I know this is old "stuff" but I've always wondered about it. For Christians, regarding Terry Schiavo.

Question

In the United States, the Terry Schiavo case spurned activism from the religious right to save her. The argument was in part based on Pope John Paul II's statements that condemned her any attempt to deny her food and water as euthanasia. Essentially the argument went that she was entitled to die of natural causes.

What I wonder is this. How is KEEPING her on life support and forcing nutrients and water into her intravenously, etc. "natural"? Wouldn't it have been natural to let her die and let God take her?

I'm not bashing anyone's beliefs. Nor am I attempting to point out hypocrisy although that's what it appears to me. Could someone explain this, please?

EEK! I meant sparked (= spurned). Kinda different.

Answer 1

First let me say I am medical and deal with life/death daily.

Let me also say that my beliefs may not be what is "christian" but they are what I believe to be right in my heart.

I see so many alzheimer patients being treated for pneumonia, having broken hips pinned, etc and these poor souls do not even know their name. To me, as a christian, it is crueler to keep them away from death and to be with God if they are saved, then to repeatedly treat them. Most of the time, its family members that are unable to say goodbye and prolong their suffering.

The Terry Schaivo case, was just that, family members unable to let go.

Would any of you of wanted to live like that? I wouldn't and I would make sure my family knew my wishes and would thank God that my husband would of ended that life I had.

I agree with you 100%, life support is forcing life on someone that might not of wanted it, in a life that is not what they would want also.

Again, I'm medical, I'm christian but my views may not be what God intends, its just whats in my heart from my job.

Answer 2

Sweet Heart, I no you are not make fun. I can see this is a very touchy question. Terry brot out a lot of questioning in once faith. As a Christion I try hard to live live like Christ did when he walk the earth. No were have I read to let them suffer. Jesus did say "do all you now to do then stand back and let him do his part." Some time his will is what we want Another times it's not, but what right do we have to prolong suffering. When did we make our selves God? I now letting go is so hard; when you love some one so much. But when that time comes put your self in there shoes. If that was you watching others crying over you; you ling in that bed of pain an torment. Drugs can only cover so much not all. You see thing throw there eyes you would most likely wont to say your good by and go to. Not to be made to live agonizing death. The so called Christens were standing on take not a life but give life. My thing is read your WHOLE Bible not just what you like! What about are poor sorgers if that be the case enough on that. I pray this helps you. if not I pray God will put you in touch with some one that can.

Answer 3

First, what constitutes a person? If I had Terry cells in a petri dish with a life support system could I destroy them? We assume some brain function at least to be alive. The controversy, while wrong, was stating there was evidence of higher brain function.

These questions did not arise from the medical community. The difference was we gave people who were unqualified perhaps too much credence. Then it was picked up by the religious right and then the political right and finally the judicial right.

It is funny, normally it goes from the political right to the religious right.

Answer 4

The problem with Catholicism is the same in most all religions. The bible is used to support a belief rather than beliefs based on the bible. Catholicism has had many centuries to evolve into an almost belief over bible system. It is the end result of most religions that last that long. It is why you have people rebel and start their own branches of religions from it. However eventually even they become as off as them. Here is the concept. The Jews had no translations to deal with in their language of the old testament and laws. It was exactly as was given them by Moses and the prophets. They studied with exactness what it said and kept its concepts. Even with this devotion they still did not recognize the messiah when he came. So how does a christian type person expect to know what reality is with a bible translated and interpreted in a variety of languages, shifted from one belief and religion to another, and then used for their own purposes? On top of it the study is not near as exact as it was before. Matter of fact some people come out of seminary more confused than before. What you have is a variety of religions that have a flavor to fit the need of just about every person based on their emotional need. If you feel the bible does not have enough answers there is a Mormon religion that has another book to teach you from. If you feel you want to be intellectual and different than anyone else there is a Jehovah's Witness religion to feel that need. If you want to be charismatic and excited there are Pentecostals. If you want to be calm and conservative there are Baptists. The bottom line is that you are not dealing with truth in any of them but emotional support. If you want truth, seek God himself. Religion is only a vehicle to hopefully get you to that truth. The problem is that it is always an invention of man and doomed to fall short.

Answer 5

First of all, the Pope's reasoning was completely flawed. Even according to the catechism, keeping someone alive by artificial means is not in accord with Catholicism as it presupposes that you are God. The feeding tube was completely artificial and was not a 'treatment'. Terry Schiavo was unable to eat by mouth. God decided that her life should end. Her parents decided something else entirely. The Pope used the VERY SAME ARGUMENT to say that people can 'pull the plug' when hope for improvement has passed. A feeding tube is no different.

