Was John Paul II Euthanized?
What??? Are they trying to make a mockery of the Catholic faith?
Anyhow, I read the article with the slanderous headline. Apparently one of the physicians attending to the late pope believes that he should have had a feeding tube inserted much sooner than he did. Shouldn't the headline have been "Did John Paul II receive proper medical treatment?" Unless my understanding of what entails Euthanasia is incorrect, to even use the term is ludicrous.
Well anyway, that's my rant for today.
9 comments:
Good grief. I'm tempted to rant further, but good grief really sums it up.
Remember, there's a difference between calling out human hypocrisy and making a mockery of a faith.
Should the media have refrained from reporting on Ted Haggard or the decades of child-rape cover-ups?
I am not saying that hypocrisy should be covered up. And if the physician seemed to be making a legitimate claim that the pope had made a decision contrary to his supposed faith it should have been reported.
But that does not seem to be the issue at all. Even if the physician's claims are 100% true, they really would not amount the euthanasia accusation.
My beef here is that the headline is designed in a way that is provocative and gives a false impression.
Not having a feeding tube in no way is considered euthanasia. Denying food and water by mouth to someone who can eat is different. I may be a new Catholic, but I am not new to the medical profession. A vent or feeding tube is considered an artifial means of preserving life. Sometimes it is a legitament use of medical intervention, but certainly not in all circumstances. Besides doctors vary a lot at when to do this as it is surgery and stresses the body. In otherwards, people don't always survive the surgery to place the tube if they are very ill and weak. Now I will stop my rant. Remeber that respecting life doesn't always mean preserving it at all costs. Sometimes it means letting go gracefully and this isn't against the Catholic faith.
I thought about removing that junk spam comment there... But I sort of found it amusing. Probably before posting diet ads on blogs, they should check to make sure the administrator isn't pregnant.
The Catholic Church teaches that "a patient... must... receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means"(emphasis mine).
from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
RESPONSES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONCERNING ARTIFICIAL NUTRITION AND HYDRATION
John:
Your quotation does not address the issue at stake here, which is whether a person may decide not to receive artifical life support. I think the answer to this question is probably that the patient may decide to forgo this artificial sustenance. We are not morally obligated to go to a modern hospital when we are sick.
Your quotation (although your use of elipses does not make this clear) addresses the moral obligation of caregivers to continue to provide feeding tubes to people, like Terri Schiavo, who are in a vegetative state.
John, Please address the issue of a patient deciding if he should be given a feeding tube. Does the Cathlic Church really feel that all must accept artificial feeding? I understand not removing it, but at what point does the Church say you must accept being fed through you nose or abdomen?
Post a Comment