Text 10956, 55 rader
Skriven 2005-04-03 00:38:30 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av VERN HUMPHREY
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
-> EC>Two people have asserted that it was "nonsense," but the sworn testimony
-> EC>of Father Murphy and the actual church document at the USCCB site say
-> EC>otherwise.

-> Show me where the Catholic Bishops categorically indorse the withholding
-> of food and water.

No one has ever said that they "categorically indorse" it.  Wolfson said
that the general principle that artificial nutrition "may be removed in
terminal and even vegetative state conditions" falls within their
guidelines.  In other words, they do not CATEGORICALLY OPPOSE IT.  And
that is correct.  SINCE that time, the Pope made statements in 2004 that
came CLOSER to being categorical opposition, but that does not affect
the truth of the 2003 report at the time it was written.

So, on one hand, there has been posted a press release indicating that
one person felt that "we owe" food and water to people.

On the other hand is the sworn testimony of an ordained Catholic priest
with a Master of Divinity degree and years of experience as a hospital
chaplin that included dealing with many end-of-life situations.  He
specifically laid out some of the qualifications and distinctions I
spoke of earlier.  He also went further than Wolfson chose to go, by
suggesting that Schiavo fit into those qualifications.  But that goes
beyond the point at hand.  The point is that he testified that the
opposition is not categorical.

Plus there is health care services Directive 58 from the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops: "58. There should be a presumption in
favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including
patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration, as long
as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the
patient. ("Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care
Services," Fourth Edition, 2001)"  Notice the key terms "presumption"
(as opposed to a "categorical imperative") and "as long as" (as opposed
to "whether or not").

Plus there is the 1992 resource paper from the NCCB, "Nutrition and
Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections."
(http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/nutindex.htm)  It draws
various distinctions, such as the issue of whether it will make recovery
more likely, the issue of whether the method is "intrusive, painful, or
repugnant" (an IV, for example, is far different from a surgically
implanted tube that connects directly to the digestive system), and "a
careful assessment of the burdens and benefits of nutrition and
hydration for the individual patient and his or her family and
community."

So it is pretty clear that the general principle that food and water may
be removed is covered by the guidelines.  No, they do not say
categorically that ALL patients must WITHOUT exception be cut off from
food and water.  That would be absurd.  But they also do not say NEVER.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)