ALL ABOUT THE LAY PULPIT

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Schiavo: The Physiology of Dehydration

The reader, no doubt, cannot help but notice the picture on the right.  Ghoulish, isn’t it? -- like something out of a Hollywood horror movie.  But, no doubt, you already know who it is: yes, it’s Terri Schiavo.  It is said that “a picture is worth a thousand words.”  Well, this one is worth a Trillion.1  (Does this picture melt your heart?  Or, more properly, does it break it?  Does it make you want to drop down on your knees and THANK GOD that you were spared her fate?)  No doubt, too, you also noticed the accompanying caption with the picture: “She looked beautiful.  I’ve never seen such a look of beauty upon her” -- words spoken by Michael Schiavo’s (her husband’s) attorney.  Do these words not fill you with unspeakable RAGE?  And, do you not wonder what kind of a monster could justify such a travesty; but, no doubt, you know that too.  Yes, of course: Anthony Cekada. 

In our last article, we mentioned some of the trauma to which Terri Schiavo was subjected when she was put to death by court order back in 2005.  (She died on March 31 of that year.)  However, what we reported hardly “scratches the surface” in describing all that she went through.  So, we decided to look into the matter further, to find out the complete physiology of her ordeal.  And, although she was being both starved and dehydrated to death, the proximate cause of her death was dehydration; therefore, we will focus on the physiology of the latter.

The following internet link confirms what we’ve already said about Terri – and more. We mentioned, for instance, how her skin cracked open, and how her eyes were sunken and bleeding.  That link, by the way, describes what happened to a man who survived after suffering dehydration in the desert; but the same applies to any dehydration case.  Here’s what it had to say: “His ribs ridged out as those of a starveling horse”; “his lips had disappeared as if amputated, leaving low edges of blackened tissue; “his eyes were set to a winkless stare, with surrounding skin so contracted as to expose the conjunctiva [the clear membrane covering the white part of the eyes], itself as black as the gums.”

The article goes on to say that, in addition to an obviously burning, raging thirst, one also “develops sunken eyes and loses his skin turgor.  Saliva and bronchial mucus become thicker and more viscous. The tongue sticks to the teeth; the eyes are irritated by the loss of moisturising secretions, and vision becomes blurred. The ears also hurt and tinnitis develops. The voice becomes hoarse as the vocal cords lose their flexibility. A throbbing headache develops, which resembles meningism (and which is probably due to the stretching of dural structures). A disturbance in the level of consciousness may occur at this stage; in McGee's words, ‘irascability arises, and companions quarrel and separate.’  Beyond this, frank hallucinations and delirium will occur, due to a combination of uremia and electrolyte derangement.”  [Does any of this sound “peaceful” or “painless”?]

The article also describes other symptoms, including rhabdomyolysis, a condition involving the death of muscle fibers and release of their contents into the bloodstream. This can lead to complications such as renal (kidney) failure. This occurs when the kidneys cannot remove waste and concentrated urine.”  It is a condition that involves muscle pain -- especially in the shoulders, thighs, or lower back -- plus abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting, fever, and rapid heart rate.  Note that all of these complications are not “peaceful” events, but painfulvery painful. The article also stated that dehydration brings on general organ shutdown, accompanied by even more pain and trauma.

The foregoing, as we said, describes what a man (stranded in the desert) went through – but who survived.  Terri did NOT survive, so one can be sure that she went through all this and MORE before she finally succumbed.  We must also note that, in addition to receiving no food or water, Terri also received no pain medication to alleviate her suffering.  And there was suffering – plenty of it.  (And whether or not there was any pain -- which, of course, there was -- is totally irrelevant:  it does not erase --or mitigate -- the incriminating fact that Terri was murdered -- that she was put to death.)2

Moreover, it was a death decreed and enforced by court order.  Anyone, for instance, attempting even to wet her lips was forcibly restrained by armed policemen.  (They even stopped a little seven-year old boy from doing so.)  And anyone attempting to do it, according to the terms of the court order, would’ve been charged with a felony.  So -- slowly, painfully, inexorably – Terri shriveled up and died.  What she went through, purely and simply, was slow, methodical, pre-meditated TORTURE – followed by a death by EXECUTION that redefines the limits of “cruel and unusual punishment.”  (Does this remind you of Someone Else’s passion and death?  Does the word “Gethsemane” come to mind here?)

