Pro-life

With the headline of this story "Jesuit bioethicist says Schiavo has right to die" you could have left off Jesuit and still know that a Jesuit was involved. You can always expect sources like Newsweek to go thelogian shopping to find one that disagrees with Church teaching. Unfortunately this is not a difficult task for them.

…The bishops of Florida themselves have addressed this issue of the papal statement. Right-to-lifers aren’t attacking this Jesuit priest, me; they’re now attacking all the bishops of Florida saying they are deviating from the pope. What the right-to-lifers want to say is the pope said you must always use artificial nutrition and fluids for patients in persistent vegetative state—and there’s no exception. The Florida bishops say that’s not what the church has taught and that’s surely not what this means.

Not surprisingly what he said is not accurate in any way of the position of the Florida Bishops. Their last statement directly used the Pope’s statement and they went on to say. We as pro-lifers might be less than enthused with Bishop "can’t we all just get along" Lynch statements, but the Florida Catholic Conference is totally in line with what the pope wrote.

Simply put, we are called to provide basic means of sustenance such as food and water unless they are doing more harm than good to the patient, or are useless because the patient’s death is imminent. As long as they effectively provide nourishment and help provide comfort, we should see them as part of what we owe to all who are helpless and in our care. In certain situations a patient may morally refuse medical treatment and such decisions may properly be seen as an expression of our hope of union with God in the life to come.

The Rev. John J. Paris goes on to say.

So you’re saying providing Schiavo with food and water is not morally obligatory?
For 400 years the Roman Catholic moral tradition has said that one is not obliged to use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life.

And in this case, you view this as disproportionately burdensome?
Fifteen years of maintaining a woman [on a feeding tube] I’d say is disproportionately burdensome, yes.

Listening to many Jesuits is also disproportionately burdensome. Disproportionately burdensome is defined where a burden outweighs whatever benefit they provide. So I think that fits for most bioethicists.

This has got to be the dumbest argument I have heard for starving Terri Schiavo to death and it was made by a woman who is both a Catholic and a Republican.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — She’s known for her no-nonsense tone, but when Sen. Nancy Argenziano took the floor after a week of closed-door negotiations over legislation meant to keep Terri Schiavo alive, she wept.

"I believe keeping someone from getting to heaven is the wrong thing to do," she said Friday, handkerchief in hand, as she explained why she couldn’t vote to prolong the brain-damaged woman’s life.[Source]

So by this view we should just kill everybody so that those who are going to Heaven will go immediately. That we should adopt the Marine Core’s saying “Kill’em all, and let God sort’em out" in non-war situations. This sounds like a modern version of Albigensianism. They were dualist who believed that the body was evil. Some would keep from having Baptism and then after being Baptized would starve themselves to death so as to go free their souls from their bodies and to to to Heaven immediately. This Albigensianism view is ironically appropriate in this case. The Senator is just being somewhat consistent since she has previously said "I am opposed to government-compelled pregnancy" though she did vote for parents to be notified in their children want an abortion. With this view allowing abortion is alright so that the baby will go to Heaven sooner.

Update: I received a response when I wrote the Senator concerning her statement. You just got to love a reply in response to legislation prevent someone from being starved to death by saying perhaps that I need to read the Bible.

Your response has nothing to do with this case. Perhaps you need to read the bible.

Ecclesiastes 8:8a "no man has the authority to restrain the wind with the wind, or authority over the day of death

Philippians 21- For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain

23- for I am in a starit betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better

Quote from Billy Graham–…"But someitmes modern medical thecnology doesn’t prolong life, it delays death. When that is the case, we may be actualy be trying to do something God has not willed.

I believe should God desire to keep a person alive, he is perfectly capable of doing so without the help of feeding tubes and or respirators. Thats true faith in my opinion. But it seems that you have no room for any body elses opinion. I respect those on the other sid eof this issue because they truly belive that it is the right thing to do. How can anyone ever not respect people for doing what they belive is right? Even when we disagree there is still respect. I truly believe, as does many religions in this country that it is wrong not to let some one get to heaven by keeping them alive this way. However, I have heard from my constituents and there weere far more people in my district who did not want me to vote for the amendment, then who did. Primarily for the resaon of them not wanting government in their most private issues. Have you read the amendment that I voted no on? Do you know it opened the door to allow "any interested party" intervene in a family’s private issues such asthis one? Do you understand what that may actually do?

