Religious Freedom
I hadn't thought that the murder of Terry Shiavo could be considered a threat to religious freedom, but taking this perspective it would certainly seem to be the case.
Terri Schiavo is a devout Roman Catholic. Her religion forbids her to consent to what amounts to assisted suicide.
Catholics believe that food and water provided to an invalid person are not extraordinary means. Denying such necessities to a sick person without that person's consent is tantamount to killing them.
Schiavo's husband doesn't see it that way. With the aid of both Federal and state courts he is getting ready to order all food and water be cut off to her. He claims that she once allegedly expressed a desire to die rather than spend her life in a state of grievously disability. Her parents vehemently disagree with that assessment.
Straight from the Pope's mouth:
Last month Pope John Paul II told an international congress of physicians and ethicists in Rome, that the "administration of food and water, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act."
Moreover, he said that providing hydration and nutrition is "in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such, morally obligatory." The pope was speaking specifically about patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) who, because of severe brain damage, are not conscious and cannot ingest food or water naturally.
Ok, to most of us this would seem simple, but it looks like the simple is confounding the wise.
3 Comments:
I was a nurse for over 11 years, mostly in the geriatric field. I have actually seen and had to tolerate the choice of family members doing this to my patients. It was the cruelest and hardes thing I have ever witnessed in my life. It is no different to me than an infant being starved and dehydrated to death. We all know that it unethical and against the law. Now if I understand all the newspaper clips I have read correctly, what they are calling a persisten vegitative state is a being who opens her eyes and responds to physical stimuli but is unable to communicate. Well then so is a newborn. What is the difference? That this is a grown person who should be able to do those things, but cant. Idiots, all of them. just because one cannot do for themselves does not make them unfeeling. This is an outrage.
What her husband wants to do, is put her out of his life for the sake of profit. I thought euthanasia was against the law, and yet its the law considering it. This is a slow and painful form of euthanasia, regardless of what anyone thinks. There will be hunger pains, muscle cramping from dehydration, and slowly her body's organs will shut down one by one. Tell me how can this be considered ethical in any form? It would be the same as a person locked up and being starved and thirsted to death. It is a long and painfully slow way to die.
Its me again, I just can't let this go.
I simply cannot believe that in a country where death row inmates have to be in perfect health, to be euthanized, and are given the leathal injection because its more humane, that the leagal system is actually debating starving and dehydrating a person (who was so loved and loving back) to death.
Why do heinous criminals deserve better treatment for death? If they are going to sentence her to death, why not give her a leathel dose of morphine, putting her to sleep and it will slowly and painlessly stop her breathing? Oh no, thats unethical. Well if your gonna be unethical at least please be considerate about it people, let it be painless.
I can't let it go either.
I'm not sure if the media has shut them down or not, but Christian leaders should be frothing at the mouth over this, regardless of denomination. Letting the state make this life or death decision is not a good precedent as we could see from a certain Reich of the 20th century.
Post a Comment
<< Home