And this is what Anthony Cekada “justified.”  In Tony’s words, Michael Schiavo (her estranged husband) still maintains his headship over the wife before God and his domestic and paternal authority.  He has the right to say yes or no to ice chips and Jello…”  (It is interesting to note that Cekada’s comment here about the “ice chips and Jello” is a tacit admission on his part that Terri Schiavo was indeed able to swallow -- as she was when she took the Sacred Species in holy communion – contradicting what he has stated on that at other times.)

Phony Tony went on to say that “Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers [Terri’s family] were very generous in spending everyone else's money.  Such expense is a grave burden on society, and as such falls within the definition of "extraordinary means." There is accordingly no moral obligation to continue it.”  If someone wants,” Tony went on to say, “to make every effort to sustain life for as long as possible in a body that is obviously shutting down for good [his emphasis], he is free to pay for extraordinary means himself but it is wrong for him to impose this burden on everyone else.”  He then added that “if something is immoral in the whole affair, it is surely this” [i.e., “society” paying for her care].  (No, Tony, that is not immoral -- but putting a price on human life IS.)

The truth is, she was not being kept alive by “extraordinary” means. nor was she on “life support system” -- because she was not dying.  She did NOT have any “terminal illness.”  Nor, we may add, was she “vegetative,” but merely disabled.3  Actually, video evidence confirms that she was able to move her arms and legs, to swallow, and even to respond to others with simple words like “no,” “yes,” and “stop that.”  Again, she wasn’t on “life support,” but was simply being fed with a feeding tube, which, contrary to what Tony claimed, was NOT a “grave burden on society” nor “extraordinary means” -- and actually cheaper than conventional feeding. 

Tony also intimated that a feeding tube was painful.  He stated, Having a hole poked in you, a tube shoved in and then having to eat and drink that way would be burdensome for any normal man.”  (Actually, Tony, it wouldn’t.)  Now what makes this statement so hypocritical (and wrong) is that a young girl – the daughter of a family right there at SGG – was in fact being fed through a feeding tube at the very time he was making that statement!  (The girl, who had a heart defect, was on a feeding tube for over a decade.  She never once complained that it was “painful” or “burdensome”)4

Lastly, and also contrary to what Tony claims, Terri’s family was more than willing to take care of Terri (and to feed her with a feeding tube, just as that SGG family was doing with their daughter). Besides, there was “750,000 in insurance settlement money set aside for that purpose.  It was Michael Schiavo who decided to use that settlement money for himself (and his new concubine), instead of spending it on what it was intended for.  (In that settlement, by the way, Michael got $300,000 in addition to that; plus, the Schindlers reportedly offered him another million dollars if he’d let them take care of Terri.  He refused.  He wanted her dead.) 5   

What Erroneous Antonius said, in short, was a pack of lies: her body was NOT “obviously shutting down for good” (as he so smugly quipped), nor was she “brain dead.”6  And, also contrary to what Tony said, her parents were NOT “very generous in spending everyone else's money” (they were, as we said, willing to give up a million dollars of their own) -- nor was her being sustained by a feeding tube “a grave burden on society.”  (And even if her brain waves had been “flat” – which they weren’t – that is not justification for putting a price on human life – or for snuffing it out.)  Moreover, her death was not peaceful, but unspeakably painful and horrible.  And, as if that weren’t bad enough, while Terri was literally shriveling up and dying from starvation and dehydration, Dannie and Tony were often pigging out at one of their favorite haunts, feasting on wine and gourmet fare. 7

That these monsters could look upon her in her plight with such depraved indifference is beyond the scope of human imagination.  (And how anyone could support or follow these monsters is beyond that scope as well.)  That Dannie and Tony could take such an attitude is just one more manifestation of their having absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. Dannie and Tony are, in every respect – human scum.  (It is interesting to note that the ACLU -- the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization founded by communist sympathizers -- agrees with Tony’s position: that Terri Schiavo’s death was justified.  But, on the other hand, they think that executing a condemned death-row criminal constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.”  Amazing: the innocent must die, but the guilty must be spared!)

