For me, it was the Cask of Amontillado. Being walled in, buried alive. It still creeps me out.
That is my position. It is up to the family and other half to make sure it happens. If they won’t then it’s up to the court to enforce the final wish.
Why so opposed then to letting somebody else go ‘home?’ I’m perfectly convinced that there was nothing left of Terri Schiavo besides her body, but even if I’m wrong, why would you prefer to keep somebody locked in the prison of their own unresponsive body for years before letting them go to this wonderful home you speak of?
Agreed. And if the non-ambiguity of the wishes is contested by the birth family, the spouse, as next-of-kin, still gets the final say (even if it’s to continue with a delusional quest to re-grow a brain from a skull full of cerebro-spinal fluid).
I’ll quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (for it expresses my opionions in full):
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Does the catechism just happen to line up with your own beliefs or is this something you believe because the Pope told you to?
Neither.
Were you trying to be clever? I’m sorry.
No, I was asking a serious question. You stated that the catechism “stated your opinions in full”. I am curious as to whether those are actually your opinions or not.
(Awestruck by the digression on Poe. You do not see that on you other discussion fora.)
Again, as I’ve said before it does seem like there are a lot of parents/loved ones in denial. But then again, there’s quite a bit we don’t know about how the brain works. Yes, Teri didn’t have a brain. It was basicly CS fluid. But there are kids with a condition called hydrancephaly, where they don’t have a brain…just CF fluid. Its kind of interesting as you can shine a flashlight against the kid’s skull and it shines right through, just like in a Warner Bros cartoon.
None of the kids are mentally normal… but some of them can interact on an infant level
http://hydranencephaly.com/ Then again, its hard to say whether it’s really happening or its due to parents who are almost " oh they kick their legs out or they do this or that! The docs are WRONG!"
<nevermind>
This has always been an odd subject for me, since I was clinically dead for 45 minutes as a toddler. I am thrilled my parents didn’t give up on me, even when the doctors had. But, then again, 45 minutes isn’t that long.
At a certain point, even if you believe in miracles, you have to “Let go and let God.” So you wind up in the same position of those who don’t believe.
I really can’t say when I formed this opinion, and whether Ms. Shiavo’s death had anything to do with it. But I thought I’d share, for lekatt’s sake if no one else’s.
It is a fair question. It also brings up a major point.
Which is, why would and why should the Catechism apply? Is it supposed to be The Law now? What about those who are not Catholic? Should they be required by law to obey it? I don’t think so.
Personally I agree with the general spirit of most of the rules quoted by Ají de Gallina, even though they come from the Catholic catechism - the origin of the rules shouldn’t prejudice anyone against them.
The main disagreement I would have with the rules is section 2277: “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.”
People should have the opportunity to end their life in certain cases. Defining the cases is the tough part. Suppose someone has an incurable disease and asks for euthanasia, but the doctor predicts they can be alive for another 12 months? I would try to talk them out of ending their life. Unless they are in severe pain. But then at what level of pain do we tell the person that it’s OK to die? What if someone has a severe mental illness and wants to commit suicide? Do those people deserve euthanasia?
In general, I think the rule is too absolute but I would agree that euthanasia should only be applied in extreme circumstances.
I think a big problem is people read all that, and they (often) come away with a preconceived notion.
I have no problem with that, as everyone deserves respect.
How direct does it have to be? Shooting or poisoning) are both direct. But, again, what about a simple cessation of life support, meaning you stop all “heroic” measures? If a person is brain dead, or in a persistent profound vegetative state with no hope of recovery, ever, shouldn’t that be a strong indicator that there is no point in conituing treatment?
And here we have it. A person has the right to refuse care, and the doctor has the right to respect that wish. “it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted.”
That is the KEY phrase. Preserve life if you can, but don’t inflict methods that do nothing more than prolong death. I’d say that’s a good reading of it.
Ordinary care, not extraordinary or heroic.
Personally a bullet to the head seems like a better end than some other “natural causees”. At least the bullet ends it faster (and we are talking about cases where death is inevitable, or where brain dead vegetativeness has already ocurred).
So, to summarize:
According to MY reading of those words, it was right and proper to let Terri Schiavo go. She was already gone.
I don’t have anything new to add, I just wanted to say that when all this was going on 5 years ago, the Straight Dope was a great help in trying to get to the truth of what was going on. There was so much disinformation and flat out lies being reported, it was great to be able to find links to the actual court documents and to be able to refute some of the stupid things people were saying.
I still think Michael Schiavo is an incredibly brave and resolute man who has my utmost respect. When you think about what he went through and for so many years–the media circus, the court battles, the seemingly endless struggle to do the right thing for a spouse who was gone…and yet right there in the bed…but not. Boggles the mind.
I stand by what I said. You wanted my opinions and I gave them. How i come to my opinions is of little importance for this thread.
With an expected outcome of no mental awareness and eventual death, the medical procedure of a feeding tube was disproportionate to the expected outcome. There was no reason in the Catechism to dishonour her wish to not be kept alive under such circumstances.
My opinion remains the same now as it did then: an individual’s wish to not be kept alive by artificial measures when there is no reasonable prospect of quality of life should be respected. The religious right and the Republicans were and are of concern to me because of their forceful opposition to individual self-determination.
Ají de Gallina
Back in post #86 of this thread I asked you a direct question that you have ignored, Have you ever had to make the decision to end the life support of someone that you cared about?
If you were put into that position would you carry out that persons request to end support even if it was against your religious beliefs?