Another jab at Shiavo's parents...

[StMichael]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 21 2005, 05:24 PM']She's gone now, so you're not helping anyone anymore.  Since youre not doing anything contstructive, you need to drop this.  Its not healthy.
[right][snapback]618499[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes she's gone and she was murdered.

Nothing about this man's actions were above table.

Furthermore, denying someone food & water is murder.

The future is built on the past and now we see doctors who take an oath to preserve life, toss that away and allow a fellow human being to die. Why? Because that piece of shite wanted to move on.

Let us all forget this and it will happen again.
Let us be quieted and it will happen again.

The past 40 years it is an attitude like yours, albeit you are Canadian, that has stripped this nation of its Christian ways.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:33 PM']withholding a basic necessity of life is murder.  when someone cannot feed themselves and you refuse them the corporal act of mercy of feeding them, you commit the sin of murder.  and we shall not judge his culpability, merely say that he murdered her and thus his immortal soul is in grave danger.
[right][snapback]618392[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You have a point.

To tell you the truth, I don't know much what to make of such things.

There comes a time, I believe, that we must let go, and allow others to let go as well. i am against an external help in ending someone's life - in no way is this acceptable. But where is the line drawn whre we can acceptably 'let someone die' and 'have to do whatever possible to preserve life'.

JPII refused to go to the hospital in his last few days... Was he denying himself the basic necessity to rpeserving his own life? i would much rather think not. But where is this line drawn?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:18 AM'] But where is this line drawn?
[right][snapback]618979[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Basic necessities. (i.e., Food, water, etc)

Medicine is not a basic necessity.

[crusader1234]

You all really need to learn to read. I said talk about murder, not personal affairs. Suddenly, I'm in support of abortion? My my - what logic!

What I've said has nothing to do with the end of Terri's life. And what you're talking about has nothing to do with it either. You're not supporting life by gossiping about whats on her headstone and how angry that makes you. You're just gossiping.

[quote]So talking about how we are going to stop the rampant flood of starving and dehydrating handicapped people to death is gossip?[/quote]

No, thats not gossip. But if you'd bother to actually read the thread, nobody is talking about that. People are talking about headstones and family affairs that don't concern them. Nobody is talking about how we are going to stop anything - maybe two posts in this thread have been on a topic that isn't just gossip.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 22 2005, 11:03 AM']Basic necessities. (i.e., Food, water, etc)

Medicine is not a basic necessity.
[right][snapback]619028[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But medical intervention was required in order for her to ingest food... all that was done was to remove this medical intervention.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 22 2005, 02:20 PM']But medical intervention was required in order for her to ingest food... all that was done was to remove this medical intervention.
[right][snapback]619324[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Removing the tube was not all that was done... they stopped giving her food or water. If you read the coroner's report Terri Shiavo's cause of death is "dehydration" not "removal of feeding tube". Big difference. Terri's body could digest the food and water, she just couldn't take it in through her mouth because they were worried about her choking. With a person on life support you've either got a machine that's forcing them to breathe, or forcing their heart to beat-- but the body doesn't do it on it's own. Terri's stomach and intestines worked. They first took away her means of feeding herself, and then they also took away food and water.

There was a guy that went to my high school that had a feeding tube and everything. Should we have taken away his feeding tube because it's artificial? What separates him from Terri Shiavo (his brain function was a little slow/delayed)? Because he could walk, and his tutor could translate for him that makes him worthy of food and water?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:45 PM'] With a person on life support you've either got a machine that's forcing them to breathe, or forcing their heart to beat-- but the body doesn't do it on it's own. Terri's stomach and intestines worked. They first took away her means of feeding herself, and then they also took away food and water.

There was a guy that went to my high school that had a feeding tube and everything. Should we have taken away his feeding tube because it's artificial? What separates him from Terri Shiavo (his brain function was a little slow/delayed)? Because he could walk, and his tutor could translate for him that makes him worthy of food and water?
[right][snapback]619540[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The tube was forcing her to eat, like other machines sometimes forces patients to breathe.

