I am answering you, Cupertino, on a discussion forum. This issue has been discussed before in detail (much like the feeneyite discussions) and then you pop in and defend the indefensible. Then you whine when we call you on it.
If you want to defend Fr. Cekada's scandalous position (and behavior) on this issue, then expect to be challenged.
Likewise, expect to be challenged.
Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?
Yes, No, or "I don't know"?
If "Yes", give support for what you say.
To counter these conclusions, we are convinced that the provision of food and fluids is not simply —or strictly — "medical care," but the minimum care that must be provided for the sick, whatever their medical condition. All beings need food and water to live, but such nourishment by itself does not heal or cure disease. In consequence, to stop feeding the permanently unconscious patient is not to withdraw from the battle against illness, but simply to withhold the nourishment that sustains all life.
Moreover, to withdraw the artificial provision of food and fluids is not simply "to allow the patient to die" : what we are doing is not to cease a treatment against disease, but to withdraw what is essential to sustain the life of every human being, either healthy or ill. Death will happen, not because of the illness, but because of our omission to provide adequate nutrition and hydration.
SBJ's quote does not answer Cupertino's question. It only tells us what Fr. Iscara is "convinced" of.
To repeat:
"Now, what do you say, SJB, to the question whether Terry Schiavo was capable (without any artificial means of tube feeding), of getting
enough hydration per day to prevent inevitable dehydration, as well as enough nutrition?"