When your heart is breaking, everything else falls easily into place … second place. Now comes Papa Ratzi on what we deeply believe to be the wrong side of the euthanasia debate:
Benedict didn't mention Eluana Englaro by name, but it was clear he was referring to her case, which has made headlines in Italy for months. Englaro has been in a vegetative state since 1992 after a car accident. She was 20 at the time.
Her father has fought a decade-long court battle to disconnect her feeding tube; he says his daughter visited a friend in a coma shortly before her accident and expressed the will to refuse treatment in the same situation …
In 2007, the Vatican condemned American Terri Schiavo's death as "arbitrarily hastened" and called the removal of her feeding tube a violation of the principles of Christianity and civilization.
She died March 31, 2005, in a Florida hospice after her parents unsuccessfully battled a court order to have her feeding tube removed.
Oh, yes. Terry Schiavo. We came down on the other side of that debate from our usual philosophical allies, big time. In that case, the parents wanted to keep the feeding tube in place. In the Italian case the father wants it removed. In both situations, an obscene bureaucratic fiat just says no to an intimate family decision that should be nobody else's business. Been there, done that.
I have to think the Pope is not on the right side in this conflict. God did not create feeding tubes for mankind. Using them is a modern development and should be up to the individuals involved, not the government.
Posted by: goomp | February 01, 2009 at 07:19 PM
Agree, Sisu. There are some times where the spiritual authority of even the most dedicated representative of our Lord here on Earth can batter a flock already hammered by the inevitable tragedies and brokenness of life. The more one sees of such situations, the more one knows that one can't legislate the right decision for all of them, any more than one can legislate love.
Posted by: retriever | February 02, 2009 at 06:33 AM
I am torn by knowing what medical science can do to prolong -- not save, merely prolong -- life. Life in its most primary definition lacking most anything that is considered humanity.
It is to be considered how longingly we will cling to life as long as there is a brain cell functioning.
My stepmother and my brother-in-law who both died of cancer are my guiding lights here.
Everything was done to prolong my brother-in-law's life. Yet, he still died and in how much pain and suffering, we will never know, but can imagine. With guilt.
My step-mother died in her home, with hospice care and drugs to mediate the pain as best we humans know how. She finally died on her own terms, her last words being "It's so hard to let go."
Twenty years before, I think my brother-in-law faced that hard to let go moment long before we and the medical caregivers did. We kept his body hanging on long after he was present.
I spent three months of my life giving as much care and comfort to my step-mom as I could, partly because my own mother died so suddenly I was not allowed that time with her.
I slept with her when nothing but the warmth of another body could ease her shivering. I pureed food and fed it to her. I made her tea and didn't fuss when she spilled it or dropped the cup.
What is fine china if not to be enjoyed in your last days?
Posted by: Donna B. | February 03, 2009 at 04:54 AM
We've been through similarly horrifying experiences in my family, Sissy. Notably with my father, whose life was stretched out by modern medicine probably two *years* longer than it should have been.
As a conservative with a wide libertarian streak, leaving this decision up to the patient, the family, and the medical care provider, without the meddling interference of well-meaning others (as you say, ain't nobody else's business) seems like a no-brainer to me.
Posted by: Barry Campbell | February 03, 2009 at 10:15 AM