Author Topic: Schiavo Again  (Read 6952 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SJB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5171
  • Reputation: +1931/-4
  • Gender: Male
Schiavo Again
« Reply #75 on: April 24, 2012, 02:53:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.



    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #76 on: April 24, 2012, 07:25:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Fr. Iscara
    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.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline Canute

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 201
    • Reputation: +143/-0
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #77 on: April 25, 2012, 07:48:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 circumstances 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.

    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #78 on: April 25, 2012, 09:02:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Canute
    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 circumstances 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.


    You should have stopped long ago, you have now just advocated starving anyone who is even passed out, in a coma, or is paralyzed, as they would not be capable of feeding themselves without artificial means.

    You have a moral duty to provide nutrition and water to this person so long as they are capable of recieving it. You are twisting things like a modernist.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #79 on: May 01, 2012, 11:14:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #80 on: May 02, 2012, 06:25:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    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.



    So he commented on a specific case of which he was ill-informed. His purpose was to shock traditional Catholics, not to inform.

    Also, I disagree that Fr. Cekada is a man of good will, he manifestly is not a man of good will.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #81 on: May 02, 2012, 10:23:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    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?


    You're the one acting like a liberal. You didn't even respond to one of my points, except about Father Cekada. You really do not know how to refute someone's points on this matter.

    Quote
    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.


    If he was not well-informed, he shouldn't have bothered giving his opinion. The facts are all out there, regardless of how far away one lives.

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1931/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #82 on: May 02, 2012, 10:48:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Rawhide/Bazz/Nonno/Cupertino
    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?


    You can keep repeating it, but we know it isn't true. Cekada made a judgment on the entire case, and scandalized thousands. That is a fact.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #83 on: May 02, 2012, 10:54:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    I tried to cover all your essential points. You don't even really try. How about handling first-things-first and the slew of points you have not addressed previously? Very hypocritical of you to complain about not responding to points.


    That is a lie and you know it. You didn't respond to anything in my last post except what I said about Father Cekada. It seems to me that you are more interested in defending Father Cekada than actually producing any good arguments to back up your distorted views on the case.

    And you say there are a slew of points I haven't addressed but you don't list any of them. Talk about hypocritical.

    Quote
    There is no such moral principle as not having bothered giving his opinion. You just made that up.


    That is a ridiculous parody of what I said. I said that if he was ill-informed of tha facts, he should not have given his opinion. Or at the very least, he should have done some research. But no, he took the liberal route, and you're doing the same thing.

    Quote
    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?


    That is an absurd statement. You really don't know what you're talking about. You're either putting words in the mouths of your opponents on this topic, or are copying what Father C said. How about using your own arguments?

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #84 on: May 02, 2012, 03:21:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cupertino
    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.


    Emotional points? Um, the husband being an adulterer would be a very important topic. I don't think I need to explain why. I never said he was a new-ager, I said his lawyer was.

    As to your other points, first of all, you and JohnChrysostom argued against man-made machines. That is insane. Might as well take it a step further and say IVs in hospitals shouldn't be used because they're man-made.

    A stomach tube cost too much money? Boo hoo. If money is more important to society than life - and sadly it has become that way - then all I have to say is that society has really gone down the drain.

    Terri saying she wouldn't have wanted her life extended by a machine? How do we know she said that? Where's the proof? Why should we trust her husband, who was clearly a mental case?

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #85 on: May 02, 2012, 08:20:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Rob Sheehan
    This shows your incompetence to even talk about this subject. Just as you think Fr. Cekada was incompetent based on not knowing all the facts, you cannot think straight on the principles. Can the incompetent person judge what is incompetence? No. But they can surely have some grand "feelings" about it!


    I know you can't respond, Rob, but I think it will do this forum some justice to cut through your fog. The above part of your post is so confusing that I'm not even going to bother dealing with it. I stand firm on my statement: Father Cekada shouldn't have commented on something if he didn't know the facts.

    Quote
    The principle about extraordinary means of preserving life has NOTHING to do with condemning man-made machines. It doesn't condemn them. It merely states the moral "option" to discontinue what is extraordinary means of preserving life for an extended period of time. You don't even know what the concept means even at this stage of discussion!


    And that is once again an evasion of what I said. You and JohnC condemned using man-made machines for preserving life.

    Quote
    SS, don't try to judge a trained priest publicly to ruin his reputation when you don't even have the rudiments to think the principles through.


    I am not trying to ruin his reputation. I am defending the truth. You are free to think what you want. Peace be to you as you leave this forum.

    God Bless.


    Offline Sede Catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1306
    • Reputation: +1038/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Schiavo Again
    « Reply #86 on: May 10, 2012, 01:23:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The way Terri Schiavo was put to death was an obviously evil thing.

    It was mortally sinful.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16