(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Pope John Paul II said Saturday the removal of feeding tubes from people in vegetative states was immoral, and that no judgment on their quality of life could justify such "euthanasia by omission."

Fantastic. Does that mean the Vatican will be helping families pay the catastrophic medical bills of keeping a person alive, for years or decades, when there is literally no hope of recovery?

The Pope called for more money for a "cure," but there is no "cure" for massive brain damage. Small amounts of damage can repair themselves over time, amazingly enough, but if the prefrontal cortex is destroyed, there's no one home and there never will be.

Why is our culture so afraid of death? Death is part of life. Death is fore-ordained at the moment of birth. To be honest I am not afraid of being dead, I am not afraid of the thought that who I am will one day disappear into oblivion. It's the process of dying itself I'm afraid of. All that pain and panic.

Comments

Proverbial mixing of proverbial fruits.

[t-head.livejournal.com]

• His Holiness is bound to speak on this matter, regardless of his own intimate opinion, as the leader of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ.
  
• As far as we know, Christ never euthanized anyone. Even in cases which, in ancient context, were as grave as vegetative state (such as leprosy and insanity), Christ made an effort to heal them. The precedent was set: his followers healed people, rather than give up on them, to this day.
  
• Catholic belief is that human life does not belong to the person; it belongs to God. Human beings cannot give themselves life, neither then can they take it, be it their own or other's.
  
• I daresay it's not fear of death that motivated this declaration from John Paul II, but rather fear of the growing idea that human life is not sacred and can be disposed of when no longer considered "worthy". This idea is not exclusive to Catholics.
  

Fantastic. Does that mean the Vatican will be helping families pay the catastrophic medical bills of keeping a person alive, for years or decades, when there is literally no hope of recovery?

You certainly destroyed that poor straw man. Poor thing, it never had a chance...

Re: Proverbial mixing of proverbial fruits.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The precedent was set: his followers healed people, rather than give up on them, to this day.

This is an excellent point. But perhaps it bears pointing out that we do not have the healing ability which Jesus was said to possess? He could, it was said, raise a man from the dead. If so, he had no cause to "give up" on someone.

Which brings me to my next point -- is it truly "giving up" to allow someone to die? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Which is the point I've made in my comments above -- a sweeping statement in this matter is, on the whole, an injustice.

I too consider human life to be sacred. What does it mean to honor that sacredness? I question whether it is honorable to consign someone, and who is unsuited to live such an existence by the particularity of his or her disposition, to live in a state against his or her will where he or she is entirely dependent on machines and constant nursing care -- an existence which is by all accounts extremely humiliating and undignified.

Some people might be suited to such a life; others are not. Does a sweeping statement asserting that only certain options are acceptable no matter what, honor the sacredness of the lives of those who would be absolutely miserable existing in such a way? Every case is unique; every case deserves to be judged on its own.


You certainly destroyed that poor straw man.

Perhaps it seems callous to consider the financial burden such a situation places on a family. Having been very recently in bankruptcy court, due largely to medical bills, perhaps I am not objetive enough to comment on that issue.