Lets say theres another girl named Janice, she is in the same state as Terry except she has no husband, no living will na dher mother is her guardian. She
told her mother she did not want to be taken off feeding tubes, or she never told her mother otherwise. Her mother keeps her on the feeding tube and is takng care of her. There is no litigation. That amendment if passed would allow "any interested" party, lets say someone form the right to die with dignity organization, to intervene, challege the mother and could succeed in getting rid of the feeding tube. A perfect starnger could do they exact opposite of what was intended in that amendment. Not a good thing. I took the time to write to you even though you are not a constituent because this is such a very hard issue. You cannot think this has been easy.

There are many different opinions on this.

Because of a list of quotes that have recently been propagated concerning Rudolph Giuliani past statements he has responded. He clarified the comment regarding the theoretical case of his daughter seeking an abortion as being taken out of context.

DONAHUE: You have apparently found yourself on the great trap door called abortion. And not a few so-called experts believe that the agonized approach that you’ve brought to this issue accounts for the decline in your position in the polls.

GIULIANI: Maybe people don’t understand that I didn’t start all this as a politician would start it, with some canned answer. I thought about it a lot. In my discussion of it, I may have thought out loud a bit.

I’ve said that I’ll uphold a woman’s right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.

I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views . . .

DONAHUE: . . . . Which would be to continue the pregnancy.

GIULIANI: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman – my daughter or any other woman – would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I’d support that. I’d give my daughter the money for it.

And if that’s my private resolution of it, that’s the way I have to resolve it publicly. [END OF EXCERPT]

That clarification will really assure pro-lifers as if having "personal concerns" about it and encouraging to keep the baby first is in any way acceptable. If "personal concerns" allow you to pay for the death of your own grandchild then sponges have more moral convictions.

Tallahassee — As the clock runs down for politicians to find a solution in a widely followed right-to-die case, the public’s verdict may not come in until the 2006 election.

Republican legislators in Tallahassee and Washington were rushing Thursday to pass a law that would keep Terri Schiavo alive. A judge has cleared the way for the severely brain-damaged woman’s feeding tube to be removed at 1 p.m. today.

But many of the same legislators have campaigned in Florida on a slogan of less government and more freedom, the central message that has helped the GOP gain control of state government.

"If that’s your standard operating procedure, then how in the world can you justify putting state government on the back of the most personal decision a family would have to make?" asked University of South Florida government Professor Darryl Paulson. "It’s a political lightning rod and fundamentally the wrong position for the Republican Party."

State Republican Party Chairman Carole Jean Jordan said Thursday there’s no inconsistency in the GOP’s message of less government.

"Certainly people are better off when they make their own decisions," Jordan said. "This woman is unable to make her own decisions. Sanctity of life is a Republican principle, and we stand on the side of sanctity of life."

…"I’m very surprised they’ve tried this a second time," Paulson said. "They [Republicans] run a serious possibility of alienating a major sector of the Florida electorate, the senior citizens." [Source]

Yeah seniors here in Florida are always complaining about their right to be slowly starved to death. Their right to have a guardian that never visits them and spends much time and effort to have them die. Their right to have basic medical diagnostics such as a CAT scan not given to them. Their right for the Catholics among them to be refused to be allowed to receive Holy Communion. These are real hot button issues here.

The latest news is that a House committee was issuing congressional subpoenas to stop doctors from disconnecting the tube and an attorney for the parents Terri Schiavo will ask a federal judge in Tampa to block the removal and review the actions of state courts. Matt Drudge reports that The Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee, Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has requested Terri Schiavo to testify before his congressional committee and that this action triggers legal or statutory protections for the witness, among those protections is that nothing can be done to cause harm or death to this individual.

If these actions don’t work maybe a prosecutor can charge Terri with an unsolved murder since she would be a lot safer on death row than in a hospice. She would also have much better legal protection in the appeals process. Or maybe she can be enlisted in the military and then charged with being UA (Unauthorized Absence). I know at Captain’s Mast sometimes the punishment might be to put the prisoner on only food and water, in this case that would be a step up.

Reportedly Caesar Augustus said of King Herod, “I would rather be Herod’s dog than his son.” In our society the situation is the same. Just try to publicly starve a dog to death and not to give it water. I am also getting tired of hearing about hydration. Why use the medical term for giving a patient water? Maybe for the same reasons they refer to giving Terri food and water as life support. Technically it is true, without food or water we will soon have no life to support. "Honey where would you like to go out to receive life support?", "Well I would like to try the new life support provider down the road I heard they have a nice atmosphere and good prices." I am also getting tired of the phrase "Right to die." That has been settled since Adam and Eve fell and is a right that is ultimately denied to no one.

