Pansy and Peony

And to the Church's everlasting shame, a priest in Schiavo's home parish married him to his mistress this year. C'mon, Benedict, kick some priestly and bishop b*tt.

Terri's death shook me to the core -- we had prayed so hard for her, that the Lord might let her live miraculously. But instead He took her home, and the only conslation there is, is that she has most likely joined our Lord in heaven. (Lord, I commend Terri to you, and do humbly pray for her soul, that she may be enjoying the vision of You and Your mother in heaven. Amen.)

I have recently had the chance to experience slow starvation (long story, I'm fine now), and let me tell you, it is excruciatingly painful. How dare anyone say Terri died peacefully? She suffered a martyr's death.

A few friends and I have just started getting together regularly to discuss our faith - to read Catholic books, and to begin some bible study through Scott Hahn's St. Paul Center website. We discussed this issue briefly... and I have to say there were mixed thoughts even in this Catholic group of women.

I pray that we truly understand that to be Catholic is to believe in LIFE. We are sometimes so tricked...

God grant eternal rest to the soul of Terri Schiavo... and have mercy on the souls of us all.

God bless your blog.

Your sister, Jeanne

You're great. I love you.

testify, sister.

Teri Schiavo's brain was 50% liquified. She seemed to be a person who cared about her looks. I think she would have been sick at the thought that her picture was on every t.v. in America. If her brain could not pick up thirst or hunger signals, I think her husband did the right thing. And,I am Catholic.

She seemed to be a person who cared about her looks.

So if someone does not look as good as they would like, they should be killed?

Ohmygosh, I still have ten pounds of baby weight to lose, please do not reveal that to my MIL who would love to see me out of the picture...

Mountains:

Terri Schiavo's brain was 50% liquified.

Source, please? And even if that were true, how does it follow that it's okay to starve her to death?

She seemed to be a person who cared about her looks.

Good nutrition and hyrdation would be important to her then, wouldn't it? I bet she would have preferred to go a nice rehab instead of being hidden away in some hospice forever. Of course, you can't get your hair and makeup done if you're dead.

I think she would have been sick at the thought that her picture was on every t.v. in America.

Really? Are you implying that because she was disabled she would be ashamed of her personal appearance?

If my husband was trying to starve me to death, I'd be grateful that people were putting out my picture trying to stop him. Getting my makeup fixed probably wouldn't be my first priority.

If her brain could not pick up thirst or hunger signals,

That's a pretty big "if." Even her own doctors weren't sure, and prescribed her morphine in her final days.

And does that mean that it's okay to starve brain-damaged people to death as long as you're sure they don't feel it? And how will you make certain?

I think her husband did the right thing.

If Terri felt hunger and thirst, would it follow that you would think that her husband did the wrong thing?

And,I am Catholic.

Perhaps you'd be interested in the teaching of the Church in this matter:

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering....

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.

--from the address of John Paul II to the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas," Saturday, 20 March 2004, emphasis added.

@@ She indicated that she would not want to be kept alive like she was. As far as the "she cared about the way she looks" comment, I simply meant that she would not have wanted to look like that and everyone see her. I certainly wouldn't. The state of her brain was ambiguous...at one time I heard half her brain was liquified (horrible!) and another time I heard her brain weighed far less than your average adult brain. Now I said IF she could not feel the starvation or thirst, why prolong her life. She suffered an indignity by having people gawk at her on television. If she had a moment of clarity (which I doubt), I am sure she would have said, "let me go." Of course it was hard on her family but her wishes should have been granted. And I'll tell you something else. This happens all the time in hospitals. My ex-boyfriend's family did the exact same thing to his father. If we have mercy on a suffering animal, we let them go don't we? Even if the animal is not suffering but can no longer walk, see, etc. we release it from it's bodily prison. Why should we not offer the same consideration to a human being. I did feel sad for the parents and if she did receive hunger and thirst signals, I would not agree with the cessation of life-sustaining substenance. From everything I heard, the doctors didn't think she could see, we know she couldn't talk, she was confined to a hospital bed and would have been perhaps for years. So I repeat, if she did feel hunger or thirst, I agree that she should not have been deprived of food or water but it didn't sound like it was possible giving how messed up her brain was. As for the husband, I did look upon him with suspicion but maybe I was wrong to do that,I don't know. Regardless of his position, I think that woman should not have been exploited by the media in such a vulnerable position (i.e. she couldn't tell them to get lost or that she didn't want people to see her like that.) As for what the pope says or thinks, I really don't care. I liked Pope John Paul II but some of his writing was disturbing and the current one is no charmer either:)

I simply meant that she would not have wanted to look like that and everyone see her. I certainly wouldn't.

