Moral Sense'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276850/site/newsweek/
A Jesuit bioethicist believes the religious right is exploiting Terri
Schiavo and that there is no moral or legal obligation to keep her
alive.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 12:40 p.m. ET March 24, 2005
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Schiavo case on
Thursday, Mar. 24. The justices did not immediately provide legal
reasons for their decision, and no justice issued a written dissent
with the one-page ruling.
March 23 - Despite congressional intervention, a three-judge panel of
the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit refused to
order the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted,
intensifying the fight over the fate of a woman who has become a
symbol-some say pawn-for both the right-to-life and the
right-to-die movements. Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler,
said Wednesday that they plan to appeal one last time to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, peripheral players and pundits weighed in on a case that is
drawing wall-to-wall cable coverage. From Washington to Rome, leaders
of the religious right have repeatedly called for American courts to
protect Schiavo—a Roman Catholic woman whom medical experts say is in
a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery—from certain
death if her feeding tube is not replaced. The Vatican’s leading
bioethicist called such a death a “pitiless way to kill” someone.
But much like in the United States, where consensus is a rare
commodity, even the Roman Catholic Church is not unified in its stance
on Schiavo. The Rev. John J. Paris, a bioethics professor at Boston
College and an expert on the intersection of law, medicine, and
ethics, believes that past statements made by the pope have been taken
out of context, misrepresented as church doctrine and applied to the
Schiavo case. He says Schiavo, who has a moral right to die, has been
exploited by the religious right to further its agenda—and if the pope
himself, who has no known living will, were in a similar situation, it
would be “an invitation to open chaos” at the Vatican. Paris spoke to
NEWSWEEK’s Brian Braiker about euthanasia, high-tech life support and
moral obligations. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: The church has said that providing food and water does not
constitute an extraordinary way of sustaining life.
John J. Paris: What you’re quoting is a statement that was issued by
the pope at a meeting of [an] international association of doctors
last year in Rome. This was really a meeting of very
right-to-life-oriented physicians. It was an occasion speech. The pope
meets 150 groups a week—a group comes in and the pope gives a speech.
If the pope tells the Italian Bicycle Riders Association that bicycle
riding is the greatest sport that we have, that doesn’t mean that’s
the church’s teaching, that the skiers and tennis players and golfers
are out. It wasn’t a doctrinal speech.
So it’s been taken out of context?
It has to be seen in the context. This has to be seen in the context
of the pope’s 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia, which says that one need
not use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life. Even
if the treatment is in place, if it proves burdensome it can be
removed. The terms you’ll hear them talk about all the time are
“ordinary” and “extraordinary.” Well, those words are so confused in
the minds of the public that they no longer serve any useful purpose.
People think of extraordinary as respirators or heart transplants.
Extraordinary never referred to technique or to hardware—it referred
to moral obligation. What are we obliged to do?
RABBI MARC GELLMAN
Our columnist looks at the spiritual and moral issues surrounding the
Schiavo case.
What is the church doctrine?
The church doctrine, and it’s been consistent for 400 years, is that
one is not morally obliged to undergo any intervention. And, of
course, 400 years ago they weren’t talking about high technology.
Here’s the example one of the moralists of the 16th century gave: if
you could sustain your life with partridge eggs, which were very
expensive and exotic, would you be obliged to do so? The answer is no,
they’re too expensive. They’re too rare. You can’t get them. They
would be too heavy an obligation to put on people.
Would the pope’s recent tracheotomy qualify as a partridge egg?
No. This was best put together in a statement by the chief justice in
the Brophy [v. New England Sinai Hospital Inc. right-to-die] case. He
said even such things as artificial nutrition and fluid can become
extraordinary if they become burdensome when you have to sustain
somebody for 15 years on it. That’s surely burdensome. It has nothing
to do with the technique itself. Antibiotics could be extraordinary if
a patient is dying and it’s not going to offer many benefits. The
bishops of Florida themselves have addressed this issue of the papal
statement. Right-to-lifers aren’t attacking this Jesuit priest, me;
they’re now attacking all the bishops of Florida saying they are
deviating from the pope. What the right-to-lifers want to say is the
pope said you must always use artificial nutrition and fluids for
patients in persistent vegetative state—and there’s no exception. The
Florida bishops say that’s not what the church has taught and that’s
surely not what this means.
