The Rule forbidding the withdraw of Food and Water is a GENERAL RULE, not tied in with this case. If you want to read why John Paul II made the rule see his letter in regard in such matters:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040320_congress-fiamc_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_nota-commento_en.htmlHis biggest problem with withholding food and water was this was a deliberate act by medical providers to kill a still living person (His opinion does NOT address the issue if someone is "brain dead" but still breathing and if artificial breathing devices would be withdrawn the person will die, in such cases older position papers would still be valid).
Please note the position of Pope Pius XII (Quoted in the above "Commentary" regarding people in Permanent Vegetative StateS:
On the one hand, natural reason and Christian morality teach that, in the case of a grave illness, the patient and those caring for him or her have the right and the duty to provide the care necessary to preserve health and life. On the other hand, this duty in general includes only the use of those means which, considering all the circumstances, are ordinary, that is to say, which do not impose an extraordinary burden on the patient or on others. A more severe obligation would be too burdensome for the majority of persons and would make it too difficult to attain more important goods. Life, health and all temporal activities are subordinate to spiritual ends. Naturally, one is not forbidden to do more than is strictly obligatory to preserve life and health, on condition that one does not neglect more important duties.Some other cites:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pont-acd_life_doc_20040320_joint-statement-veget-state_en.htmlhttp://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/caringforpersons.htmIf you read the above papers the key word is "Ordinary care", which the Vatican defines as including food and water. The papers go on that they are restricted to circumstances where someone is unconscious, but able to survive WITHOUT medical care except for being feed and supplied water. This goes to the issue of WHERE do you draw the line. The Vatican draws the line in an area where you will have people in a comatose state, but otherwise surviving. No extra medical care except for a feeding and water tube.
The opposition to the Vatican position is it should be up to family members to make that decision. The Vatican's problem with that is what controls are you imposing? We all agree we do not want hospital administrators to be able to say "It has been X years, lets pull the feeding tube and free up a bed". We also do NOT want such administrators to pressure families to "free up a bed" (as in the case in Texas a few years ago, the Hospital wanted to pull the plug, while the family did not want to, if I remember right the Hospital won under a Law passed when Bush was Governor).
More on the Texas case I cited:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/05/03/texas/http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/fb812f57-3447-4b4f-bdd0-48f624e42132 Thus the question is who decides and when. The Vatican has drawn a line and staying with it. Many people do NOT like that line, but it is defend able (The Pope calls for assistance to families who has a member in a Permanent Vegetative State in addition to keep feeding the person in the Coma, but then he grow up in a State with National Health Service (Poland) and most of the people in the Vatican has also lived in such countries (Western Europe including Italy).
One last comment, only the Independent newspaper claim this was Vatican inspired, every one else just blamed the Prime Mister of Italy (And his attempt to use to the get support). The Vatican is conspicuous by its absence in this matter (The Vatican Secretary of Heath made a statement, which states his personal position as to the death of this woman, but that is all, a simple statement when questioned, no official statement). It may reflect how the Vatican looks at this situation, it may not. I always like quoting an old observation of the Common Law, "Hard Cases make Bad Law". The rationale for that statement is when you have a hard case, like should this woman continue to live, the result is never good. Which way to you want to err? Err on the side that she MAY recover? Or err that she will not? Tough decision and I am glad I am not making it.
As to the Bishop who made that statement Javier Cardinal Lozano Barragán in April of 2006 stated that a previous report that he had issued a paper calling Condemns a lesser evil in regards to AIDS was in error, he did NOT have the Authority in the Vatican Hierarchy to issue such a paper (The alleged paper apparently was for internal discussion only, it was made and then used in some sort of internal discussion, which probably has not worked it way through the Vatican Hierarchy yet). Thus the Bishop's comments are clearly his own NOT the Vatican nor Catholic doctrine.
For more on Javier Cardinal Lozano Barragán
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Lozano_Barrag%C3%A1n
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
