Pope has a DNR

Fox News has reported that Vatican will not permit artificial life support to be used for Pope Paul II. Curious, in light of their recent statements on Terri Schiavo.

The Church does not view hydration and nutrition as 'extraordinary'...

The website of the US Council of Bishops denounces the withdrawal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. The Vatican itself issued two such statements on the subject in the past few weeks, one right after Terri's death. I realize these contradict with long standing Catholic positions, but it seems they again reverse themselves within a period of 24 hours.

They always required feeding tubes, and never required "extraordinary life-prolonging measures."

They don't consider the former to be one of the latter.

He's already got a tube. I think you heard a report that he wouldn't get hooked up to machines and misundertood.

the Catholic Priest on Meet the Press Sunday said as much. He noted that the Pope's recent statement was at odds with decades of policies on matter by the Catholic Hospital Association. So while I acknowledge I may have the particulars of this wrong, there is no question there has been a change. If you wouldn't mind: I posted a question related to this in the theology forum last week. It's a short thread with only three contributers. I posted a 2001 statement and another poster who teaches medical ethics at a Catholic college posted a link to the recent statement by the US Council of Bishops. It is her/his job to know exactly what Catholic teachings on medical ethnics are, and she is concerned about a clear shift to the right.
I'd welcome further contributions on that thread, because it is a subject I would like to better understand.

The website of the US Council of Bishops denounces the withdrawal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. The Vatican itself issued two such statements on the subject in the past few weeks, one right after Terri's death. I realize these contradict with long standing Catholic positions, but it seems they again reverse themselves within a period of 24 hours.

how nutrition and hydration via ARTIFICAL (not talking ham sandwiches here) means is not extraordnary, but AIR via a Respirator is? You cannot live without EITHER of them.

Nutrient solution dripped into the small intestine via a tube surgically implanted into the abdomen is not the same as eating and drinking which is something done via the mouth and involves, at the very least, a swallow reflex.

Like a respirator, it has its place in legitimate medical treatment, but it is a form of artificial life support that can be legitimately withdrawn in cases where there is no longer any meaningful brain function.

The only difference that I can see between removing a feeding tube and removing a respirator is in the length of time that it takes the body to die afterwards.

Of course, my opinion has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Church doctrine, which I can't comment on, not being Catholic.

Ever hear the expression "vital signs?" Thats pulse, respiration, blood pressure. Its not digestion or hydration. Can't quite put my finger on it, except that there is a difference which appears natural to some people. And its not a religious thing.

When New Jersey adopted its living will statute some years ago after the Karen Quinlan case, the statute makes the same distinction. Under the statute, the person executing the living will decides separately on the two separate questions, whether they want heroic measures which artificially prolong life, such as respirators and dialysis, and whether they want food and hydration.

I am an attorney, did elder law, did tons of these. I had to ask two separate questions, the law made a distinction, and the people certainly made a distinction.

I think there is another distinction, and it has to do with how sick you are; a person who is breathing, whose heart is beating, whose bodily functions are all capable of continuing, except that they need food, just plain isn't as sick as a person whose heart has stopped, whose breathing has stopped, or whose kidneys have ceased to function.

I don't think withdrawing hydration, for example, is strictly analogous to turning off a ventilator. Its more like putting someone in an airtight room and letting them use up all the oxygen.

In FL, for example, feeding tubes and respirator tubes are both considered life support. There is no difference.

Each state defines "end of life" condition slightly different.

For this reason, people need to be certain they use state specific forms for advance directives and limited power of attorney.

I agree with the FL law on this. It's illogical to differentiate from administering H2O/nutrition via medical technology from administering oxygen via medical technology. Both are life supports that provide the three basics needed to sustain life: food, water, oxygen

are just that to some of us.

And the administration of water and food by artificial means is not a natural means of preserving life - at least to some folks..

For end of life advance directives, feeding tubes are considered the least preferred treatment among patients 64 and over. This result supports the polls we have seen lately in the news about people's feelings on life supports.

End of Life Advance Directive Planning:

Table 1. Rank Order of Treatment Preferences Among Patients Age 64 and over,a From Most to Least Preferred

Antibiotics
Blood transfusion
Temporary tube feeding
Temporary respirator
Radiation
Amputation
Dialysis
Chemotherapy
Resuscitation
Permanent respirator
Permanent tube feeding

This site has a lot of interesting info on end of life decisions.
http://www.ahrq.gov/research/endliferia/endria.htm#Contents
Research can help physicians and other health care professionals guide patient decisionmaking for care at the end of life. Findings resulting from research funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) are discussed. This research can help providers offer end-of-life care based on preferences held by the majority of patients under similar circumstances.