I cannot say for certain where the difference lies... dignity of life must be respected in the pursuit of its preservation. The two must go hand in hand.

I say that removing the feeding tube was not wrong.

But I agree that not at least attempting to provide her with food in a normal manner was wrong.

Hopw much dignity did she have? Had she, for a moment been able to regain all her senses, realizing that in minutes time she would return to her state... what would she have wanted? Her husband said it was clear what she wanted (granted this may be qeustionable, but endulge the possibility will you?).

What if you where in her place? Would you say "I would live as a bed ridden patient without hope of enjoying life for perhaps 60 years..." or would have said that in the proposed state "Best i be allowed to reach my lord now, for there is nothing else I can possibly accomplish with this life."?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 22 2005, 02:12 PM']What I've said has nothing to do with the end of Terri's life.  And what you're talking about has nothing to do with it either.  You're not supporting life by gossiping about whats on her headstone and how angry that makes you.  You're just gossiping.
No, thats not gossip.  But if you'd bother to actually read the thread, nobody is talking about that.  People are talking about headstones and family affairs that don't concern them.  Nobody is talking about how we are going to stop anything - maybe two posts in this thread have been on a topic that isn't just gossip.
[right][snapback]619313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But... don't you see? The reason I posted this was because of what he put on the grave marker about her death date (it's all in bold). The fact that he was allowed to decide for himself on in such a dramatic way on the date of Terri's death shows his mentality... and indeed the mentality of everyone who supported his side during the very, very public case. They're cutting off life at quality. When Terri's life was deemed by Michael Shiavo to be less "valuable" (less worth living) because she was brain damaged-- he viewed her as dead.
If it's okay for Michael Shiavo to put what he put on a headstone in the name of a "promise", then this country has a lot of thinking to do (what if someone promises to shoot their spouse when their eyesight goes bad?). The Terri Shiavo fight isn't over... we are headed down the slippery slope to euthanasia... if life is only life when it's "valuable". Michael Shiavo just happens to be the poster boy for euthanasia by his choice and actions (thus he catches a lot of flack).

Lastly, if you didn't like the topic, you didn't have to post in it or even read it. If you felt others were not taking the thread in the right direction, you can take it there without crying about others "gossiping". A one-liner drive-by isn't exactly adeqautely explaining yourself.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:55 PM']The tube was forcing her to eat, like other machines sometimes forces patients to breathe.

I cannot say for certain where the difference lies...  dignity of life must be respected in the pursuit of its preservation.  The two must go hand in hand.

I say that removing the feeding tube was not wrong.[/quote]
It was not forcing her to eat... her stomach and intestines worked fine.

So when your parents fed you as a baby they were forcing you to eat? (if that's the case, praise God for forceful parents!)



[quote]Hopw much dignity did she have?  Had she, for a moment been able to regain all her senses, realizing that in minutes time she would return to her state... what would she have wanted?  Her husband said it was clear what she wanted (granted this may be qeustionable, but endulge the possibility will you?).

What if you where in her place?  Would you say "I would live as a bed ridden patient without hope of enjoying life for perhaps 60 years..." or would have said that in the proposed state "Best i be allowed to reach my lord now, for there is nothing else I can possibly accomplish with this life."?
[right][snapback]619563[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
How much dignity!?! A person retains ALL their personal dignity no matter their state.

Regardless of Terri's possible statement about not wanting to be kept alive artificially... receiving food and water is NOT artificial care--it's a basic necessity. Michael Shiavo did not pull out Terri's feeding tube because the tube was artificial... he pulled it out because she was drastically brain damaged. That much was clear all through the case, and is now in print on that headstone.

I told my parents and family very clearly when this case was in the news that they didn't have to keep me alive artificially, but they sure as Hell better not starve me to death! All I ask for are my basic necessities... food, water, and shelter.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:58 PM'][snip].