Update: On the way to may a holy hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament I heard that Judge Greer had acted to overturn the other judge and ordered her feeding tube removed which was done around 3 P.M. What is it with judges ordering the death of innocent people on a Friday? As I prayed the stations and read "Jesus is condemned to death" I could just imagine Judge Greer washing his hands and saying "What is truth." Jesus told the parable of the unjust judge that after many intercessions from a woman finally gave in. If only that might happen in this case.

Update: An editorial from Peggy Noonan:

…Here’s both a political and a public-relations reality: The Republican Party controls the Senate, the House and the White House. The Republicans are in charge. They have the power. If they can’t save this woman’s life, they will face a reckoning from a sizable portion of their own base. And they will of course deserve it.

This should concentrate their minds.

So should this: America is watching. As the deadline for removal of Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube approaches, the story has broken through as never before in the media.

…A final note to the Republican leadership in the House and Senate: You have to pull out all the stops. You have to run over your chairmen if they’re being obstructionist for this niggling reason and that. Run over their egos, run past their fatigue. You have to win on this. If you don’t, you can’t imagine how much you’re going to lose. And from people who have faith in you.

Bill Frist and Tom DeLay and Jim Sensenbrenner and Denny Hastert and all the rest would be better off risking looking ridiculous and flying down to Florida, standing outside Terri Schiavo’s room and physically restraining the poor harassed staff who may be told soon to remove her feeding tube, than standing by in Washington, helpless and tied in legislative knots, and doing nothing.

Issue whatever subpoena, call whatever witnesses, pass whatever emergency bill, but don’t let this woman die.

What is up with GOP controlling both houses and finally passing oil drilling in ANWR and measures like bankruptcy reform yet can’t pass a bill to protect Terri and those like her from being starved to death by court order. I think we need to pass a moral banrupty bill and they can be the first to file a moral chapter 13.

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — Abortion restrictions in South Dakota, characterized by some as among the toughest in the nation, will be tightened even more on July 1.

Gov. Mike Rounds announced Thursday that he has signed four anti-abortion bills passed by this year’s Legislature. Rounds, a Roman Catholic, is against abortion, and an overwhelming majority of state lawmakers also oppose abortion.

One new law will require doctors to inform pregnant women, in writing and in person, no later than two hours before abortions that the procedure ends the lives of humans and terminates the constitutional relationship women have with their unborn children. Legislators said the measure will ensure that women seeking abortions fully understand what they are doing.

"We require that people are fully informed in an adoption situation, and certainly when you’re terminating the life of an unborn child that same information, if not more, should be made available to the natural mother," said Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon.

"Women who are thinking of having abortions need to make sure that they fully understand what they’re doing," said Hunt, prime sponsor of the new law.

The law will require women to be told that some people die during abortions and the procedure can lead to later depression, increased suicide risk and other problems.

"We need to find a way to inform women contemplating abortions exactly what the consequences are, not only at the time of the abortion but down the road, emotionally, mentally, as well as possibly physically," said state Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke.

"The information is not 100 percent there right now when a woman goes to an abortion clinic and they tell her what’s going to happen," she said Thursday. "I don’t think they’re told that an abortion could lead to a very emotional, mental trauma."

The law will be overturned in a costly lawsuit financed by taxpayers, abortion-rights supporters have warned. They said the measure undermines private and professional relationships between women and their doctors.

Bravo to Gov. Mike Rounds and the legislature of South Dakota. Then there is the usual Planned Parenthood nonsense about women who receive information about adoption and physical and emotional risks due to abortion is somehow interfering in the relationship between a patient and a doctor. A doctor-patient relationship should be built on trust and trust requires the truth to be told. Notice how PP is not claiming that they are already informing women about adoption and risks even though they supposedly counsel them.

"I hope next year the governor will work with Planned Parenthood to help women and their families prevent unplanned pregnancies in our state because that is the only way to prevent abortion," she said.

The state should place more emphasis on programs that help prevent unplanned pregnancies, Looby added. She said half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.