We are free to disagree.

I am a caregiver and have been for ten years to my 87-year-old mom. She has stage 3 colon cancer and is an amputee. She's alert and oriented, but certainly lacks the ability to care for herself. If I didn't prepare her meals and deliver them to her she would presumably starve. How is that different from the feeding tube? Physically challenged people are often dependent on others for their sustenance.


IMHO,your Catholic Church and my Baptist Church consider a feeding tube ordinary care because although it's an "artificial device"it's a replacement for what people do for helpless or vulnerable people in their care since time immemorial...

The reason ventilators, respirators, et etcetera are consider extraordinary care is because we can not breathe for one another or make another person's kidneys pump...

But we can provide nourishment for those who would starve without our intervention...

If you accept their moral framework it seems to me to be a perfectly valid distinction...

Peace

Brian

...nice spin.

What is their justification I wonder???

It would not be expedient for the church - who would preside if the Pope is alive but vegetative? There's no answer to that question, so they are willing to let him die.

I am very, very tired of the word "hypocrisy" - can we come up with something else? It just seems to apply to EVERYTHING the right does and says. EVERYTHING.

to everything the right is doing right now. It's pretty close to being their defining characteristic. I can't think of any other more appropriate word to describe it.

Maybe we should throw in some of the things that Jesus had to say on the subject of hypocrisy.

I guess maybe we could add in "unprincipled expedience for the sake of naked power" but that's a little bit long.

They do not condone atrificial life safe saving measures. Nutrition is not an artificial life saving measure...everybody needs it, no matter what.

and cramming liquified protein shakes in is pretty damned artifical.

Between respirators and TPN.

And I have heard the distinction as "extraordinary measures", not "artificial" ones.

and then cramming liquified protein shakes through the tube is pretty extraordinary, if you ask me.

So it has to be something that is extraordinary in terms of care. I have also heard "heroic". At any rate, on the scale of things, that's where they have consistently drawn the line.

Everyone needs it too survive, even if it is delivered into the lungs via a tube and a machine. No difference at all as nearly as I can tell.

Of course, I can't speak for church doctrine which is an entirely different issue.

bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

Air to the lungs is as equally important as water to the intestines. I am not idiot so quit with this nonsensical crap that one is extrodinary and the other isn't.

:grr:

with the pope. They are extreme right wing catholics whose numbers are unfortunately growing. Pavone condones violence in answer to problems... John Paul II would NEVER do that.

I was raised catholic and have a lot of problems with some catholic doctrine, but this pope has truly been a pope of the people and consistent. You have to give him that. Life is life and includes speaking out against the death penalty and confronting Bush and Blair directly about the war in iraq. He cares about the poor the sick and injustice.

The evangelical wackjobs could take a lesson from him.

... and second-guessing the findings of U.S. courts in the Shiavo case. I found that to be entirely inappropriate.

And for the record... no, I do not feel the pope has been a 'pope of the people.' I think he did tremendous harm to the gay and lesbian community.

Especially by refusing to condone birth control. Terribly irresponsible.

:-)

It seems that it's ok to keep a body alive without a brain, but not a brain alive without a body.

The news reported earlier this week that the madman in the WH and his wife have living wills. Of course, one could argue that this is a personal matter, though shrub and his fundie base had no problem taking one woman's personal plight and dragging it through their mud. So one might argue that we, the people, have the right to know just what measures shrub and his wife plan on.

How do we get the media on that?

i am the first to yell at repug what they did with terri. it went thru courts, it wasnt congress to get involved. people have the right, i feel to pull plug out, but i understand those opposed. i think everything about the shiavo thing was wrong, from repugs, to the parents, to christian coalition to media

but there is a big difference from dieing naturally and not having anything in, to pulling a feeding tube out, in my book

simply my opinion

I believe it is permitted to unplug a respirator and let nature take it's course, but not a feeding tube. Again, I think it's because every patient is provided food in a hospital setting.

I, as a lapsed Catholic, find it extremely difficult to distinguish or draw the line, but I think it's what the RCC believes.

What a weird arbitrary distinction - but like many of such distinctions the church makes it is utterly void of connection to the PURPOSE of the intervention.