We said, earlier in this article, that anyone looking at that picture of Terri should get down on his or her knees and thank God for deliverance from such a fate.  Tony and Dannie should get down on their knees too – not to be thankful, but to beg God’s forgiveness for what they have done.  But will they?  Of course not!  These two MAGGOTS will take their usual “moral high ground” (aka quicksand) and feign righteousness.  (They are totally incapable of begging God’s forgiveness, because that requires humility, charity, and a conscience, NONE of which these two lepers have.)

We have covered here the physiological aspects of Terri’s death.  One must remember, however, that she suffered psychologically as well.  One might argue that, in her diminished state, she was not “cognizant” enough to be aware that she was being intentionally killed.  Nothing could be farther from the truth. You may be certain that she knew that she was being put to death.  And in our next article, we will touch on that psychological aspect of her suffering.  But, as important as both that and her physical torments were, the most significant thing about Terri’s death – or, should we say, the most unfortunate thing -- is what it set in motion: its societal consequences.  That we shall discuss too.  Stay tuned. 8
___________________________

1 It’s interesting (but not surprising) to note that this picture – like a lot of other factual evidence that didn’t fit their “agenda” -- was never widely circulated by the “mainstream media.”  Of course, we’re sure that one of Anthony Cekada’s bootlicking supporters might argue, “That’s not the picture of Terri Schiavo to which Michael Schiavo’s attorney was referring when he said those words in the caption.”  Well, Scheiße für Gehirne, that may (or may not) be true -- but that’s irrelevant.  There was NEVER any look of “beautiful” on her face in any of the pictures taken of her, when she was lying there, being slowly (and painfully) put to death.  So, his attorney’s words were a bald-faced lie, no matter what picture they were referring to.

The following is part of what Bobby Schindler (Terri’s brother) had to say about Terri’s ordeal:  “These are the hard facts my family and I will have to live with for the rest of my life: After almost two weeks without food or water, my sister’s lips were horribly cracked, to the point where they were blistering. Her skin became jaundice with areas that turned different shades of blue. Her skin became markedly dehydrated from the lack of water. Terri’s breathing became rapid and uncontrollable, as if she was outside sprinting. Her moaning, at times, was raucous, which indicated to us the insufferable pain she was experiencing. Terri’s face became skeletal, with blood pooling in her deeply sunken eyes and her teeth protruding forward. Even as I write this, I can never properly describe the nightmare of having to watch my sister have to die this way.  What will be forever seared in my memory is the look of utter horror on my sister’s face when my family visited her just after she died.  Those pushing this agenda will certainly deny this; they have to. But there was a reason the court ordered that no cameras or video be permitted in Terri’s room while she was being killed. They claimed privacy issues. My family knows otherwise. And they do too.  So when will this heartlessness end? When will the lies end? When will the American people decide this insanity has to stop?  I don’t know. But I do know this – the lies will never end.”

3 According to what the “mainstream media” reported, Terri’s “disability” was the result of a bad reaction to something she ingested.  But certain “details” (which those same media did their best to suppress) suggest that “foul play” may have been involved in her “accident”: when the paramedics first came in answer to the initial 9-1-1 call, they found Terri face-down on the carpet (her husband, meanwhile, having made no attempt to turn her over so that she could “breathe easier”).  And how long did he wait before making the emergency 9-1-1 call?  Did he intentionally “wait”?  (or, as the Schindlers suspected, did he try to smother her?)  We’ll never know, for Terri could not talk back.  And was Michael Schiavo’s relationship with Terri an abusive one?  Much of the evidence brought out during Terri’s ordeal indicated that it was.  (Also, check out this link.)

