Posted on 02/19/2005 3:15:38 PM PST by amdgmary
News Release Feb 19, 2005
Statement of the Catholic Medical Association Regarding the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration in the case of Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
The mission of the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) is to uphold the truth of the Catholic Faith in the science and practice of medicine. In July 2003, the CMA published a statement regarding the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration in the case of Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo. The circumstances surrounding this case have been widely publicized. In 2003, after summarizing the ethical directives found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care, we concluded that based upon the current teaching of the Church the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration could not be justified.
Two subsequent events compel us to update our former statement to uphold the truth and defend the life of Mrs. Schindler-Schiavo.
In March 2004, Pope John Paul II addressed an international congress of health care professionals convened in Rome to discuss the scientific advances and ethical dilemmas in the vegetative state. In the statement by the Vicar of Christ, “Life Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State,” he declares clearly and unequivocally that “the sick person in a vegetative state still has the right to basic health care…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…Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.”
This papal statement makes it absolutely clear that the withdrawal of food and water from Mrs. Schindler-Schiavo constitutes euthanasia, a gravely immoral act. We would add furthermore, that it represents a violation of her constitutionally protected right to life and a violation of her religious freedom as a Catholic.
Second, recently published data in the journal Neurology indicates that magnetic resonance imaging can be a very powerful tool in the evaluation of “awareness” in patients with severe neurological injury. The findings were so remarkable Dr. Joy Hirsch, director of the Functional MRI Research Center at Columbia University Medical School and an author of the study, said, “The most consequential thing about this is that we have opened a door, we have found an objective voice for these patients, which tells us they have some cognitive ability in a way they cannot tell us themselves. The patients are more human than we imagined in the past, and it is unconscionable not to aggressively pursue research efforts to evaluate them and develop therapeutic techniques.”
These two events, the definitive papal statement and the scientific evidence of new diagnostic techniques required to adequately assess the severely brain injured patient, support our former conclusion in July 2003. There is no rational justification, moral or medical, to withdraw food and water from Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo.
Finally, we recognize that many will not agree with our conclusion. In a country that legally justifies the destruction of innocent human life in its most vulnerable stage of development, within the womb of the mother, it will come as no surprise that our courts have failed to defend her right to life. The darkness of death shrouds the conscience of America.
Therefore, we conclude this statement by making a sincere appeal to all who do agree with us. Please join us in prayer on behalf of Terri, her family and our country; that by the Grace of Almighty God some intervention will save her life and save us from the inevitable consequences if she were euthanized.
"Please join us in prayer on behalf of Terri, her family and our country; that by the Grace of Almighty God some intervention will save her life and save us from the inevitable consequences if she were euthanized."
Amen
ping
**The mission of the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) is to uphold the truth of the Catholic Faith in the science and practice of medicine.**
Amen!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Prayer Ping List.
and
Catholic Discussion Ping!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Prayer Ping List.
and
Catholic Discussion Ping!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
If Terri does want to be starved [almost certainly not the case], her right of religious freedom would mean the Pope has no authority to stop it. If she doesn't want to be starved, the violations of her rights go far beyond religious freedom.
I pray for someone or Someone to intervene, but I don't think this religious angle has much legal relevance.
Perhaps not today, supercat, but it would have in the days of our founding. Then, God was an acknowledged part of everyday life ... today, He is permitted only in the pages of insurance policies, the Creator of all things chaos, and the One to blame when the insurance company won't pay your claim. 'Tis a fearsome thing to mock the Living God.
One cannot argue this case from a 'religious freedom' perspective. In the days of the founding fathers, "religious freedom" had not been advanced to the point that someone could be killed in a manner contrary to commonly-held religion. But today, the "religious freedom" argument would mean that Terri should be allowed to wish herself dead regardless of what her religion claims.
The legal relevance is that evidence exists that Terri is a practicing Catholic. Therefore, (1) her alleged statement to her husband that she wished to be killed under some hypothetical circumstance is in doubt and (2) if she indeed had made the statement, now that the Papal determination exists, she is likely to obey it and change her mind.
Yes, but Judge Greer has decreed that Terri Schiavo wants to die and even if Terri herself were to stomp into the court room, punch him on the nose, and demand to be fed he would simply dismiss it as "reflex". Since Judge Greer has decreed as fact that Terri wants to die, no other court can question his judgement unless or until he is removed from the bench.
I agree with you and hope they also bring up the point that Judge Greer will not even allow her to receive Holy Communion, which is definitely an important part of the Catholic faith.
The present pro-death environment has done incalculable damage to the medical profession as a whole. It is no longer possible to assume that any medical opinion comes from the premises of the Hippocratic Oath. "The doctor says..." is no longer a closing argument in any dispute.