Somebody yells at him three times to see if he awakens. Then they have a small gold hammer that they tap on his head three times to see if he wakes up. Weird.

:-(

:)

I AM not making that up.

http://encarta.msn.com/guide_popewhathappens/What_Happens_When_a_Pope_Dies.html

The camerlengo's first task is to certify that the pope is dead. Traditionally, this has included tapping the pope's forehead, perhaps with a little silver hammer, and calling him three times by his first name. No response means that the pope is dead, but more precise medical equipment may be used today.

isn't it? It's ritual, nearly two thousand years old.

http://www.daughtersofstpaul.com/johnpaulpapacy/cardconclave/whenpopedies.html

When a Pope Dies

When the pope dies, the cardinal chamberlain (Camerlengo) of the holy Roman Church (currently Eduardo Cardinal Martinez Somalo) ascertains the pope’s death, traditionally by calling the pope three times by his baptismal name without response. The ritual of striking the head with a silver hammer (which would later be used to break the Fisherman’s Ring and the papal seal) may be replaced by covering the face with a cloth. He then authorizes the secretary-chancellor to issue a death certificate and seals the pope's private apartments. After notifying the cardinal vicar for the diocese of Rome, the chamberlain secures the temporal goods and rights of the Holy See and attends to the details of the pope’s burial.

facilities (except for a surgery)- and he will be pronounced dead as per the usual rules.

Then the Cardinal may well do the 3 whispers if he likes to follow tradition!

The striking the head with a hammer is not done -as it says a cloth over the face is done.

In any case there is no ritual.

Of course they use doctors to verify his death, but ritual is enormously important in the Catholic Church, as with many religions. We also follow countless secular rituals: the pledge of allegiance to the flag, birthday parties, graduation celebrations.

Wikipedia notes: "The general purpose of rituals is to express some fundamental truth or meaning, evoke spiritual, numinous emotional responses from participants, and/or engage a group of people in unified action to strengthen their communal bonds." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual

Ritual ties us to the past. Ritual is not a dirty word. I ridicule no one's ritual, and certainly not those of the Catholic Church.

Indeed ritual is not a dirty word, and I am sure you did not intend to convey the thought that ritual was just another word for tradition - but in any case it appears ritual is not the appropiate word for this tradition.

The only definitions of ritual that I am aware of are

"The prescribed order of a religious ceremony"

and "The body of ceremonies or rites used in a place of worship"

Every culture and village and couple and indeed persons have traditions - that does not make them rituals.

Rituals take on many forms, and are not always religious, though this particular action clearly is.

You might try a google search under ritual to see what comes up, in addition to the Wikipedia entry.

pattern come to mind - and then there are the words that are put downs of the other.

been there - had the classes - whatever ....

I will agree to disagree - and I hope you will do so also.

peace

:-)

:dem:

that the Catholic church did up until modern times. I'm sure they will do some version of this ritual upon his death, just as they still perform many other rituals.

or so they say.

Every pope has the equivalent of a chief of staff, called the camerlengo. When a pope dies, the camerlengo must first certify that he is indeed dead. The ritual tradition is to strike him on the forehead with a silver hammer, calling his baptismal name three times. An alternative is to place a cloth over his mouth. If he does not respond, the camerlengo declares him dead, authorizes a death certificate and then seals the papal living and working apartments.

Later, the silver hammer will be used to scratch and break the papal ring and seal, so no documents can be forged in his name.

http://www.ucg.org/wnp/wnp0409/manpope.htm

They say the silver hammer was last used at the time of the death of Pius XII (before John XXIII) but no one really knows for sure.

Lennon/McCartney knew all about it:

Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
came down upon her head
Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
made sure that she was dead

The camerlengo also destroys the popes ring which is inscribed with that pope's papal seal. It is the only one of it's kind and this is done to prevent forgeries.

Oops, wrong villain. Sorry.

....and instituting extraordinary or artificial life support. Regardless of how one defines "extraordinary" and "artificial" in this context, this has nothing to do with a DNR order. In fact, a patient can be ON life support and still have a DNR order to be followed.

influence can be taken from the Vatican, and therefore, it's of no use to them. Let's also not forget that they're not protestants, and therefore, the right-wing fascists don't consider him their property, so, no big deal. We had to move off the continent, after all, to establish our beloved fascist state that was not under the pope's control.