« | Main | These Little Ones »
February 22, 2005
Touch of Laryngitis
GoogleNews this and see what you come up with
Oh. Nothing? Same as me.
But, be reminded that the bishops have spoken, in a way. Here's their most recent statement (2/15) reiterating their past positions: If nutrition and hydration were being withdrawn to cause her death, that would be wrong. It's too bad there is so much confusion related to her condition. This ideally would be a family decision, rooted in what desires the patient had previously expressed. The level of rhetoric is disturbing. Pray.
BUT - Stay issued
The case of a severely brain-damaged woman remained locked in a legal stalemate Tuesday after an appeals court cleared the way for her husband to remove her feeding tube only to see a judge promptly block the removal for at least another day.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal offered no specific instructions in a one-page mandate issued in the case of Terri Schiavo, who was left brain damaged 15 years ago. That meant her husband, Michael Schiavo, could order his wife's tube be removed.
But Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer later issued an emergency stay blocking removal of the feeding tube until 5 p.m. EST Wednesday. Greer, who has been overseeing the long-standing dispute, scheduled a hearing on the case for Wednesday.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
So very sad!
We'll keep moving the prayers forward and upward! Onward Christian soldiers....
Posted by: KAP at Feb 22, 2005 3:01:35 PM
"We urge people to refrain from excessive rhetoric and misguided zeal, against which Pope Pius XI cautioned"
. . .
"So, Terri's life is still hanging in the balance, and at this point, barring something stopping him, Michael will follow through on his murderous intent tomorrow afternoon."
Indeed.
Posted by: ajb at Feb 22, 2005 3:19:30 PM
I'm kind of afraid to say this, so I'm making a cowardly anonymous post, but I still can't quite understand the distinction between artificial respiration (traditionally considered morally acceptable to end) and artificial feeding (regarded as morally unacceptable to end by nearly every Catholic thinker and blogger I respect, although apparently not by the Florida bishops.) Since both my instinct and my intellect tell me that what is happening to Schiavo is an outrage, I'm starting to incline to the view that maybe cutting off air is also wrong, but that would make mortal sinners, and presumably denizens of hell, out of a lot of good people who chose not to be rescuscitated.
Posted by: Anonymous at Feb 22, 2005 3:27:19 PM
Amy - as a result of your post (I think) from theseventhage.com I e-mailed Cardinal Keeler at the US Conf. of Cath. Bishops thus:
"Your Eminence: As head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, many Catholics have been waiting to hear an outcry from our Bishops regarding the case of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who is brain-damaged, but otherwise in good health and not at all terminally ill. Due to court rulings and the desire of her husband who has been co-habiting with another woman for 10 years and has two children by her, Terri Schiavo will most likely have all nutrition and water withheld from her until she dies. Her parents and siblings have petitioned to no avail to release Mr. Schiavo from responsibilty for her care. Mrs. Schiavo likely will face a slow death from starvation and dehydration within the next few weeks, if not sooner. This situation has implications for all of us if the court should permit Terri Schiavo's death at the hands of her husband. Please tell me why the Bishops have stayed away from this years-long controversy. I read the following on the internet and want to know if it is true and if so why. Please read below. I would very much appreciate a response. Sincerely, Ann Palladino, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444"
from theseventhage.com
February 16, 2005
Terri Schiavo Abandoned by U.S. Bishops
I had the opportunity to attend a lecture last night by Cathy Cleaver Ruse, the official pro-life spokesperson for the U.S. Catholic Bishops.
The spiritual director for the Schindler family was in attendance, and after the lecture, he asked Ruse what the U.S. Bishops were doing to stand up for Teri Schiavo. After some quips about being video taped, and a prolonged silence, Ruse revealed that she had been specifically instructed that the Schiavo case is considered a strictly local matter, and she is not to speak to it at all. Keep in mind this is the national pro-life spokesperson for the U.S. Bishops.
Never mind the fact that the Schiavo case is in the national spotlight, with news outlets all over the country running the story. Never mind the fact that there are commentaries in the Washington Times, articles in the New York Times, opinions in the Los Angeles Times. This is the story of our times, an incredible opportunity to publicly affirm the value of all human life, and educate the faithful on end of life issues, and the U.S. Bishops are remaining silient, not accidentally, but willfully.
One would hope that the abuse scandal had taught the bishops something, but it seems it is business as usual at the UCCB. Needless to say, such actions seriously undermine the credibility of the bishops on the life issues as a whole."
