Popey Pope and the Shoutbox Argument

It all began on Friday, April 9th when I blogged this:

"Also, more importantly, what's with the Pope? I'm not to thrilled with his new addition to the euthanasia definition. "Euthanasia by omission" is what the Pope termed it, a medical treatment of feeding tubes for those in a vegetative state has now become "basic care." (USA Today) It's our moral obligation. I think he's pushing it. I'm sure you do to. Tell me what you think, I'm interested. Also, if you find a better article, let me know."

So, if you missed the disscussion, here it is. Much easier to read than my shoutbox. Brian's in bold font, Steve/Big Brother in italics, and I'm just plain old font. Enjoy, and please, add your opinions. Please.

OK, the pope is 108 years old and making up crazy things like "Don't kill anyone by not keeping them alive." When my grandma was 108 and saying things like, "You can't butter the house if you don't put the calendar back in socks," I sure didn't pay attention. Why? Because she was crazy, and crazy opinions don't count.

Perhaps he is crazy. But still. Someone should have told him he was crazy before he made this new ... definition.

You're actually just supposed to politely nod and pretend to agree with him. Don't let him know he's crazy, but don't let him know you're ignoring him.

But don't you think it was him politely nodding to his advisors? I'm sure someone put those words in his mouth. Or atleast helped him think of this atrocity.

And they don't actually have authority. The Jews could say, "Jesus was a heretic, wasn't he, Popey Pope?" and he'd nod and say yes, they'd kiss his ring, and we'd suddenly be out a religion.


OK, time for my .02 on the health care thing. Yeah, what the Pope said came out of the blue...but it gets right to the heard of a bigger philosophical question. What is the definition of "alive"? Keep in mind that the headline and much of the article (as is normally the case in mainstream media) are extremely misleading. Medically, there has been a dual definition of "dead" - brain dead and heart dead. Normally, your heart goes out, your brain is soon to follow. But as has been seen in many cases, a person's body keeps kicking even when they are defined as "brain dead." The Pope is coming out and saying that both things need to be true to define "dead." Otherwise, the person is still alive, and deserves all the God-given rights that are their due. He's not saying that every individual mus tbe put on a tube/resperator/whatever and kept alive as long as possible. I think the point he is trying to make is that, if an individual is being kept alive by some technology, then that is exactly what they are - alive - and any active action taken to change that is inherently immoral. The teaching pretty well jives with everything else he has taught on the dignity of life during the whole of his time as Pope. That's just my read - not as crazy as some media types would make it sound...

First, Brian, I'm kidding about the advisors whispering to the Pope. Secondly, I see your point Big Bro, but I don't know if I agree/understand. Shouldn't there be a line between being alive naturally and artificially through technology?

You might be joking, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. And as for Big Brother, you can't take too seriously a dying man's decree when it's founded on the idea that artificial is included in the definition of natural. How long do we keep slapping patients with defibrilators? Those are about as natural as a food tube jammed in your stomach. And are we allowed to stop giving someone CPR? That actually is natural. And as for the cliche "mainstream media" rant, what are you even talking about? If you understand the point of headlines, I think that on second review, you'd agree that they were perfectly accurate. And neither USA Today, nor the AP, nor KRT, nor anyone else I could find, was inaccurate in their coverage. Did you actually read the decree? It's a lot crazier than any of the heathen mainstream media outlets let on. Not only does he say artificial equals natural in the case of maintaining the lives of the permanently vegatative, he also said it is necessary to find a way to wake them up. If that's not crazy, I'm not sure what is. If the mainstream media was misleading, it was out of respect. Or mercy.

Back to the Popey Pope - read the document in full: Popey Pope

After reading your rant Brian, I have to wonder if you actually read the document yourself. You may like to crack that this Pope is old and feeble-minded, but an honest reading of that document shows a mind as sharp as ever, and extremely delibrate, logical, and persuasive in his argumentation. Let's start with a few simple facts - in reality, this is not a "new" teaching. Rather, I see it as a clarification, one that reorganizes past teachings under the same umbrella. The line in the document that indicates this is where he outright says "The obligation to provide the 'normal care due to the sick in such cases' includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration. He references 3 different Church documents that say that outright - basic care = nutrition and hydration. We have a moral obligation to care for those that cannot care for themselves. This is not new. This has been on the books for a while. So what happens when that standard is applied to those in a "vegatative state?" His statement of "A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man" not only affirms everything he's taught in his papacy on the overall value of human life, but indicates that even those disabled in some way have the right to basic care. Now, the question becomes, "Why are nutrition and hydration considered 'basic care'?" Simple - you take those away from any human, in any state of living, then they die. In addition, as they indicate at the opening, medical science is unable to predict to a certainty that this person will not come out of it (same sort of logic applies to abortion - the "possibility" of there being some danger to the health of the child or mother is not enough to justify an abortion). If the individual in the "vegatative state," is alive (which , indeed they are), then an individual deciding to remove their nutrition and hydration is taking an active action to end the life of the person in question. Do you then think it's a good idea not to help out, say, stroke patients who have lost some of their functionality? Or better yet...what about a newborn child? Without assisstance, that child will not be able to eat and drink, and therefore won't survive. The Pope makes it extremely simple - we have a moral obligation to help every living person - if they are alive, then we must care for them. We might not like it, but it's an action that our faith calls us to. Also, you seem to take issue with the fact that doctors are encouraged to make all attempts to bring these people out of this state. I don't understand the objection here - why shouldn't doctors attempt to help these people medically? If they can be restored to health, why shouldn't that be encouraged? Why is one type of life worth more medical research at attention than another? Frankly, this logic is enough for me...but the mainstream media pretty much intentionally distorted this, as it does with most Church teachings. It is impossible for a media built around serving a population with perpetual ADD to adequately communicate just about any Church teaching. At best, it can say "the Church says this is wrong," then go get one supporting, and a few detracting quotes about that teaching. That's standard form for any mainstream media covering the Church. If the story lays out all the teachings and the logic behind the speech, then maybe it doesn't come out as sounding so crazy. Respect or mercy? Please. I prefer "willful ignorance."

A full answer can be found here: So Brian Said

~~

Sheesh. That's enough debating for my blog's lifetime.