Fr. Cekada and the Terri Schiavo case
#11
(11-18-2010, 11:58 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: This topic was talked about in leangth on the other forum.  It was ridiculous then as it is ridiculous now...she's dead, we have our opinions.  I was not on the ground and never saw Terri S.  I'm inclined to think letting her starve was wrong because I do not know if she was a complete veg...but she may have been...my opinion at the time was that she was not and that the husband had possibly attempted murder and failed...and allowing her to die would have been in his interest if she was not a complete veg.


Be that as it may.  I have seen since then several people who are complete vegs that should not be kept going but they are, it is in fact abuse to keep them alive as far as I am concerned.  Often it is because there is a pention check or something involved....although it's not really important if there is or is not.


Beside one has to wonder at what point with a veg, tube feeds and IVs are extrodinary measures...because there has to be a point at which they are....heck a case could be made that they always are...although I would tend to disagree with it.


Edit by Quis - topic cleanup

 Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right, it really does not matter any longer.

The fact seems to be that if Terri was a complete veg then he is right more or less, if she was not a veg, and I recall at the time it was reported that she did not want the tube pulled, then really she should have been making her medical decisions and pulling the tube would habe been wrong

But as stated above, I was not on the ground....and I don't think any of you were there either.  From the reports at the time it could have been construed both ways...some press calling her a veg, other press claiming she could almost talk....who was telling the truth?  I leaned to the "she could almost talk" side of things, as it seems most here and responding to the Remnant did.  Fr. C chose the other reports as the base line, unless he was actually there...

Heck, Rev. Jackson was there...and he was on my side.....made me proud to have pulled the lever for him as presidential primaries in VA back in '88 as an attempt to mess up the Dem's convention.

Isn't odd that we are siding with Rev Jackson on this!?  I still do ...assuming she could make decisions....but who here REALLY knows if she could...the question is WHERE YOU THERE....


I think if it could be shown that Terri actually was not a veg and wanted to live that Fr. C would be saying that she should not have been unplugged....but who knows

Well said Scipio.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  Edit by Quis - topic cleanup
Reply
#12
Edit by Quis - topic cleanup

It is Fr. Cekada who is out in the wilderness on this one. He was even rebuked in The Four Marks (a sedevacantist publication) by Fr. Martin Stephanich, an elderly sedevacantist priest. As I noted earlier, Bp. Donald Sanborn, who is mentioned as a supporter in Fr. Cekada's letters to the Remnant, no longer supports Fr. Cekada's conclusion.
Reply
#13
(11-19-2010, 12:54 PM)mike6240 Wrote:
(11-18-2010, 11:58 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: This topic was talked about in leangth on the other forum.  It was ridiculous then as it is ridiculous now...she's dead, we have our opinions.  I was not on the ground and never saw Terri S.  I'm inclined to think letting her starve was wrong because I do not know if she was a complete veg...but she may have been...my opinion at the time was that she was not and that the husband had possibly attempted murder and failed...and allowing her to die would have been in his interest if she was not a complete veg.


Be that as it may.  I have seen since then several people who are complete vegs that should not be kept going but they are, it is in fact abuse to keep them alive as far as I am concerned.  Often it is because there is a pention check or something involved....although it's not really important if there is or is not.


Beside one has to wonder at what point with a veg, tube feeds and IVs are extrodinary measures...because there has to be a point at which they are....heck a case could be made that they always are...although I would tend to disagree with it.


Edit by Quis - topic cleanup  Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right, it really does not matter any longer.

The fact seems to be that if Terri was a complete veg then he is right more or less, if she was not a veg, and I recall at the time it was reported that she did not want the tube pulled, then really she should have been making her medical decisions and pulling the tube would habe been wrong

But as stated above, I was not on the ground....and I don't think any of you were there either.  From the reports at the time it could have been construed both ways...some press calling her a veg, other press claiming she could almost talk....who was telling the truth?  I leaned to the "she could almost talk" side of things, as it seems most here and responding to the Remnant did.  Fr. C chose the other reports as the base line, unless he was actually there...

Heck, Rev. Jackson was there...and he was on my side.....made me proud to have pulled the lever for him as presidential primaries in VA back in '88 as an attempt to mess up the Dem's convention.

Isn't odd that we are siding with Rev Jackson on this!?  I still do ...assuming she could make decisions....but who here REALLY knows if she could...the question is WHERE YOU THERE....