It was answered by Jonathan Dalin from the Archdiocese of Phila.:
"Dear Ms. Palladino,
The Florida Catholic Conference (FCC) and the Bishops of Florida
have issued several statements petitioning Florida politician and judges
respect the dignity of the life of Mrs. Schiavo. These petitions outline
the Catholic teachings concerning nutrition and hydration. If you wish
to read these statements please review the home page of the FCC website
at www.flacathconf.org.
I am unaware, at the present time, if Bishop William S. Skylstad,
Chairman of the USCCB, is issuing a possible statement coming from the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) so I am unable to
address the attached article.
Please know that I will forward your e-mail to the Cardinal's
Office. If you should have any further inquiries please do not hesitate
to contact me at 215-587-3703.
Let us earnestly pray that the politicians and judges of Florida
see the person of Christ in Mrs. Schiavo and not elect to enact the
false mercy of euthanasia.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Dalin
Administrator
Department for Pro-Life Activities
Archdiocese of Philadelphia"
I replied:
"Dear Mr. Dalin: Thank you for responding to my e-mail. The Schiavo situation is so unjust from so many standpoints that I cannot understand why more people whose voices might have influence have not informed themselves enough to understand the implications for all US citizens if Mrs. Schiavo is put to death. It also concerns me that by not speaking out about the Schiavo case, the Bishops seem to condone it with their (perceived) silence. I know that severely brain-injured patients are allowed to die every day, but this situation is vastly different. There are so many complicated life issues today. Somehow, our Bishops need a way to explain them and the Church's teaching in as simple a way as possible and find a way to broadcast that information as widely as possible. Most people don't even know who Terri Schiavo is - but their lives could be affected if her husband has the court's permission to carry out her death. This is not really a case of euthansia - it appears to be court-ordered murder. She is not suffering, she is healthy, but unfortunately she is inconvenient to her husband (her legal guardian) despite the fact that her mother and father are willing to be responsible for her care. Again, thanks for responding. Sincerely, Ann Palladino"
I am curious to see if I get any further response from the USCCB.....
Posted by: ann at Feb 22, 2005 3:27:57 PM
Sorry to be so long in my previous post. I feel so frustrated with our Bishops! Regarding the emergency stay until 5pm Wednesday: I guess Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo can wait one more day...they've waited so long already....God help us all!
Posted by: ann at Feb 22, 2005 3:31:22 PM
Anonymous,
if you have ever had a baby, you know the difference. You don't usually have to make a baby breathe, but they can't feed themselves. Is it therefore okay to leave them to starve, since they depend on artificial nutrition for their survival? If we apply that standard, babies are just so many useless eaters, just like Terri.
Posted by: Yurodivi at Feb 22, 2005 3:38:00 PM
I think Anonomous's conundrum is a little more challenging then you allow, Yurodivi.
For example, Amy's post said "This ideally would be a family decision, rooted in what desires the patient had previously expressed"
Except what if the patient had previous expressed a desire that ventilation or nutrition and hydration be " withdrawn to cause her death"? Would that still be wrong?
I think so, but then the character of the act hinges apon the intent of the decider--to end the life. Not on the treatment, or the consensuality of the decision.
Posted by: al at Feb 22, 2005 3:42:58 PM
Yurodivi:
Really good point. That really helped to clarify the situation for me, and I can't believe I didn't think of it before.
Posted by: Anonymous at Feb 22, 2005 3:43:31 PM
Al: The line you cite is actually a paraphase of what the bishops said.
Posted by: Anonymous at Feb 22, 2005 3:44:36 PM
the U.S. Bishops are remaining silient, not accidentally, but willfully.
They are remaining silent because Catholic teaching says it is up to the patient or his or her lawful proxy to decide when ANH becomes too burdensome.
From Ethical and Religious Directives
for Catholic Health Care Services:
"A person has a moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving his or her life. Proportionate means are those that in the judgment of the patient offer a reasonable hope of benefit and do not entail an excessive burden or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.40 [Emphasis mine]
Church teaching leaves it to the judgement of the patient to determine when ANH becomes too burdensome...just as it leaves to the judgment of spouses to determine when just reasons obtain for seeking to avoid conception through NFP.
The bishops are not shirking their duty by refusing to make such judgements of conscience.
They are fulfilling it.
Posted by: Rick at Feb 22, 2005 3:46:48 PM
There is a saying in the legal field that "bad facts make for bad law." If one were to conjure up a hypothetical fact pattern to test Catholic teaching on this topic, the Schiavo case would be it. Obviously it's much more tragic because it's not hypothetical.
I don't think you can fault the Bishops or the Magisterium generally for doing nothing more than re-stating already established Catholic teaching on the matter.