.. and indeed the mentality of everyone who supported his side during the very, very public case.[snip]

[right][snapback]619568[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I take a little offesnse to that. I never said that I supported his every view and his every decision. I just called for a little compassion since this ordeal must not have been easy for him as well.

Love thy ennemy remember.

As for my own views... i admitted (didn't I) that I was a little perplexed about the whole issue and uncertain where to place myself.

Life is worth fighting for, but there comes a time when one should be able to throw in the towel and go to the Lord with dignity. it's simply that line that I am trying to define for myself, or should I say try to completely understand the church's teachings on the subject.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 22 2005, 05:05 PM']I take a little offesnse to that.  I never said that I supported his every view and his every decision.  I just called for a little compassion since this ordeal must not have been easy for him as well.

Love thy ennemy remember.

As for my own views... i admitted (didn't I) that I was a little perplexed about the whole issue and uncertain where to place myself.

Life is worth fighting for, but there comes a time when one should be able to throw in the towel and go to the Lord with dignity.  it's simply that line that I am trying to define for myself, or should I say try to completely understand the church's teachings on the subject.
[right][snapback]619580[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That was not directed at you personally, but the american public in general....

[Didacus]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:04 PM']It was not forcing her to eat...   her stomach and intestines worked fine.

[snip]
[right][snapback]619577[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It was a medical intervention allowing her to ingest food.

Is that better? You cannot realistically claim that a feeding tube is not a medical intervention?

Bringing food to a babie's mouth is not medical intervention, and I tend to agree that bringing food and water to Shiavo's mouth should at least have been attempted. I cannot see a reason why it should not have been carried out. but to my logic, I cannot see a concrete argument to removing the tube...

[Didacus]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:07 PM']That was not directed at you personally, but the american public in general....
[right][snapback]619583[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Am I not amongst the public?

[Didacus]

And granted, 'dignity' was not the proper choice of words.

The word i was thinking of was 'epanouissement' which does not seem to have proper english translation.
Ils sont fous ces anglais!

rather, how much enjoyment of life could see have? You must admit it was a sad state she had...Was she even able to communicate?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 22 2005, 05:09 PM']It was a medical intervention allowing her to ingest food.

Is that better?  You cannot realistically claim that a feeding tube is not a medical intervention?

Bringing food to a babie's mouth is not medical intervention, and I tend to agree that bringing food and water to Shiavo's mouth should at least have been attempted.  I cannot see a reason why it should not have been carried out.  but to my logic, I cannot see a concrete argument to removing the tube...
[right][snapback]619586[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Sure, I've not denied medical intervention... but it was necessary intervention to provide for a basic need... not something extraordinary. We are called in the Catechism to take all ordinary measures for the preservation of life, it is the extraordinary measures that are optional.

[quote]Am I not amongst the public?[/quote]
Yes, but I was addressing the public on Michael Shiavo's side... if you were one of the people who wanted them to remove Terri's feeding tube, then yes, the comment stands and was directed you.
At the same time, this is not a shot at Michael Shiavo.. I think he needs many prayers (and much grace)... Lil Red posted an article a while back called "I am Michael Shiavo" and I greatly appreciated its sentiments. However, his actions were morally wrong, objectively speaking--that is what I am speaking out against... his actions, not his person. I'm not the One with authority over his person.

[quote]And granted, 'dignity' was not the proper choice of words.

The word i was thinking of was 'epanouissement' which does not seem to have proper english translation.
Ils sont fous ces anglais!

rather, how much enjoyment of life could see have? You must admit it was a sad state she had...Was she even able to communicate?[/quote]
(sorry, I can only count in French! so I don't understand the term)

However, life is life. Quality is irrelevant. We don't have to "enjoy" life to be worthy of it. Yes, it was a sad state... but that doesn't give us the right to rip away what she had. Her dignity and worth remains intact regardless the state of her body. And we have the duty to respect that in all circumstances by providing basic needs.