She being now reduced to one of the least of Your children, and unable to speak...Lord, I boldly ask that You sway her husband's mind against this pathway of harm and death. Speak to Michael, Lord. Give him no moment of peace until he changes his mind. Father God, there is someone out there that Michael would listen to...send that person to impart Your truth to him.
In the name of Your Precious Son, Jesus Christ, I pray,
AMEN
WRONG!!! Religious freedom does mean freedom FROM your own religious beliefs. It means she has the freedom to practice her religion.
I will pray for Mary and I will pray for strenght for Governor Bush because he is the only man powerful enough in Florida to stand up to Judge Greer.
Prayer bump.
Religious arguments are totally ineffective on non-religious people (actually, they're worse than useless). There are plenty of secular arguments, and IMHO the case should be put forth on those to the extent possible.
Fundamentally, there are three issues I can see in this case:
As for the third issue, I would hope that in the absense of judicial success, Jeb Bush would have the cajones to shoot for a fait accompli: declare that the unlawful withholding of oral food and liquid consitutes an immediate danger to Terri, and immediately begin bona fide efforts to give her food and water. If the affidavits posted here are accurate, she would be able to accept the food and water well enough that such ability would constitute new evidence that she is not PVS, and to prove that Michael's failure to provide it constituted nothing less than attempted murder.
BTW, suppose that Terri had signed and notarized an advanced directive explicitly stating that she would hope that the legislature would someday allow the dehydration of people whose husbands claimed them to be PVS, and that if the legislature were to pass a law she would want it applied to her. Would you be arguing that the pope's statement should be a basis for disregarding such a written and notarized directive?
(2) cannot be decided, in absence of a written will, without an examination of Terri's mindset while lucid. A mindset of a religious person is framed by her religion. If the religion teaches against suicide and for obedience to the Pope (within known parameters), then Terri's wishes are likely in conformance to the Papal determination and not in conformance with what her husband imagines them to be. The judge may be a 100% atheist, and still if he is honest, should examine Terri's mind such as it was.
Now, if your opinion is that as a practical matter with this incompetent judge religion better not be brought up, then, like I said, you are arguing with a murderer, a pointless exercise. Hope for Terri, and for those that will be killed under similar circumstances in the future, is that this particular judge is bypassed, and that all reasonable arguments are made even if he is deaf to them, for the sake of the future victims.
If Terri had an unimpeachable will directing her to be starved to death, then of course, the Pope's clarification will have no effect on this case, as it would prove that Terri is not in compliance with the Catholic teaching. In absence of such proof we must assume that she is, and therefore, the argument should be made even is it irritates the irreligious.
I suppose one could make a reasonable argument that the religious argument would be a basis for remanding the case for further consideration of whether Terri's statements in fact constituted a wish to be denied food and water rather than the services more customarily described as "life support" since denial of the latter would be allowed under Catholic teaching while denial of the former would not. So the issue isn't entirely irrelevant legally.
On the other hand, from a legal strategy perspective, the approach of throwing everything at a problem and hoping something sticks really doesn't work well. It tends to cause annoyance among people whom you'll need on your side and gets seen as "crying wolf". There are some better legal issues here, though I don't know exactly which ones have and have not been tried. One I would think might be effective would be to seek an injunction barring any action that would damage Terri until such time as the guardianship is resolved. Such actions are common in cases of disputes over tangible property; Felos' comments about Terri not being a piece of chattel notwithstanding, I would think one should be applicable here.
Prayers ongoing for Terry and her family. May their ceaseless efforts to preseve Terry's life be fruitful.
Lord, give your Holy Angels watch over Terry, in her waking and in her sleeping. Amen.
Again, I don't see how arguments regarding Terri's state of mind can be deemed irrelevant.
Since the Pope's pronouncement is recent, these are changed circumstances that should be examined now.
It is not a kitchen sink argument; it is a cornerstone argument. I agree that guardianship is another line of defense.
YES!
Bump
but I don't think this religious angle has much legal relevance.
Perhaps someone should ask the Catholics of Florida how much relevance (legal or otherwise) it has in their lives and the life of Terry Schindler.
Beautiful prayer. Thank you!
"One I would think might be effective would be to seek an injunction barring any action that would damage Terri until such time as the guardianship is resolved. Such actions are common in cases of disputes over tangible property; Felos' comments about Terri not being a piece of chattel notwithstanding, I would think one should be applicable here."
The same possibility occurred to me. However, this is the answer emailed to me from an interested law firm: "The problem is that the guardianship removal petition does not change the court order mandating the removal of Terri's food and water. ANY guardian will have to comply with that court order. So, Greer's failure to proceed on the guardianship matter has no direct impact on Terri's plight, and any petition for writ of prohibition on that basis would likely fail."
However, it still remains (to the best of my knowledge) that Greer's order is only for removal of the feeding tube AND NOT total denial of food or water, which, under the Florida self-murder statute (782.08) is illegal and thus prohibited.