This is truly a tragic case, and dismissing the husband's position as wanting to "put her to death" or "court-ordered murder" really don't foster discussion.
Posted by: ajb at Feb 22, 2005 4:01:09 PM
How come the only bishops who have spoken out loud, standing personally for Terri, are OUTSIDE of Florida? Are the Florida priests still under order NOT to demonstrate or speak out for Terri by Bishop Lynch?
I have e-mailed this conference, each bishop individually in Florida and C. Keeler (head of pro life committee for bishops I believe!). Have heard nothing. I pointed out to the Florida conference that euthanasia is being widely used and permitted by the courts in Florida, under their watch. Florida will then become another beginning euthanasia push for the entire country. Shame!
Posted by: chris K at Feb 22, 2005 4:12:43 PM
There are situations - numerous - in which a dying person's body gradually begins to shut down, they take less and less food, and may even reject it. In a case like that, it is my understanding that it is not required to commence vigorous artifical nutrition and hydration - the rejection is part of the dying process, and is, if you will, natural.
That is not what's happening here, obviously, because Terri is not in the process of dying.
The situations are complicated, but the distinctions are important to make.
And Rick, I can see your point - bishops don't normally make it a habit to comment on individual family situations. And I am not sure what they "should" say beyond what they have.
However, this is a very high-profile case dealing with end-of-life ethics, and one which a lot of people are watching and learning from. What the bishops have said so far is not bad nor untrue, but I just keep wondering if there is more instruction to be done re/the case, knowing that all eyes are on it, and figuring how to deal with their own situations in light of it.
Posted by: amy at Feb 22, 2005 4:18:32 PM
Here's an additional clarification on what would be germane to determining "proportionate" treatment: "
However, a different concept of "quality of life" is now spreading,
"reductive and selective," the Holy Father warned.
This concept consists in "the capacity to enjoy and experience pleasure, or
in the capacity of self-awareness and of participation in social life,"
continued the Pope.
This mentality "denies all quality of life to human beings who are not yet
capable or who are no longer capable of understanding and loving, or those
who are no longer able to enjoy life as sensation or relationship," he said.
After pointing out that the concept of "health" has suffered a similar
diversion, the Pope focused on a paradox of contemporary societies."
Posted by: al at Feb 22, 2005 4:20:24 PM
I also am looking at this from the standpoint of pastoral care. I have not followed this terribly closely in recent months, but it seems to me that in terms of local Church community, the Schindlers are alone - these are parents who are in terrible pain, who want to do nothing more than care for their daughter, they're being prevented from doing so, and I am wondering what the local Church in Tampa-St. Pete is doing in relation to them?
Posted by: amy at Feb 22, 2005 4:21:34 PM
Another place to contact is Hospice. I wrote them the following e-mail: (the quoted portion is from their website explaining their philosophy of care, qualifications for care, etc.)
"We are a qualified member of the Combined Federal Campaign, the federal government's workplace fundraising appeal. We are listed under the Health and Medical Research Charities of America federation."
Isn't this grounds for federal investigation if a hospice facility is not governing itself according to your stated regulations? You also receive Medicare and Medicaid payments.
"What is Hospice?
"Hospice is a special concept of care designed to provide comfort and support to patients and their families when a life-limiting illness no longer responds to cure-oriented treatments."
Terri has no life limiting illness that has not in some way responded to even the minimum of rehab offered.
"Hospice care neither prolongs life nor hastens death. Hospice staff and volunteers offer a specialized knowledge of medical care, including pain management."
If your employees, volunteers et al, obey the judge, Hospice will definitely act to hasten Terri's death for no cause.
"The goal of hospice care is to improve the quality of a patient's last days by offering comfort and dignity."
Instead they have gone along with husband's forced harassment of Terri, taking all dignity away from her person, not even giving basic dental care.
"Hospice addresses all symptoms of a disease, with a special emphasis on controlling a patient's pain and discomfort."
Again, Terri has no disease. Why is she in Hospice care.....for years???
Neither have they reported to proper authorities the painful responses of Terri noted by nurses after the husband's visits.
In this case, how can you address symptoms when you allow official nursing charts to be tampered with by the husband?
"Hospice deals with the emotional, social and spiritual impact of the disease on the patient and the patient's family and friends."
They have not reported effects of denying the spiritual comfort of Terri's priest. Where is the protest from Hospice?
"Hospice offers a variety of bereavement and counseling services to families before and after a patient's death."