Keep in mind that Schiavo's parents didn't CARE WHAT SHE WANTED. Recorded right there at court, they said even if she had a directive against it, they would still keep her going. I give her husband credit. He really faced a lot of odds to try to keep his wife's wishes.

Answer 6

It's a difficult question. However, there were many things about the Schiavo situation that went beyond the pale. If we were to take your argument without Terry in the mix, it would be a good, frank discussion. It is because of situations such as this that I have a Living Trust created so that there will be no ambiguity if such a situation were to arrive.

Answer 7

I couldn't agree with you more. I think the argument for keeping her alive because "it's not our place to play God and let her die" is completely ridiculous. The only people "playing God" were the doctors and nurses who inserted that feeding tube to keep her alive where she would have otherwise died. Her parents, while I feel for their situation, were acting selfishly and not thinking of their daughter and her wishes. Sometimes parents have to make terrible sacrifices for their children. That's life.

The problem I see lies in the hypocrisy of it all. I remember talking with people about this case who said that it's no one's place to play God and "kill" her (let her die, in my opinion), and these are the same people who are opposed to stem cell research and all it's possibilities, yet I would wager an entire pay check that those same people, faced with a loved one dying from cancer, would opt for chemotherapy and radiation to save their lives. Tell me where the difference is there? How can people be opposed to ending a life, when it's clearly God's plan, but not agree with the very real possibility of drastically improving life for those who are just beginning it?

Answer 8

i agree with you. if someone is damaged to the point of not being capable of living on their own, then if you are religious, it would seem to me that it was their time to go. that god was trying to take them. and may have possibly already taken the soul. keeping the body alive to me seems like a form of torture.

however cases vary. when a teenager was attacked by a shark and lost all of his blood, he was dead, but emergecy room personnel were able to pump blood into him and bring him back with little ill side effects. left on the beach with no help he would be dead.

what it comes down to is where do we draw the line.if we allow a person that is in a persistent vegatative state with little to no chance of recovery starve to death, for lack of intravenious feeding.

then how can we deny the right of a person that is in constent pain to make a decision for doctor aided suicide.

and if this becomes the norm of society, then how easy is it to walk past the gunshot victem, or the kid that was mauled by a shark or the person that was attacked by a wild dog. and simply say "it must be their time, and i am not going to interfere with god's decision to take them."

the fact that we treasure human life is the one thing that seperates us from the beast. but this is a learned behavior. people in general are very aphetic to the suffering of others.
and if we allow ourselves to accept death as simply the will of a diety. then we may loose much of what we call humanity.

i really do not know where i stand on the issue. i can argue it both ways. i think that a person has the right to end their own life. (hell even if suicide is illegal what are they going to do put your body in jail?) but at the same time i think that if we start to see death as the whim of a god, than we may easily become apathetic towards it, and less likely to help thoes in need. that would be a horrible thing indeed.

Answer 9

I have seen too many people healed for me to believe that anyone is beyond healing. When Schiavo'sr life ordered to be ended no one could get to her and pray for her healing which might have come. Her right to be healed was taken away from her.

I have been healed and I hear about healings within my church and on christian television all the time from things much worse than this Schiavo's sitiuation. I have been healed and I know that it isn't over until God says its over. I also know that there are people who have never heard or experienced such things and if they have they quicklly disregard them as mere nonsense. From that point of view it would be silly to let her stay alive and force fed through a feeding tube.

A man who experienced his own healing and then saw many healings in his life once said. "I am glad for medical science because it can often keep people alive long enough for us to teach them the truth about healing and get them healed." That is what I and many christians wanted for Terry Shiavo. However many won't listen when you try to tell them the truth about healing even when kept alive by medical science. People have to choose what they will accept and so even teaching and praying for every sick person would not always produce a healing because faith is a necessary part to receiving a miracle healing from God.

That man that I paraphrased above you can read about in this book. http://www.harrisonhouse.com/BookDetails.aspx?ISBN=9780892762576

It was what Hagin learned and taught that later resulted in several healings in my own life. You can read about my own life for free in my free book at: www.Christiantshirts.com (top menu link entitled "e-book")

I hope this answers your question.

Answer 10

You are absolutely right.

As an atheist, I understand the arguement against euthanasia. due to my lack of belief in any god, we determine the kind of world we want to live in and to simply decide that it's time for one person or the other to die is not where I want to live.

but in cases like Mrs. Schiavo, there was no way for her to recover. It was useless and for republicans to use her plight as justification for their religious platform was despicable.

On the other hand, if her parents were willing and capable to care for her, then I guess i didn't see the harm in alowing them to do so. I know that if I were in that state and suffering, I would want to die, but my understanding is that her doctors believed that she was unconcious and there fore, she could not have been suffering.

Tough one.