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.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I know I originally said I wouldn't talk about this topic anymore, but then I felt like I'd be a coward for walking away. I'm not going to let this go.

Let's review a few facts about the case:

- Terri's husband was sick. He was having an affair at the time, and was potentially responsible for his wife's injuries in the first place.

- The judge in the case was a liberal

- The lawyer of Terri's husband was a New Ager

- The Bishop of the diocese was a liberal coward

- Even George Bush, as sick as he is, tried to stop her murder

- It took THREE WEEKS for Schiavo to die to death. You think that just because she was "brain dead" means she did not suffer?

I am sorry, Cupertino, but you are wrong. The facts are heavily against your argument, and Father Cekada, being a Traditional priest, should know better. Of course, I realize he is simply mis-informed on the facts, and thus is of good will, but good will does not make up for an illogical position.

You haven't discussed anything of principle here, SS. You are just acting like a liberal, expressing emotions as being some paramount way of deciding things. The principle of extraordinary means of preserving life, and the choice not to take it, does not exclude suffering. Who ever said it did or should?

It is also as if you really haven't read what I have written on the subject. Fr. Cekada did not declare a decision in the Schiavo case. He spoke on some principles and stayed away from deciding that case itself. He started out talking of the case because the news made it look like it was simply a case of a stomach tube, and after people contacted him to show that it was more complicated than that, he merely dedicated his time to covering the speculative principles surrounding extraordinary means. He did not finally apply them to the Schiavo case. Nor do I. I say it was complicated and I was not there to do my own investigating and interviewing. I have no judgment on that particular case either. I know that it was complicated, and the principles themselves reveal that at a distance, the case could be according to essential true principles, that is how close it is, especially when you know how theologians themselves have differed. It is an historical case that no Catholic need make profession of one way or the other.

You also contradict yourself in your final words by saying Fr. Cekada, "being a Traditional priest, should know better", and then immediately say he was "mis-informed".  Why "should" a traditional priest be well-informed on a controversial medical case occurring hundreds of miles away that has nothing to do with him or his own parishioners? No, he shouldn't; and, Fr. Cekada wasn't.

And once again you completely ignore the fact that once he realized the case was complicated, he ceased talking about the case, and focused on principle. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks in, SS?

And I don't mean emotional points like whether the husband was a new-ager or an adulterer, or the bishop a coward, etc., etc. I won't address such irrelevancies.