I think if it could be shown that Terri actually was not a veg and wanted to live that Fr. C would be saying that she should not have been unplugged....but who knows

Well said Scipio.  I couldn't have said it better myself. Edit by Quis - topic cleanup

I am with the two of you on this one.
Reply
#14
I think a human being is always a human being and it is not possible to refer to a human being as a "vegetable" as metaphysically that term simply never apples to them regardless of their condition. There have been many Vatican statements on this. This is one example:
"The obligation to provide the "normal care due to the sick in such cases" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council "Cor Unum", Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. 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."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...mc_en.html

C.
Reply
#15
(11-19-2010, 10:12 PM)Cetil Wrote: I think a human being is always a human being and it is not possible to refer to a human being as a "vegetable" as metaphysically that term simply never apples to them regardless of their condition. There have been many Vatican statements on this. This is one example:
"The obligation to provide the "normal care due to the sick in such cases" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council "Cor Unum", Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. 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."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...mc_en.html

C.

No...there are vegs...sorry...that's the easiest way to say it...everyone knows pretty well what you are talking about when you say veg...get over it....everyone here knows theres a soul in the person...


Additionally I would hesitate to use anything written by JP2 as authoritative....I;m not saying it's wrong....but he ain't the go to boy for getting the last word on what constitutes required action by the faithful....for instance he was dead set against the death penalty and wrote about it...so what...so nothing...
Reply
#16
Everyone here may know there's a soul in the person but the pro-euthanasia crowd doesn't so it has to be said. "Get over it" is not much of principle to argue from but it works for the secularists I know.  Nothing wrong with JPII's opposition to the death penalty, the Church never said the state is obligated to impose it. He is more of a "go to guy" than lots I can think of.

C.
Reply
#17
(11-19-2010, 10:46 PM)Cetil Wrote: Nothing wrong with JPII's opposition to the death penalty, the Church never said the state is obligated to impose it. He is more of a "go to guy" than lots I can think of.

Indeed.

Trads often fail to take into account the serious scholarship and sensible wisdom of the late Pontiff, considered "the great" by not so few an eminent individual. This gang mentality and fear of knowledge are major setbacks to their cause.

(Disclaimer: Credo's impersonation)
Reply
#18
I'm cleaning this topic up (and moving it to theological debate where it belongs).

Whatever LS' motivation is, is irrelevant.  He's following the rules esp about this topic.  I said it was open for theological discussion if one chooses.  It seems he's following my guideline and everyone else is veering.

The article was public, is public knowledge, etc.  If people want to talk about the content in the article, they are welcome to do so.  That's the point of this thread.
Reply
#19
Some people wonder why this is relevant, well, I think it's relevant.  Terri Schiavo is gone, but that doesn't mean a question of morality is gone.  Obviously, this situation can happen again.

One of the key questions is: is a feeding tube extraordinary means?

I don't think it is, personally.  It's kind of like asking if a spoon is extraordinary means.  It's a simple mechanism to get food into the digestive tract.  If someone is unconscious and needs antibiotics to survive, is it extraordinary means to get a hypo and inject them?  I don't think so.  Here someone is unconscious, and a tube provides nourishment into the digestive tract.  Cost is an issue when it comes to extraordinary, but the cost wasn't the food but the hospitalization.  That seems to me a different question.  Maybe the hospitalization was extraordinary, but that doesn't mean the feeding tube is.

How much does supplying someone with nourishment through a feeding tube cost relative to, say, hooking them up to an IV?  I don't know, but I can't imagine it is ungodly expensive.  If someone knows the cost, please let us know.

As far as the appetitive power goes, we don't know because the person is unresponsive.  It seems to me we should reasonably assume they would want food if we also reasonably assume someone who is unconscious due to an infection wants an injection of antibiotic.  These assumptions are even made in the secular world where the default is to revive unless told otherwise.

As far as a vegetative state, that's somewhat irrelevant to the question and theology at hand.  AFAIK, someone is considered alive by the Church if their body still functions, regardless of whether or not it is hooked up to a machine.  I've never heard of a Requiem Mass on someone hooked up to machines, and they give Last Rites to someone hooked up to machines - by the nature of a Sacrament, that would mean the Church considers the person still alive and ensouled.

So, I don't see how this topic is irrelevant, and with due respect, I disagree with what Fr. Cekada's conclusions as presented in the writing cited.

Reply
#20
Quote:I have to disagree with Rev. Cekada. I saw interviews with one of Terry Schiavo's nurses and one of her health aides. Both said they had given her puddings as well as juices and she swallowed them with no problem. I don't believe it was ever a question of her inability to eat. The media completely distorted the issue.

There's the rub.  There seems to be some disagreements there, as to whether or not she really was eating on her own.  If it could have been proven that she was, I am inclined to think Rev Cekada would renege on his position.  But as it stands now,  I have to admit I think Father Cekada was correct Edit by Quis - remove comments about person; keep on topic of theology I believe his position was only shared by a handful of other traditionalists, such as Thomas Fleming, who was the only other writer I read making the same basic argument.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)