Text 11513, 69 rader
Skriven 2005-04-14 18:46:34 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
 EC> Pretty much that is what I meant to say.  Before someone kills me, 
 EC> I'd hope they have more than three or four persons who testify that 
 EC> killing me is my preference.

-> Her preference was that she not live in a permanent helpless state, NOT that
-> she be murdered.  Regardless of HOW she died, she was NOT murdered under the
-> law.

"Kill" and "murder" are getting tossed around rather loosely, and
selectively.  The priest who testified in the Schiavo hearing, Father
Gerald Murphy, spoke of his fathers decision to stop chemotherapy.  I
haven't heard anyone shouting that his father "killed" himself of
cancer.  The spiritual adviser to the Schindler family decided (alone
with other monks, and apparently with NO oral or written will at all for
the hospitalized monk) that a Franciscan monk in a PVS should NOT get a
breathing tube inserted when he was unable to breathe WITHOUT one.  I
haven't heard a single person suggesting that he "murdered" his friend
by asphyxiating him!

A while back I directly quoted the relevant directive on the subject, as
propounded by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Even that
organization recognized that while there should be a presumption in
favor of giving food and water to a patient that presumption can be
overcome in specific circumstances.  Even they do not dismiss it as
"killing."  Here is a more complete explanation, from the person who was
Theological Consultant to the NCCB committee that DREW UP those
directives:

- - - - -

Undoubtedly, physicians act responsibly by initiating treatments with
the hope of stabilizing or improving the condition of the patient,
especially in an emergency situation. The diagnosis of the persistent
vegetative state only occurs over time. In other words, as the condition
of the patient becomes clearer, the initial presumption that obliged the
physician to treat the patient may wane; the presumption to treat the
patient must eventually cede to the truth of the patient's diagnosis and
prognosis.

When a patient is diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state one
weighs the maintenance of life against a condition in which the patient
will never know who he or she is; will never know familiar surroundings;
will never recognize loved ones. In such a situation, one can
legitimately judge medically assisted nutrition and hydration as a
disproportionate means of preserving life; the burdens imposed outweigh
the benefits gained. The decision to remove nutrition and hydration from
such a patient does not signal callous abandonment; it is not done "with
the intention of causing death." Rather, removing nutrition and
hydration reflects the recognition that "the duty to preserve life is
not absolute"; it is done with the intention of removing an excessive
burden that no longer needs to be endured.

In the end, the bishops did not resolve the morality of withdrawing
medically assisted hydration and nutrition from a person who is in a
persistent vegetative state. Instead, they reiterated the traditional
categories that help guide prudential healthcare decisions. Like all
medical procedures, nutrition and hydration must be evaluated in terms
of the benefits and burdens to the patient. Weighing the benefits and
burdens will depend on an accurate diagnosis of the patient's condition
which, as in the case of the persistent vegetative state, occurs only
over time. Once a person is diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative
state, however, the ERD do not preclude the removal of nutrition and
hydration from the patient. 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3859/is_200005/ai_n8893585/p
g_3

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