Quote from: Fr. Cekada

3. Providing nutrition and hydration artificially on a permanent basis does indeed constitute a grave burden:

"Routine medical practice today utilizes intravenous feeding in in a countless variety of cases. Certainly the physician regards this procedure as an ordinary means of safeguarding life. It is obviously capable of being carried out, under normal hospital conditions, without any notable inconvenience. For these reasons, I would regard recourse to intravenous feeding, in the case of typical hospitalized patients, as an ordinary and morally compulsory procedure.

"The above statement applies, as stated, to routine hospital cases and where the procedure is envisioned as a temporary means of carrying a person through a critical period. Surely any effort to sustain life permanently in this fashion would constitute a grave hardship."Charles McFadden OSA, Medical Ethics, 4th ed., (Philadelphia: 1956), imprimatur by Cardinal O'Hara.

Accordingly, when it is envisioned that such means will need to be employed permanently, they become "extraordinary" and there is no moral requirement to continue their use.

Even when discussing an IV drip, which we are not discussing, Fr. McFadden says the following:

Quote from: Fr. Joseph McFadden, Medical Ethics, 1958 edition, pages 273-274

In actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenous feeding in the above case. The fact that this form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessitates a different outlook on the problem. First, the danger of scandal would be very real: members of a family who know that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and who then witness the withdrawal of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering Second, doctors who received permission, possibly from a hospital chaplain, to act in this fashion in this specific type of case would not appreciate all ofthe fine moral distinctions involved, and soon they would be carrying over the practice to countless cases wherein they regarded the preservation of a life as useless. Third, it is fundamentally the patient himself who
has the right to decide whether or not he shall continue with a useless and extraordinary means which will prolong his intense suffering It would be rash, indeed, to pose the question to him in his present condition, and it might be equally rash for others to make the decision for him. Who but God knows what goes on in the mind of such a person? Who but God knows what spiritual benefit such suffering may hold for the patient- on the basis of intentions made before the suffering became so intense but at a time when the patient anticipated them as a proximate reality. Finally, who is willing to assume the responsibility for acting as if the patient has spiritually prepared himself for death? If medical opinion believes that the patient could survive a few weeks, it may very well be that the patient himself believes that he will completely recover. If such be the case, even the fact that the person has received the Last Sacraments is no guarantee that they have been rightly and fruitfully received. (Fr. Joseph McFadden, Medical Ethics, 1958 edition, pages 273-274)

This is difference of opinion, NOT Canon Law.
(Though more inclined to agree with Father McFadden)
But it falls back on Extraordinary Measures to one in a Vegetative state.



Yet once more
1. What right does anyone have to Betray the wishes of their loved one, who direct them to not be attached To Artifical  Machines, for life?
Terri Schiavo told 3 seperate Family members her Directives to NOT be assisted at living BY Machinery IF it were to ever occur.

2. Who do you know, including yourself, that wishes to be kept alive via artificial machinery, whether feeding or breathing tubes after suffering severe brain damage / coma fo any length of time, if at all?

Quote from: Fr. Cekada

3. Providing nutrition and hydration artificially on a permanent basis does indeed constitute a grave burden:

"Routine medical practice today utilizes intravenous feeding in in a countless variety of cases. Certainly the physician regards this procedure as an ordinary means of safeguarding life. It is obviously capable of being carried out, under normal hospital conditions, without any notable inconvenience. For these reasons, I would regard recourse to intravenous feeding, in the case of typical hospitalized patients, as an ordinary and morally compulsory procedure.

"The above statement applies, as stated, to routine hospital cases and where the procedure is envisioned as a temporary means of carrying a person through a critical period. Surely any effort to sustain life permanently in this fashion would constitute a grave hardship."Charles McFadden OSA, Medical Ethics, 4th ed., (Philadelphia: 1956), imprimatur by Cardinal O'Hara.

Accordingly, when it is envisioned that such means will need to be employed permanently, they become "extraordinary" and there is no moral requirement to continue their use.

