Something that most Catholic bloggers haven't emphasized:
Terri Schiavo isn't really a "rare" case. Stronger people pull feeding tubes out of weaker people all the time. And a lot of those times the sick person didn't have their wishes in writing and nobody really knows what they would have wanted. And some of those times family members disagree about what to do.
Terri is perhaps special because there are so many arguments for keeping the tube in, many of which rest on what I'll call "common decency" rather than specifically Catholic doctrine. (1) her wishes aren't known (2) her guardian appears to have several ulterior motives (3) the courts may not have given her a fair shake (4) it is debatable whether she is in a PVS or whether she is conscious and able to suffer from her starvation (5) someone is willing and able to shoulder all the burdens of her care.
But let's not forget that even if no one were willing to shoulder the burdens of her care, it would be wrong to starve her. Even if she were certainly in a PVS, it would be wrong to starve her. Even if the courts had given her a fair shake, it would be wrong (though legal) to starve her. Even if Michael Schiavo's reputation were impeccable, it would be wrong to starve her (though if he thought otherwise through no fault of his own, his guilt might be mitigated).
And does this happen? Yes. And are we outraged? No. Maybe because that battle has already been fought and lost, when "nutrition and hydration" were included in the list of "medical treatments" that can be denied to the dying.
The "easiest case" for most people may be the hardest case for us: when a patient has explicitly directed her own starvation in an advance care directive. It is clearly wrong, in the first place, to direct your guardian to starve you. But once a believer becomes the guardian of someone who explicitly has directed him to starve her, what should he do? Abandon guardianship? Disobey the order? Or wash his hands of it and carry out her wish?
Comments