Especially when it was done at the hands of my husband. To clarify? I would not want to get beaten up by my husband, to have rehabilitation refused, and starved to death. Nope, wouldn't like that one bit, and I would not like the side-effect of not looking so glamourous.

The state of her brain was ambiguous...at one time I heard

But you didn't do the research?

Now I said IF she could not feel the starvation or thirst, why prolong her life.

So by your own admition, there is an "if", so if there is an "if", don't you think killing her would be taking a chance?

Again, I am unsure why "feeling" the starvation makes starvation OK.

And I'll tell you something else. This happens all the time in hospitals.

Lord have mercy on us! So happening "all the time" makes it OK? Every large plantation in the south had slaves...hence it was "ok"?

My ex-boyfriend's family did the exact same thing to his father.

I'm not gonna touch that one. On second thought, be glad homeboy is your ex-you might have been next.

If we have mercy on a suffering animal, we let them go don't we? Even if the animal is not suffering but can no longer walk, see, etc. we release it from it's bodily prison. Why should we not offer the same consideration to a human being.

Because we are talking about human beings, not animals.
So the way we treat animals is a higher standard?

I would not agree with the cessation of life-sustaining substenance.

Good, then there is no doubt that what happened here was very wrong, and we can all agree to that.

From everything I heard,

See above...

Regardless of his position, I think that woman should not have been exploited by the media in such a vulnerable position (i.e. she couldn't tell them to get lost or that she didn't want people to see her like that.)

The same argument could be made that she wanted her life saved and she wanted to plea for her life on every network in the nation.

As for what the pope says or thinks, I really don't care. I liked Pope John Paul II but some of his writing was disturbing and the current one is no charmer either:)

Then why stateAnd,I am Catholic?

Lilies,

1. I don't understand why you keep coming back to Terri's personal appearance. Sure, she probably wouldn't have wanted to "look like that"; most people, given the opportunity, would probably prefer not to sustain an anoxic brain injury and if they did, would want to be cared for by their family, taken out of bed, taken outside once in a while, and have their teeth cared for instead of being shut away from their family. I would imagine that many people would put a fight for their lives ahead of their natural desire for a quiet, well-groomed life.

You say you wouldn't want your picture out there, but perhaps you would think differently if you were defenseless and desperate for your life.

2. I also don't understand why you keep coming back to the state of Terri's brain. I've never heard of anyone's brain turning to liquid, so if you could provide some information on this it would be very edifying. The state of her brain was not ambiguous: it was damaged. So does that mean it's okay to starve her to death?

3. If she had a moment of clarity (which I doubt), I am sure she would have said, "let me go." I believe you are striving to empathize with her, but Lilies, how can you be sure? How can you be certain that that's what she would have said? It's easy to think that others see things exactly the way we do, that they share our desires and wishes.

Maybe that's what you think you would have said were you in her situation, but is that really what she would have said? It's easy to say, oh, if I were in this situation I would say such-and-such. But our perspectives can change when we're actually in that situation.

4. This happens all the time in hospitals.

No kidding. All kinds of stuff happens all the time in hospitals. Does that make it okay?

5. If we have mercy on a suffering animal, we let them go don't we?

In extreme cases, the animal is euthanized. That's not "letting go", that's "causing death." There's a very important difference between "letting someone go" in the sense of ceasing futile treatment and "letting someone go" as a euphemism for kicking them out the door.

Why should we not offer the same consideration to a human being.

People aren't animals. We show our consideration by doing everything in our power to reahbilitate when possible, cure when possible, ease pain as much as possible, and care always. We don't decide that other people's lives aren't worth living.

her wishes should have been granted.

IF those were her wishes, which is highly debateable. Terri left no instructions in writing.

The entire case for withholding food was based on Michael's testimony (given years after Terri's collapse) that she'd once said, "Oh, I wouldn't want to live like that" after seeing something on TV about a brain-injured patient.

Let's say that Michael is telling the truth and Terri really said this. This wasn't a considered, informed decision placed in writing and notarized. That's still a big leap. You're taking an off-the-cuff comment, uttered in sorrow at another's suffering, and turning it into a death sentence. "I wouldn't want to live like that" -- well, who wants to have a brain injury? But when you find yourself in the situation, what if you find that sure, your life isn't what it was, but it's still valuable, it's still worth living.

So let's say she really said that. And let's say that she really meant it. What if, once she found herself in that situation, Terri changed her mind? In a matter of life and death, isn't it better to give someone who can't speak for himself the benefit of the doubt?

