Robert Schindler PULLED THE PLUG ON HIS OWN MOTHER!!!

Q-In the Catholic' faith, is death something that a practicing Catholic need fear?

A-No. No. In fact, that is a fundamental part of the Catholic faith. We call ourselves a pilgrim people. Life here on earth is really seen as a temporary stay. Catholics believe that our destiny is Heaven. Therefore, you can't do everything to prevent yourself from getting there. What is so hard to deal with in educating Catholics in these issues is that death is a part of life. It is a part of life. It's part of the process. No, Catholics should not fear death.


Q-There was a statement in Mrs. Schindler's deposition that, in addition to wanting every type of medical treatment to preserve herself in a permanent unconscious state should hypothetically she be in that state, that she would, if medical treatment impoverished her family, that she would still want that treatment. Is there any recognition in the Catholic faith in this area about the cost of treatment? Is the cost of treatment ever a factor?

A-That's one of the criteria in deciding whether it's proportionate or disproportionate. Excessive or ordinary. What you would hope is that somebody is helping the patient work through those issues. That, you know, maybe you need to rethink that. You know, that again, the church would not tell them what to do, but you know, a good bioethical consult or caring pastor I think would help somebody like that say, you know, maybe we need to take another look at this. You know, talk a little bit more.


Q-So hypothetically, if a patient had a choice whether to receive a treatment or not, and the treatment let's say, let's say that offered no hope of recovery and the patient decided not to have it because they didn't want to place a financial burden on their family, would such a decision by the patient be consistent with Catholic teachings?

A-Absolutely.

Q-Now in the deposition of Theresa's siblings, do you recall there was discussion of God's will?

A-Um-hmm.

Q-I believe there were a number of statements. Well, Terri, ought to remain alive because -- she should be treated -- she should have all type of medical treatment to keep her alive because it's God's will. If it was God's will that she die, she would be dead with medical treatment in place. Is such a position consistent with Catholic teaching?

A-No. I don't think so. I'll tell you why. When I mentioned the two-edged sword, God's will could have been easily done fifty years ago. I think this is a case where the wonderful technology, rather than being an act of health and recovery, has become the obstacle for nature taking its course. I think it's a good example. You know, there's also the case of my father. My father, I found him crying in his bed one day. He was dying of cancer and it was hard to tell which was worse, getting up and going for chemo or the cancer. He wanted to know if it would be a sin if he stopped going to chemo. I said of course not. He did stop and he died peacefully thereafter. I said there is another example of where chemo does wonderful things for people, or it can, but what is the good that you hope to achieve? For my father, it was only prolonging the inevitable. He was not going to get better. So in that case, the chemotherapy which was meant to be the agent of health became the obstacle.

Q-Father Murphy, I'd like to read you a portion from Mary Schindler's deposition of August 12, 1999. This is Page 39, Line 16.

Question.-Well, in your mind, does there come a point in time when the experience of discomfort or pain on the part of the patient become a factor in deciding whether to remove life support?

Answer.-No. Under Catholic, under the teachings of the Catholic church, is the pain or discomfort of the patient, that the patient might feel, is that a valid factor to be considered -

A-Yes.

Q -- in determining whether care is ordinary or extraordinary?

A-Yes.

Q-How does that become a factor?

A-As you know, Catholics have an understanding of suffering as being redemptive. You know, Mother Theresa of Calcutta always said that. Certainly suffering had a higher redemptive value, but certainly you are not bound to take all the suffering that comes your way. That is -that was my father's case. My father basically arrived at the notion that enough is enough. All we are doing is prolonging the inevitable.

Q-Father Murphy, there was a section in the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Schindler read in court already. You may remember them. Mr. and Mrs. Schindler were basically asked, just hypothetically, assume these were Terri's wishes. That she did not want to be kept alive artificially and that she did not want to be kept alive if she were a burden to others. Would that change your position in this case? They both answered no. My question is, is disregarding the intent of the patient consistent at all with Catholic teachings?

A-No. It is the perception of the patient that determines the morality of the action. Not the family, not the doctor, but the perception of the patient.

Q-In Terri's sister's deposition, she made the statement that taking away life support is murder. Is that the position of the Catholic church?

A- Absolutely not. My father's case again. There are still people telling me that my father killed himself. Absolutely not true. Absolutely inconsistent with church teaching. All they do is allow nature to take its course.



Q-I believe the sister also made the statement in her deposition that a patient may have medical treatment, even if it's against his or her will if it can keep the patient alive.

A-Absolutely not.

Q-Do you recall in the deposition of Theresa's brother his testimony that he believes his parents or his parents believe, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, that Terri is aware of their presence, and he testified that Terri's continued life is a joy to him? A joy to him and his family to keep Terri alive in this condition? He was even asked -- he was even asked if Terri needed -- do you recall if Terri needed a respirator to keep her alive, would it still give you joy to have her alive on a respirator? And he said yes. He was asked if her limb had to be amputated, would it give you joy to have her alive in this condition? And he said yes. My question is, father, what are the teachings of the Catholic church regarding keeping a loved one alive for your own personal pleasure or benefit?

A- I think that is contrary to the gospel. We all take pleasure in relationships with people, family. People who get married. I think, you know, keeping someone around strictly for your own pleasure strikes me as very anti-gospal. Sounds more like using someone than loving someone.

Too bad the governor never met Father Kevin O'Rourke, a Catholic priest as well as a nationally renowned professor of ethics at Loyola University's medical school.

''Well, I'm not a liberal,'' O'Rourke told me after hearing the governor's words. ``I'm far from a liberal. But I can attest that from a theological point of view that what the governor and others are doing to Terri is not doing any good for her. And the rhetoric the governor is using is foolish. That's the only way you can describe it. It shows his medical ignorance because it's attested in many studies that when people in that condition do not have nutrition they do not suffer.''

O'Rourke, the author of four books on medical ethics, finds it sad that the governor has tried to justify his actions on religious grounds and that Bush has used Schiavo's plight to curry favor with the religious conservatives.

''For Christians, it is a blasphemy to keep people alive as if you were doing them a favor, to keep people alive in that condition as if it benefits them. It doesn't benefit them,'' O'Rourke argues. ``I know it is wrapped up in the pro-life, antiabortion activity, and while I am antiabortion, I also know there is eternal life and that we should not confuse or equate the antiabortion effort with the notion of withdrawing life support from dying people.

``They act as though the most important thing is to lead a long life and Christians who read the Gospel seriously believe that it is a good life you are pursuing, not a long life. But this notion of having a long life has become the watchword for these groups. Life is terminal. Life by definition is going to have an end.''
<snip>
The notion of the government ordering doctors to perform a medical procedure on a woman supposedly against her will is simply horrific.

The Sgreccia-Diamond viewpoint is not one that would be accepted by a significant majority of U.S. Catholic ethicists, James J. Walter, O’Malley professor of bioethics at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, told NCR.

“We normally understand ‘care,’ ” he said, “to mean washing the patient’s body, turning the patient so they don’t get decubidi , things of that sort, and you could include providing a tray of food to a patient.

“But when you start artificially delivering this,” said Walter, “it is now a matter of treatment. And I think that’s been the point with many Catholic ethicists from the beginning: that this is artificially delivered.”