Text 11465, 76 rader
Skriven 2005-04-13 19:05:00 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av VERN HUMPHREY
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
-> EC>Since I have been making direct reference to the actual words of what
-> EC>"the Bishops say," that is obviously incorrect.

-> EC>-> No one but a Bishop is empowered to put an interpretation on what they
-> EC>-> say.

-> EC>That doesn't seem to have prevented you from making your own
-> EC>interpretation of what they said.

-> I have posted verbatim statements that food and water are required.
-> You, on the other hand, want to torture some statement into saying the
-> opposite.

The responses are getting more and more divorced from reality and from
the actual thread.  To review, Wolfson said: "It is noteworthy that the
general principle of artificial nutrition as artificial life support
that may be removed in terminal and even vegetative state conditions is
reflected in nearly all states laws and within the guidelines of end of
life care enunciated by the American Conference of Catholic Bishops and
other religious denominations."

You disagreed with the last part.  You gave three "verbatim statements."
Not one of them even addressed the guidelines of the Conference of
Bishops.

One was a press release giving the opinion of someone named "Cathy
Cleaver Ruse" saying that people should get food and water as long as it
provides comfort and nourishment.  Unless there have been some drastic
changes made, there are no Bishops named "Cathy."  And she doesn't
mention the guidelines of the Confererence, which, recall, WAS the
issue.  And even her opinion has an "as long as" in it!

There was also a press release from a group of "ethicists" who give
their opinion on the Schiavo case.  They cite the Conference paper that
I quoted, and make a less than categorical conclusion: "In general, the
provision of nutrition and hydration to the patient in PVS is
proportionate and morally obligatory.  Removal of food and water is
permissible only when they no longer attain the ends for which they are
provided."  I'm not sure if any of those "ethicists" are Bishops, and
I'm therefore not sure whether you think they have the authority to
interpret the Conference guidelines.  They do a general gloss of the far
more specific language in the actual documents FROM THE CONFERENCE as
they pertain to exceptions.

The third was a pamphlet put out by the National Catholic Bioethics
Center -- although the Japanese website you got it from does not clearly
identify it.  If you had gone to the VERY NEXT publication listed on the
"lifeissues" website you would have found a reprint of exactly the same
1992 document straight from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
that I have been quoting from these several weeks.  Anyway, the subtitle
of the pamphlet is "AN EXPLANATION OF CHURCH TEACHING ON ADVANCE
DIRECTIVES, EUTHANASIA, AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE."  But according
to you they CANNOT "explain" such things unless they are Bishops! Their
conclusion is that someone named Anne should receive food and water "as
long as they provide her a benefit."  The relevance of this is highly
questionable, in light of the actual wording of the actual documents
from the Conference of Bishops.

On the other side, there is the actual wording of the guideline that
Wolfson was talking about.  Plus a longer paper specifically on
hydration and nutrition, also put out by the Conference of Bishops.
Plus the overall conclusion of one of the people who WROTE the VERY SAME
GUIDELINES that are at issue here!  If you feel that the guidelines are
not in keeping with OTHER aspects of ancient teachings, direct your
complaints to the Conference of Bishops and have them rewritten.  It
would be overkill to add in the comments of Thomas Kopfensteiner,
Theological Consultant to the NCCB Committee for the Revision of the
Religious and Ethical Directives, the very directives that are the issue
here.  But they can be found in a 2000 article of a publication called
"Health Progress," put out by the Catholic Health Association of the
United States.  In the article he talks about the process of WRITING
Directive #58, and discusses at some length what it actually does and
does not say.

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