"Everyone can agree that preventing unintended pregnancy and abortion is a worthy goal that demands serious attention," Looby said. [Source]

Now if abortion is morally neutral and it is only a tissue blob then why have the goal of reducing abortion? If abortion is morally equivalent to having a mole removed why the worry about stopping abortions? If there are no health risks that need to be told by the doctor to the patient then abortion to them should be no big deal. It is a good thing that they know they can not openly advocate abortion that they are forced to speak of it as a somewhat negative thing while at the same time making most of their money performing something that they say should be reduced.

As is usually the case Archbiship Chaput teaches the faith clearly and accurately. His latest commentary in tthe Denver Post on emergency contraception in the case of rape is excellent and mentions some other concerns about this. [Source] [Via Fructus Ventris]

Christopher at Against the Grain has an excellent post on the history of euthanasia. His post contained a link to a story about a failed assisted-suicide in Oregon which contained the following line.

Complications with doctor-assisted suicides are rare. In 2001, a patient took 37 hours to die after ingesting a lethal dose, and in 2003, a patient took 48 hours to die. Neither regained consciousness.

This is how we have so corrupted medicine that now continuing to live is seen as a "complication." I knew life was complicated not that it was a complication.

William Luse takes apart Charles Krauthammer’s article where he is against cloning, but for using embryos as a result of IVF for research. This argument has been on the rise over the years as a sort of compromise, but it is logic itself and the sanctity of human life that is compromised. I could never understand this line of reasoning that using these embryos for embryonic research was reasonable. What would be the purpose of it even if it was an ethical use of those embryos? If ever embryonic stem-cell research actually developed a therapy that worked it would instantly create a demand for a quantity of human embryos that would not be satisfied by even the very unfortunate large amount currently frozen. It would produce a demand for cloned embryos since once there was an actual cure, moral problems would soon be discarded in favor of these cures. So to be both against creating embryos for research and for research that could only end in the demand for cloned embryos is totally inconsistent.

When Mary Jane Owen was hospitalized with pneumonia, her doctor suggested that she decline antibiotics.

She was, after all, elderly, blind and used a wheelchair.

"He thought pneumonia would be such a wonderful way to die," said Owen, who fired him and continued her career as a disability activist.

"It lets me know how some doctors value my life."

It fueled her activism on behalf of Terry Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman whose parents are trying to stop her husband from disconnecting her feeding tube. She has also denounced the movie "Million Dollar Baby" for what she calls its unrealistic portrayal of the options after spinal injury.

Owen, who spoke last night at St. Paul Seminary in East Carnegie, formerly worked with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and has spoken at the Vatican. She is founder and national director of Disabled Catholics in Action.

Her criticisms of the Schiavo case are many. She cites affidavits from friends and nurses who swear that Schiavo recognizes them and can swallow unaided. Newly published research shows that when loved ones speak to someone in a "permanent vegetative state," there is activity in the parts of the brain that would respond in a normal person, she said.

…"I said, well that is probably why so many people who are disabled have fallen away. They don’t identify with their brokenness as much as with what they can do. It dawned on me that the theology of disability should be the theology of resurrection," she said.

"So many of the saints have been disabled. I think they recognize the power of the soul or the spirit." [Source]

She was on Catholic Answers last week with an informative show. [Listen] [Download] During the show she mentioned that she has been in contact with Bishop Lynch over the last couple of years and that so far she has been unsuccessful in persuading him to her point of view (which is really the Catholic point of view). See also her review of Million Dollar Baby.

“I can’t believe that is true,”

This was how President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo reacted to reports that health workers in Bohol were barred from taking the Holy Communion for promoting the government’s “Ligtas Buntis” campaign.

Arroyo said during a media interaction here yesterday that although she is a devout Roman Catholic and an advocate of the use of natural family planning, “there are still other methods of controlling the population”.

“I don’t think promoting responsible parenthood is excommunicable,” said Arroyo. [Source]

Since no one was excommunicated, only denied Communion for supporting contraception this is a mistaken statement. Sure there are other methods of controlling the population, for example firing squads. Of course the whole view of "controlling the population" is mistaken. Throw out the culture of life and of being open to life. Again the problem to be solved is the amount of people. This of course is what the contraceptive attitude always leads to; that is a utilitarian look at children . Where they are placed on a scale to be weighed and viewed via cost/benefit analysis and they are then found wanting. Ligtas Buntis as my wife tells me means save from abortion, so of course we have another government campaign that uses this them to give women abortafacients like the pill.