Posted on 03/30/2005 3:36:24 AM PST by Eurotwit
VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II is getting nutrition from a feeding tube through the nose, the Vatican said Wednesday.
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls also said that the pontiff was continuing a "slow and progressive" convalescence.
He is depending on it now as it has been inserted. He was having difficulty swallowing (as opposed to your charge that he was completely unable) and they decided with his consent to insert this device to boost his caloric intake.
Cite, please, that this case has set precedent rather than is following precedent.
Be careful what you wish for - the "cruel and unusual" angle will only invite a more "humane" execution - it won't remove the horror of striking someone dead because they are "less than human" in the eyes of the spiritually "dead".
I see - I stand corrected. Thank you.
Oh boy...sorry. These days on this particular topic sarcasm must be noted if you've read some of the outlandish statements that so many earnestly think are true.
LOL
Is this saying that dying a natural death instead of accepting medical treatment is immoral and suicide?
Why don't they just ban feeding tubes....since they stop a person from having a 'euphoric angelic experience'?
The natural means of sustenance for an adult is feeding onself. I was not aware that any type of feeding tube was "natural", but then people come up with strange new definitions every day.
Again, is no one allowed to simply pass on at the natural end of their ability to live? Must we all be hooked up to machines?
Funny - you're putting more stock into the MSM than the long-employed spokesman for the Vatican?
This is rich. First, the Vatican is too secret - the charge being that the Vatican is withholding information on the Pope's health. Now they're making stuff up?
The Church has also loudy and forcefully proclaimed that feeding through a fedding tube is NOT an invasive or artificial means of prolonging life. It is simply a method of providing nutrition. The Church's teaching on this has been clear, precise and consistent.
There a tens of thousands of adults who can't feed themselves. They're quadroplegic, suffering from CP, muscular dystrophy, Alzheimers...
Since they don't fit your definition of "natural sustenance", is it acceptable to dehy/starve them?
Explain how a tube is a "machine".
If a human being wants food and water, but is strapped to a bed and purposely deprived of it and any means of receiving it, that's not a "natural" death.
Someone who is terminally ill may reject food as a natural reaction of the brain to its imminent demise. That's not suicide.
So was it morally required that Terri be hooked up to one in the first place?
Before feeding tubes were invented, obviously you could not be hooked up to one, therefore there could be no necessity of avoiding death in this manner. Why is it now some sort of moral necessity? Do the laws of morality advance with "progress" in science?
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema." (Vatican I, Chapter 4, Canon 3)
Why would they politicize it? The Vatican doesn't need votes. They don't care about public opinion.
Thanks for posting that, Notwithstanding......I have 'stolen' it for a research project I am doing.
I suppose it depends on the circumstances, now, doesn't it?
I would think that it is probably difficult to find a moral justification to deny a child (or person incapable of making such a decision) certain simple surgeries. Of course a simple surgery in Chicago may be a complex and unaffordable surgery in remote parts of Africa.
Can a mother be morally obligated to have surgery for the child-in-utero's benefit? Again, it depends. What is the basis for not wanting the surgery? Vanity? Or is the surgery potentially fatal for the mom?
Can a person who needs to have his appendix removed or die refuse such tratment? I have never thought about that. But, depending on the reason for refusing the surgery, there are situations where it would be no different than refusing to leave a burning building - it is suicide (and therefore immoral).
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.