Husband in Right to Die Case Moves to Block Parents in New Trial

Tampa Bay Online ^ | Nov 3, 2003 | A P

[Deep_6]

From The Linacre Quarterly 68:3 (August 2001) 201-217

Care of PVS Patients: Catholic Opinion in the United States
by Kevin O'Rourke, O.P. and Patrick Norris, O.P.

Rev. Kevin O'Rourke, 0. P., founder of the Center for Health Care Ethics at St. Louis University, is now a senior lecturer at the Center for Health and Public Policy at the Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University, Chicago. He resides at St. Vincent Ferrer Priory, River Forest, IL. korourkeop@domincans.org

Rev. Patrick Norris, O.P. is currently a member of the parish staff of St. Vincent Ferrer Parish, River Forest, IL. He is also the Prior of that Community.

Members of the Catholic community in the United States often disagree concerning the proper care of a person in a state of permanent unconsciousness. For example, a few years ago, Hugh Finn, suffering from brain damage incurred in an automobile accident, was the person about whom the dispute centered. Even though they foresaw that his death would occur following removal of life support, his wife Michelle and one of Hugh's sisters wanted to have artificial hydration and nutrition (AHN) removed because "it was not helping him." Though Hugh had stated before his accident that he would not desire life support if he were permanently unconscious, other members of his family desired to have AHN continued. Said Hugh's father, "It's murder as far as I am concerned."(1) Even though they were diametrically opposed, members of the Catholic community, claiming "to speak for the Church," supported both sides of the family.

---

 

Conclusion

Given the various opinions, what opinions seem safe in practice? The first does not seem viable because it seems to prohibit the removal of AHN in all circumstances. As directives 56 and 57 of the ERD indicate, there are some situations in which life support may be removed. The second and third opinions seem viable insofar as the general principles for removing life support are concerned. People will judge which is the more fitting way to care for patients in PVS in accord with the rationale that we have explained for opinions two and three.

Read it all here: http://www.op.org/domcentral/study/kor/pvscare.htm

 

[keri]

Well, well. All your other feeble tactics have failed so you pull out the "appeal to authority" gimmick.

However...I did take your appeal to the highest authority I could find in the Catholic Church and he said this: "the omission of nutrition and hydration intended to cause a person's death must be rejected." There is no ambiguity in John Paul's statement. It isn't subjective nor is it open to interpretation. It is simple and straightforward with no qualifiers.

You wanna argue with the Pope? Go ahead. Do it alone, though. I'm the last member of your audience to leave.

[Deep_6]

Re:
"...Well, well. All your other feeble tactics have failed so..."

Feeble tactics to do what? What exactly do you think I'm trying to do?

Regardless of my opinion or typed thoughts, the matter of Terri's
welfare will take it's course.

You can consider that it may be our Lord's will, that Terri is
finally removed to her resting area...... or He may allow her to be 
finally conscious again. I do not know His plans for Terri any 
more than you or your Pope.

I do know that the law is on her Husband's side and it will take
more than a governor's desire to turn things in the direction her
loving parents desire to see it turn to.

If her body and [possibly] soul is to continue it's course on an
artificial support system; or if her body is allowed to finally rest,
isn't in my hands, your hands or your Pope's. It's in the hands
of our Lord.

Perhaps the "feeble tactics" you're seeing, really consist of an
attempt to allow others to see the reasons they should accept
the decision that will be made, whatever it will be, and accept
it with the grace and dignity it deserves.

Thanks.