6. if she did receive hunger and thirst signals, I would not agree with the cessation of life-sustaining substenance.

There is no way to be sure that Terri couldn't feel hunger and thirst. Her family certainly testifies to her suffering, and as for her doctors, before the feeding tube was pulled they prescribed pain meds during her menses, and in her final days prescribed morphine.

So if you can't assume that she didn't feel hunger and thirst, does that still make it okay to stop feeding her?

7. the doctors didn't think she could see,

so?

we know she couldn't talk,

so?

she was confined to a hospital bed and would have been perhaps for years.

so? Are you saying that it's okay to starve blind people, people who can't speak, and people who are bedridden? To decide on their behalf that their life is not worth living?

So I repeat, if she did feel hunger or thirst, I agree that she should not have been deprived of food or water but it didn't sound like it was possible giving how messed up her brain was.

You can be seriously brain-injured and still feel pain. I am a registered nurse, and I assure you, I have seen profoundly brain-injured patients grimacing with pain, weeping with pain. Terri's own doctors, even as they assured us that starvation was fun and Terri was euphoric, ordered morphine for her. So they certainly thought it was possible that she felt pain.

But again, what does the degree of pain matter? Does that make it okay to starve people to death?

I think that woman should not have been exploited by the media in such a vulnerable position (i.e. she couldn't tell them to get lost or that she didn't want people to see her like that.)

"I'd rather die than be seen without my makeup on!" So they should have let her husband starve her to death in silence? I agree that the MSM did "exploit" Terri in the sense that they put her picture up there without bothering to tell both sides of the story or doing any investigation.

As for what the pope says or thinks, I really don't care.

Duly noted. Please understand, though, that many people do not share your indifference to the teachings of the head of the Catholic Church.

I liked Pope John Paul II but some of his writing was disturbing and the current one is no charmer either:)

Do you usually end sentences like that with a smiley?

I just don't understand, if you're going to kill a person, (because they're brain-damaged or whatever) why go about it the long, torturous way? Sure we put animals to "sleep", but we don't STARVE them to "sleep". So actually euthanizing a person is against the law (don't know for how long yet, sigh) but STARVING them to death is okay? How logical can that be? EVIL obviously isn't logical. EVIL will believe what it wants to get what it wants.

OK, people the bottom line is that we are autonomous human beings and to take away life is to take away our dignity and autonomy. By suffering we can empathasize with Jesus Christ the way that he emphasized with us during his passion and cruxifiction (can't spell, sorry). God cannot feel hunger, thirst, pain, envy, jealousy, etc. but he can feel love and he can experience suffering. Love and suffering is how we relate to God and how he relates to us and I personally feel that ethuanasia takes for granted and disrespects the sacrifices of Jesus Christ. Animals can't feel "love" they are only driven by the insticts for reproduction and the carrying on of the species etc. Animals are not aware of death and their mortality, therefore, it would be cruel not to put an animal to sleep because they can't contemplate their own existences to begin with. I've taken a ton of philosophy, including ethics and the phil. of religion, and religious studies and I just wrote a freaken 11 page research paper for my christianity and life sciences course on euthanasia..so trust me lol.

Oh, I trust you Laura. :)

I just wonder at the logistics of euthanasia being against the law but starving someone to death is okay? I certainly hope noone ever starves ME to death!!!

I find it interesting how Christian and oh so compassionate you are with one person (Teri) and rude and abrupt with anyone who disagrees with you. If I was Teri, I would want to be freed from that kind of bodily prison. Your questions, "how do you know?" "sources?" - they can be turned around and directed at you also. I was in a coma before and I didn't feel any pain or discomfort. I had a functioning brain and not one like Teri's (go ahead with the jabs). If I was her, blind, not understanding what was going on around her, confined to bed unable to speak, I would want it done to me also. I tend to believe she would not feel pangs of hunger since I had several procedures done to me and felt nothing while in a coma. However, if she did feel hunger and thirst, of course I would not want to do anything to make her suffer. The doctor who gave her morphine likely did so in case she did feel pain or discomfort. Morphine was administered, likely in a " just in case" scenario. She was going to die anyway - I'm glad that doctor did that. She is at peace now. I have a question for you - why are there lines drawn through some of the text printed above? Finally, you don't win anyone over by belittling and rude to anyone. I don't believe in abortion but I don't call names and scream at them when they enter those abortion clinics. It seems to me, and I ADMIT I could be wrong, that when Jesus was on earth, he won people over with love and forgiveness. Not by belittling them and calling names. When I see people who are anti-abortion such as myself do things like that, I am embarrassed. What would Jesus do?