But at the Vatican Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, a bioethicist like
yourself, said "starving" Schiavo to death would be a "pitiless way to
kill" someone.
The people in the Vatican are the same as the people in the United
States: they run the gamut. He represents the radical right-to-life
segment of thinking. But he’s not the only voice in the Catholic
Church. He undoubtedly wrote that speech the pope gave. And now he
says, “See? The pope said it!”
So you’re saying providing Schiavo with food and water is not morally
obligatory?
For 400 years the Roman Catholic moral tradition has said that one is
not obliged to use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain
life.
And in this case, you view this as disproportionately burdensome?
Fifteen years of maintaining a woman [on a feeding tube] I’d say is
disproportionately burdensome, yes.
The editorial page of The New York Times said she has been "exploited"
by the religious right in this country.
I agree with that. First of all, this is not a fight about a feeding
tube in a woman in Florida. This is a fight about the political power
of the Christian right. The argument from Bishop Sgreccia is like
saying, “Tom DeLay just said, ‘In America we never stop feeding
tubes'.” That doesn’t make it true. The fact of the matter is that
feeding tubes are removed every day in hospitals around this country.
We solved this question medically in the United States in 1984 when
the American Medical Association said that patients who are terminally
ill and/or in a persistent vegetative state, it is ethically
acceptable to remove all medical interventions, including artificial
nutrition and fluids. That’s the official statement of the American
Medical Association.
The pope, himself a sick man, has yet to make known a living will.
What do you suppose would happen if he were in a similar situation?
This is the open invitation to chaos. There are no rules in the
Vatican on this sort of thing because, up through 1950, really, it
wouldn’t happen. Doctors tended to kill people more than save them.
Unless there’s some secret document that the pope has written, he
becomes a pawn in the hands of bureaucrats. This organization is no
different than any others.
How does the stance of Schiavo supporters in the church reflect
religious teaching about death?
Here’s the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican
bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not
triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of
Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking
about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit
Christian context. Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral
theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the
Journal of the American Medical Association in 1974 called “To Save or
Let Die.” He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy
is a strong word in theology—these are false doctrines). One is that
life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute
evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited
good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The
parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function
as a human.
But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an “unmitigated
evil”? They just don’t want her death to happen unnecessarily.
It’s not happening unnecessarily. It’s happening because her heart
attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any future human
relationships. The Republican riposte to this is astonishing: interest
in states’ rights disappearing, interest in privacy of the individual
to be free of government intrusion disappearing. If we implemented the
policy articulated by the Congress and the president, we’d have
everyone going forever!
And Social Security would really be in trouble.
[Laughs.] It just makes no moral sense.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
24 Mar 2005 06:08:35 PM |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2005 15:52:02 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
'No Moral Sense'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276850/site/newsweek/
A Jesuit bioethicist believes the religious right is exploiting Terri
Schiavo and that there is no moral or legal obligation to keep her
alive.
He's right.
But then Catholics tend to be more realistic about such things.
I think the problem is that the fundies think there is a soul in there
still. The rest of us know that the mind resides in the brain, and
there simply isn't any brain there any more. Just the stem. The rest
is liquid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: 'No Moral Sense' |
27 Mar 2005 11:28:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:08:35 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 15:52:02 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
'No Moral Sense'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276850/site/newsweek/
A Jesuit bioethicist believes the religious right is exploiting Terri
Schiavo and that there is no moral or legal obligation to keep her
alive.
He's right.
But then Catholics tend to be more realistic about such things.
I think the problem is that the fundies think there is a soul in there
still. The rest of us know that the mind resides in the brain, and
there simply isn't any brain there any more. Just the stem. The rest
is liquid.
The oxymoron comes from combining the words fundies with think.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
