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.