Even when discussing an IV drip, which we are not discussing, Fr. McFadden says the following:

Quote from: Fr. Joseph McFadden, Medical Ethics, 1958 edition, pages 273-274

In actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenous feeding in the above case. The fact that this form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessitates a different outlook on the problem. First, the danger of scandal would be very real: members of a family who know that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and who then witness the withdrawal of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering Second, doctors who received permission, possibly from a hospital chaplain, to act in this fashion in this specific type of case would not appreciate all ofthe fine moral distinctions involved, and soon they would be carrying over the practice to countless cases wherein they regarded the preservation of a life as useless. Third, it is fundamentally the patient himself who has the right to decide whether or not he shall continue with a useless and extraordinary means which will prolong his intense suffering It would be rash, indeed, to pose the question to him in his present condition, and it might be equally rash for others to make the decision for him. Who but God knows what goes on in the mind of such a person? Who but God knows what spiritual benefit such suffering may hold for the patient- on the basis of intentions made before the suffering became so intense but at a time when the patient anticipated them as a proximate reality. Finally, who is willing to assume the responsibility for acting as if the patient has spiritually prepared himself for death? If medical opinion believes that the patient could survive a few weeks, it may very well be that the patient himself believes that he will completely recover. If such be the case, even the fact that the person has received the Last Sacraments is no guarantee that they have been rightly and fruitfully received. (Fr. Joseph McFadden, Medical Ethics, 1958 edition, pages 273-274)

The second quote from McFadden does not refute the general principle that Cekada takes from the first quote of McFadden.

Compare what I have put in bold.

McFadden is talking about a specific case, and he's not saying the action is EVIL IN ITSELF, but that he would be against it in practice because of OTHER evils that could occur incidentally: scandal, the doctors might misunderstand, or the patient might be deprived of an opportunity to offer up his sufferings.

So as far as I'm concerned, there's no proof yet that the two emails are wrong on any moral principle.

Still no evidence for the "accessory to murder" accusation!

From the Schiavo Revisited thread:

Quote from: Fr. Cekada

"Many traditional and "conservative" Catholics were misled by unprincipled politicians and pseudo-conservative talk-show hosts into thinking of it as a pro-life or anti-euthanasia case.

It was no such thing...

That (the above) was a judgement about the entire case, not merely about the question of "extraordinary means." People who were convinced that Mrs. Schiavo could swallow without assistance, for example, would therefore have been outraged by that judgement, because it rashly (and in their judgement, inaccurately) narrowed the case down to a question of the continuance of extraordinary intervention.

I have also learned from the text of Fr. Joseph McFadden, and it is really very instructive to have witnessed the enormous scandal taken from this case by various parties and then to see what this moralist wrote about that point so many years ago.

Quote from: Fr. McFadden

In actual medical practice, however, I would be very much opposed to any cessation of intravenous feeding in the above case. The fact that this form of nourishment has already been in use in this case necessitates a different outlook on the problem. First, the danger of scandal would be very real: members of a family who know that their loved one is expected to live several weeks and who then witness the withdrawal of nourishment, followed by death within a day, would almost surely believe that the patient had been deliberately killed in order to avert further suffering.

In your 7:53 post, you gave us one Cekada quote using McFadden, and you put a second McFadden quote beneath it, implying the second quote refuted what Fr. Cekada had said.

I responded by saying that the second quote from McFadden did not refute the general principle that Cekada took from the first quote of McFadden.

The reason: McFadden was talking about a specific case, and not saying the action was EVIL IN ITSELF, but that he would be against it in practice because of OTHER evils that could occur incidentally.

So in your 9:10 post, you delete the first quote and replace it with something Fr. said about unprincipled politicians, and people being "scandalized." And you call it Fr's general JUDGMENT" on the case.

But a "general JUDGMENT" is not the same thing as  "general moral PRINCIPLE," which is in fact what Fr was talking about.

What is more, Fr.'s statement still gets you nowhere anyway, because under McFadden's principle, what you describe are only INCIDENTAL evils. These do not make the action Fr. was defending EVIL IN ITSELF.

It's all just more evidence to pop the bubble on the phony "accessory to murder" charge you and the Cabal have been spreading around.