Finally, you don't win anyone over by belittling and rude to anyone.

I don't think we were belittling or rude. No one yelled (which would BE TYPING LIKE THIS) at you or called you names. I apologise if you thought otherwise.

Anything I said that was more personal in nature, such as about your ex-boyfriend, was not intended to be snarky or a personal attack. I was attempting to make a point about what kind of precedent this case sets. It should not have happened once, but it has opened a door...

I have a question for you - why are there lines drawn through some of the text printed above?

The striked out text is Peony's way of illustrating what should have happened, but did not.

Beyond this, I am not debating this issue anymore. If you would like to know how we felt/feel about this issue, there is a link to the "Terri Schiavo" category on the side bar which will pull up every post we have made about her.

Lilies --

First, I'm glad you recovered from your coma and I'm glad you don't remember any pain from the procedures that were done to you while you were ill.

It's important to note that there could be very critical differences between your state and Terri's condition. We simply don't know what Terri could feel. Even at her autopsy, all the coroner could say was, well, "maybe" she couldn't feel anything, she "probably" was blind -- but they couldn't be sure.

You write,
The doctor who gave her morphine likely did so in case she did feel pain or discomfort. Morphine was administered, likely in a " just in case" scenario.

So in other words, there was a possibility that she could feel pain. You write "if she could feel hunger and thirst" -- how much doubt is permissible? Is a 10% chance that she could feel pain acceptable? Would you tolerate a 5% chance? What if you decided, oh, it's 98% likely that this person doesn't feel hungry, so let's go ahead and quit feeding her -- what if she fell in that 2%? What if you were wrong?

We simply cannot assume what other people are thinking and feeling and decide what we would want is what they would want. Let's say that I'm doing spring cleaning and I find a box of old baseball cards that my husband's been saving. I think, "my, what a lot of clutter! I hate clutter, and I'm sure my husband hates clutter too, so I'll just take them down to the hobby store and consign them. I know that's what I'd want him to do with my old junk." How do you think my husband would feel when he came home and found his possessions gone because "that's what I would have wanted"?

If I shouldn't sign away my husband's baseball cards, shouldn't I be even more careful in life-or-death situations?

Or let's say it's your birthday. You're out of town and your friend Mabel's watching your place for you. While you're away, another friend sends you a gift: a hideous plaque with an animatronic singing squid on it. Mabel takes the delivery, sees the plaque and thinks, "Ew, how tacky! I know I wouldn't want that thing in my house." And she throws the plaque away. Mabel's acting with good intentions -- she's trying to do you a favor -- but is it okay for her to destroy the present on your behalf?

If I was her, blind, not understanding what was going on around her, confined to bed unable to speak

But Lilies, you're not her. We can't assume that other people think and feel the same way we do -- and that they can't change their minds. People who are blind, confused, unable to speak or walk, can still give love, can still receive love. Our very existence is a gift from God and we simply don't have the right to throw that gift away on behalf of others.

You write, I don't believe in abortion. Let's use that as a starting point. Do you think it's okay to abort an unborn baby who might have a disability? There are many people out there who think it's perfectly okay, because they're "concerned about the child's quality of life." Or do you believe that we should let the child have a chance at life and make the most of the abilities he does have?

Same thing with a disabled adult. We don't have the right to judge their "quality of life" on their behalf. We don't have the right to abort their lives.

You write, What would Jesus do? Well, let's look at what He did: He healed the sick, he didn't kill them out of "mercy." He instructed us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty. "Feed my lambs," He charged Peter. And in addition to these direct instructions, He founded the Church to help guide us, the Church that has taught us from the beginning that euthanasia is wrong.

My point about the "Terri's brain was liquid" is that this is an urban legend. To my knowledge, Terri's husband himself never made such a claim. But my greater point still stands: it doesn't matter. It's not okay to starve brain-damaged people to death.

Finally, I, too, am unable to find where any commenter was calling you names; the only name calling I found was when you accused us of being "rude" and "belittling." I'm also at a loss as to why you implied that you expected someone to mock either Terri's brain or your own illness. And I'm sorry to hear that brevity, and my efforts to directly address your points, are so offensive to you. Obviously we have very different ideas of how to conduct a civil discussion, so I think we'd better just call it a day. I just ask that you consider our point: that it's not for us to pass life-and-death judgments on the "quality" of others' lives. Once again, I'm glad you recovered from your illness. Thanks again for commenting.