CathInfo.com

Respiration is equally basic for the preservation of life, but its artificial maintenance is nevertheless a medical procedure which replaces a vegetative function impaired or suspended by disease —that is to say, every human being breathes on his own since the moment of birth, and there is no natural stage in the development of a human being when breathing has to be assisted, the present disease is —in consequence —the direct cause of the inability to breathe.

Consequently, its use in certain medical conditions might be considered as an extraordinary means, and its withdrawal —unlike the case of withdrawal of artificial nutrition —would be this time equivalent to letting the disease continue its course, to allow the patient to die. In the case of a patient in terminal condition, that is, when death is imminent, this withdrawal is morally permissible.

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino

SJB, I have seen you cite about 3 times in the past few months about the ice chips and jello. I started this thread specifically to talk with SS, but he is finished, and you showed a great desire to be part of it from the beginning. I am asking my question of you because it pertains to the ice and jello and Schiavo.

"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?"

Quote from: Fr. Iscara

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.

Fr. Iscara is not contradicting himself when he says, also:

Quote from: Fr. Iscara

there might be circuмstances in which, because of a subjective disposition, the ordinary means become extraordinary for a particular person; the excuse for not using them does not arise from the means themselves, but from the subjective moral impossibility of this concrete individual to use them.

That is why I am asking you my question, which you are not answering, SJB.

SJB, You keep on switching your argument back and forth between GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES and PARTICULAR MEDICAL FACTS of the Schiavo case.

When you've been pushed up against the wall on one side of the argument (Where are the errors in the moral principles Fr. Cekada's laid down?), you take evasive action and shift to bringing up supposed particular medical facts of the case (ice chips)

Now that Cupertino has really nailed you the question of a medical fact (dehydration rates) that would destroy your argument, you try to weasel out by quoting Fr. Iscara and trying to drag the discussion back to GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES.

Just answer Cupertino's question:

"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?"

If you can't do that, you might as well get out of the debate, because you're wasting everyone's time.