Whatever you do to the least of them
Once again Commonweal is trying to have it both ways. The recent statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) concerning the morality of removing feeding tubes from patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) is being attacked for not fitting the traditional criteria in their opinion. Yes now Commonweal want to appeal to tradition and this time their can be no doctrinal development. Someone how they are able to take in developments by Pope John Paul II on the death penalty, but can't take in his view on artificial nutrition.
But mainly their whole argument is false in saying that "appears to contradict the traditional criteria used to determine whether a particular medical treatment is ordinary and proportionate and therefore obligatory, or extraordinary and disproportionate and therefore optional." The statement by the CDF does no such thing. The CDF is not contradicting or eliminating these terms, they are simply saying that artificial nutrition and hydration for those diagnosed as PVS should can not be denied.
Somehow also progressives who can get totally behind moral relativity can't seem to understand that due to medical progress that what once was extraordinary and disproportionate can become ordinary and proportionate. Yes progressives can't get a handle on progress. They have no problem with artificial birth control, but draw the line at artificial nutrition.
Whether patients who are incapable of feeding themselves and will never regain consciousness can be said to be dying is part of the moral conundrum surrounding PVS.
Though of course they don't mention that the mistaken diagnosis of PVS is quite high and the there has even been progress with some medicines to bring people back to consciousness. Regardless though someone's current state of consciousness does not remove their human dignity or the duty of those who care for them to give them food and water.
As Sulmasy notes, most people’s reaction to the prospect of being kept alive in a condition like Terri Schiavo’s is one of horror. That moral instinct has long been recognized in Catholic teaching, as has the distinction between removing feeding tubes from someone in PVS, thus allowing him to die, and intending his death.
So I guess peoples reactions is much more important than a moral imperative to feed those who are sick. Peoples reaction to the thought of quadriplegic is also one of horror - so lets kill them to. So much for "For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink." and "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me." Amen I say to the editors of Commonweal by pulling the proverbial plug from the least of them you are doing it to Him.
Known as 
"bring people back to conciseness"
Would be good to bring some of the editors of commonwheel back to conciseness, but I digress.
Love your point that the progressives just can't handle progress.
Love the subjectivist morality. If your condition makes ME uncomfortable, it's right for me to deprive YOU of food and water. What is it about incapacitated people that brings out the murderous impulses in these people? And why is it always the "smart" people who are most supportive of these evil drives?
Er, I think the "horror" referred to is that felt by people at the prospect of ending up in that condition themselvs, not ate being "forced" to see it happen to someone else. I had to discuss this with a close friend who "just collapsed" after what her doctors said was not a stroke (which appeared tobe a distinction without a difference), and to appearances might well have ended up like Terri. But she still did not change her own views about the prospect of "extraordinary measures" to keep her breathing-but-nothing-else, and did not even feel any particular gratification at having survived.
Of course, in her case there was more to go on than a passing remark twenty years before.
"For I was hungry, but since it freaked you out it's totally okay that you didn't give me to eat."
Really, this isn't too farfetched. A good many "decent people" in the 1800's were far more disgusted and horrified by the poor than by the sick or disabled. I mean, anyone could get sick at any time. But being poor? That was a sign of moral degradation!
Jeff, Thanks for the articulate observations on this issue. Life is hard. Aging is hard. Illness is hard. However, that doesn't give us the right to make a decision for someone else as to whether they should live or die. Studies have shown that a person's view on whether or not they would want to receive treatment changes as they become ill. When a person is very healthy they tend to think "I wouldn't want to live that way." However, when they become sick or disabled, they tend to want to live and receive treatment, even with the disability.
Maybe the people who are pontificating on removing feeding tubes should dedicate some time to visiting nursing home residents or group homes for the retarded. Instead of advocating to end their lives, how about making their lives a little brighter?
I think they are being consistent in their thinking.
Compare "most people’s reaction to the prospect of being kept alive in a condition like Terri Schiavo’s is one of horror" to the repeated arguments for pro-choice, for example, "If this fetus is born, a child will starve.", "If everyone has children, the world will starve", "If parents don't WANT the pregnancy, the child will suffer terrible abuse", and a real, live, PPRI quote from this year, "If we can't have abortion, our population will be overfilled with POOR Afro-Americans!"
This fear of suffering and certainty that unbearable suffering will occur is the popular "compassion". Not real compassion, most of the time. (Rarely do these horrified folks suffer hardship for others, these days. If you offer them a way to actually help a needy person or country,most of them scurry off to the local latte lounge to "think" about it.)