What a beautiful prayer...I agree with you before God's throne.
Beautiful
A new guardian, however, would have access to medical records and testing which have not as yet been introduced into evidence. Further, if as I expect to be the case, Terri could be readily trained to accept food by mouth, the feeding tube issue could be rendered moot.
Another thing: I would expect a full examination of Terri's condition and the guardianship records would show that Michael's conduct is feloniously illegal. It would be better for Michael that Terri live, than that she die a week after her guardianship is transferred.
I am not surprised that an accomplice to attempted murder is also a crook.
Why won't this man just turn this woman over to her parents' care and be done with her?
If one accepts that a man who claims to be concerned about his wife's privacy and then goes on national television with indelicate details of her gynecological exams, shows himself to be a liar, then there is no reason to believe Michael's claimed motivation.
The only reason I can figure for Michael's behavior is that he knows that he would find himself in very big trouble if he lost Terri's guardianship. I would guess this trouble would come from a new guardian's obligatory examination of Terri's person and records.
I don't know how I missed your ping yesterday! Sorry all!
Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!
I think freep was neglected to be mentioned but is among those WHO KNOW WHO THEY ARE. On the net sometimes freep a message will get a bad rap because freep is mentioned. We think of freep often.
Wonderful Idea to increase the bursting of the blogosphere for Terri from News
From the Backporch
http://newsfromthebackporch.blogspot.com
A Blog For Terri
Make a blog for Terri Schindler
go to http://www.blogger.com
Make a blog in 3 easy steps
It's FREE
Link to other Blogs for Terri at
http://www.blogsforterri.com/
The link to join the Blogburst is
http://www.blogsforterri.com/join.php
Protect Terri from those who
are trying to kill her.
They want to start killing her as
early as February 22nd, 2005. This coming Tuesday.
"I don't want anyone trying
to feed that girl...
the law of the case is
that she is going to die"
-- pseudo judge George W. Greer
from the bench in 2001.
Praying !!
Ping to different thread, same topic.
RIGHT TO LIFE
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Catechism Catholic Church
Catholic Ping - Come home for Easter and experience God’s merciful love. Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Prayers on the way.
This is another thing that needs to be looked at. I understand that Michael has more than two children. Does anyone have pertinent information about any other child(ren) that Michael may have? Name, sex, age, mother? Anything to go on would be helpful.
From your 2 posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346891/posts?page=33#33
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346891/posts?page=33#34
"A new guardian, however, would have access to medical records and testing which have not as yet been introduced into evidence. ...
". . . I would expect a full examination of Terri's condition and the guardianship records would show that Michael's conduct is feloniously illegal. ..."
True enough for both circumstances. The sad and tragic part is that Greer has been, apparently intentionally, allowing the guardianship issue (filed in 2002) to languish. When there was activity, Greer closely controlled introduction of evidence on the issues -- as he has done for all of the actions concerning Terri.
What's needed is a legal vehicle that could force Greer to proceed on the Schindlers guardianship complaint issues before Terri is gone. The only action I know of suitable for that purpose is the extraordinary writ, Writ of Mandamus. Florida's constitution references writs for all but the lowest court levels.
". . . Further, if as I expect to be the case, Terri could be readily trained to accept food by mouth, the feeding tube issue could be rendered moot."
It's been medically acknowledged that she has no drooling problem. Plus, it's been reported that Terri was being spoon-fed prior to insertion of the feeding tube. So, like you, I have no doubt that she is capable. Then yes, the feeding tube issue would evaporate, revealing the flimsy falsity of HINO's claim -- which would be devastatingly embarrassing for all who've jumped onto HINO's wagon.
So HINO's claim can be reasonably presumed to be a trojan horse issue, providing him cover for not only feeding tube withdrawal, but all attempts to totally deny food AND water for Terri.
All I've ever heard reported about Greer's order is that it was/is limited to tube withdrawal. If true, total denial of food and water would be/is in excess of what Greer authorized, and entirely an extralegal (illegal) HINO decision.
The law firm answer surprised me in that it spoke not of authorization to withdraw Terri's feeding tube but to totally withhold food and water. The difference is critical. Feeding tube withdrawal is not illegal under 782.08, but complete denial of food and water is. I am skeptical about this answer because I believe someone has a grievous misunderstanding about what is authorized in Greer's order.
Greer has filed a previous order forbidding oral food and hydration, on the grounds of the alleged risk of aspiration. Not in and of itself illegal, but I would suggest that Jeb Bush should consider that order to be voided by any subsequent order forbidding feeding tubes. Not go to court to get it voided--just regard it as void (otherwise the court would add a few days delay while poor Terri is dehydrated).
Thanks for the ping!
Goodnight Terri prayer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.