What have they done to offer comfort to the family - firing a nurse who wishes to report abuse of Terri to police?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A7: Hospice care is a covered benefit under Medicare for patients with a prognosis of 6 MONTHS OR LESS. Medicaid covers hospice services in 41 states. Many private health insurance policies and HMO's offer hospice coverage and benefits. Hospice services are covered under TRICARE. Frequently, hospice expenses are less than conventional care expenses during the last six months of life."
6 months or less? Terri has a prognosis of 50 years with simple food and water. Hospice should never have accepted Terri. How was this done? Is it true that Attorney Felos was on the board of directors of this Hospice at time of admitting and that many who are caring for Terri had worked for him? Big conflict of interest here.
"PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA
Q14: What is the hospice stance on PAS and euthanasia?
A14: Hospice neither prolongs life nor hastens death. To read Jack D. Gordon's article, "Assisted Suicide: Hospice Care as a Merciful Alternative,""
In Terri's case Hospice is breaking all its rules in hastening her death. As Fr. Pavone has stated: they are killing Terri specifically because she won't die!
Hospice, you have a reputation of caring from the heart. You must take a stance against this brutal and intentional killing of Terri Schiavo or your facilities will appear to have no heart nor discipline nor order.
Posted by: chris K at Feb 22, 2005 4:31:05 PM
Can anyone provide any insight into what constitutes "too burdensome" under the Church's teaching, or an example of when the "burdens" outweigh the "benefits"?
It was my understanding that once a person comes into a situation of being maintained on externally provided fluids and nutrition, those cannot be discontinued for any reason.
These questions, and the statement that "what is too burdensome for one person may not be for another" suggest that the Church's position is not "keep someone 'alive' at any cost".
Posted by: ajb at Feb 22, 2005 4:34:07 PM
amy,
I don't think Catholic teaching, at least currently, requires death to be imminent to justify withholding ANH. Some Catholic moralists might take this view, but I don't believe this is official Church teaching.
If Terri had left a written advance directive specifiying that she would find permanent ANH to be psychologically burdensome, and directing it to be withdrawn upon a diagnosis of pvs...could Catholic hospitals follow that directive?
Under current guidelines, I believe the answer is "yes."
Posted by: Rick at Feb 22, 2005 4:40:42 PM
Can anyone provide any insight into what constitutes "too burdensome" under the Church's teaching, or an example of when the "burdens" outweigh the "benefits"?
The USCCB's "Questions about Medically Assisted
Nutrition and Hydration" discusses this at length.
Excerpt:
4. What are the burdens of medically assisted nutrition and hydration?
Our tradition does not demand heroic measures in fulfilling the obligation to sustain life. A person may legitimately refuse even procedures that effectively prolong life, if he or she believes they would impose excessively grave burdens on himself or herself, or on his or her family and community. Catholic theologians have traditionally viewed medical treatment as excessively burdensome if it is "too painful, too damaging to the patient's bodily self and functioning, too psychologically repugnant to the patient, too restrictive of the patient's liberty and preferred activities, too suppressive of the patient's mental life, or too expensive."[20]
Posted by: Rick at Feb 22, 2005 4:45:48 PM
If a person had to be continuously artificially rescuscitated simply to feed and give the something to drink, that would seem to be excessive.
Short of that, the danger is that you are removing something that works, and is palliative, because something else (chemotherapy, surgery) is not working.
Posted by: al at Feb 22, 2005 4:46:14 PM
Those Florida bishops sure don't mince words! What courageous men, following the ancient virtue of fortitude. I assume that when they finally meet the Lord, he will only have to point...down. Why do I have the feeling that Christ doesn't read the fine print?
Posted by: John Hetman at Feb 22, 2005 4:49:20 PM
Rick, thanks for that citation. But under current Catholic teaching is there not a distinction between an advanced directive which instructs that such interventions not be initiated and one that expressed a desire for them to be discontinued?
Posted by: ajb at Feb 22, 2005 4:57:36 PM
John,
What exactly have the Bishops in Florida done to condemn themselves to Hell? Isn't that a bit extreme?
Posted by: ajb at Feb 22, 2005 4:58:37 PM
Rick,
I'm afraid you'd have to provide some evidence for that view.
At present the Holy Father's statement on Nutrition and Hydration seems to be the last word on the subject: "The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery.
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering. "
[Emphasis in the original]
Posted by: al at Feb 22, 2005 5:02:31 PM
But under current Catholic teaching is there not a distinction between an advanced directive which instructs that such interventions not be initiated and one that expressed a desire for them to be discontinued?
Not to my knowledge. I'm not an expert here, but I don't think there is any moral difference between refusing a procedure and discontinuing a procedure. If the first is licit the second is too.
Posted by: Rick at Feb 22, 2005 5:06:36 PM