One piece of evidence that supports this is that in a subsequent examination, it was discovered that several bones in her body had been broken at one time – including several fractured ribs. (A bone scan -- performed on Terri by Dr. W. Campbell Walker – revealed “prior traumatic injuries to multiple ribs (on both sides), both sacroiliac joints, both knees, both ankles, several thoracic vertebrae, and her right thigh. In addition, the scan shows a minor compression fracture of her L1 vertebra.”)  From this description, it is hard to imagine that all of these fractures could have resulted from a “fall” after fainting.  Rather, it seems to indicate a strong possibility that they were the result of physical violence.  (This information, by the way, was taken from the following link.)

Another source corroborates this: “There are an extensive number of focal abnormal areas of nuclide accumulation of intense type. These include, multiple bilateral ribs, the costovestebral aspects of several of the thoracic vestebral bodies, the L1 vestebral body, both sacrolliac joints, the distal right femoral diaphysis, both knees, and both ankles, right greater than left.
... Correlative radiographs are obtained of the lumbar spine and of the right femur which reveal compression fracture, minor, superior end plate of L1 and shaggy irregular periosteal ossification along the distal femoral diaphysis and metaphysis primarily ventrally. The patient has a history of trauma, most likely the femoral periosteal reaction reflects a response to a subperiosteal hemorrhage and the activity in L1 correlates perfectly with the compression fracture which is presumably traumatic.” 

In one of our earlier articles, we thought that the fractures were discovered during Terri’s initial hospital stay.  We don’t know if that was actually the case (although one neurologist testified that she did have a neck injury when she was admitted).  However, we don’t have enough documentation to back up that claim.  But whether the fractures happened then or sometime before, that is a moot point; they are evidence that Michael Schiavo’s attitude toward Terri was an abusive (and adversarial) one – and hence, if anything, support the theory that foul play was involved in Terri’s “accident.”

4 Even if Michael Schiavo had not got that $750,000, in addition to his own $300,000 (and he got both), he still wanted Terri dead, because – as American Digest pointed out, he stood to get six to eight million dollars (from publishing rights, film rights, and – get this! -- speakers fees) if she died.

5 Actually, there was, in addition to this girl’s, another family, also at SGG at the time, who had a child being fed through a feeding tube.  And, like the girl, he was also on a ventilator (and other life-support equipment).  Plus, he was severely brain-damaged (at birth, probably due to oxygen deprivation) – much more so than Terri.  But his loving parents did not consign him to the dust heap, as Tony would have.  They kept him alive and cared for him.  When they found out what Cekada said about Schiavo, they left SGG in disgust.

6 Far from “shutting down for good,” Terri was able to function without any life-support equipment whatsoever.  Indeed, the documented evidence confirms that, although there was some injury to the brain, Terri was not “brain dead,” nor was she in a coma or in the need of any machines to help keep her alive. Terri was not dying, and could have quite possibly lived a normal life span with her brain injury.  In fact, Terri was, at times, able to communicate, which is evidenced by the videos of her responding to commands, and the notes in her medical files that she was beginning to form words when receiving rehabilitation just after her collapse.  With continued care and rehabilitation, it was quite possible that Terri could have recovered to lead a useful, normal life.  Sadly, it was Michael Schiavo (Terri’s husband and appointed guardian) who decided to stop all of the therapy that was improving her condition.

And as for Tony’s “being a burden on society” argument, if Terri had been (which she wasn’t), that is not a criterion for condemning her to death.  If that were the case, many disabled people (as well as anyone on government assistance -- welfare recipients, prison inmates, whatever -- would be condemned to death!.  How dirtbag Tony could get away with such a ridiculous (and monstrous) statement is beyond belief.  (What is also beyond belief is how anyone, knowing what he said, could actually support Dannie and Tony -- much less, consider them legitimate.)

7 Their favorite restaurant was perhaps La Petite France (although there were others).  We’re not sure how often they get to indulge themselves there these days, since -- back then -- they were subsidized by a benefactor who since left SGG: Bernie Brueggemann.


8 We’d like to take this opportunity to remind any new readers that Lay Pulpit is published -- not every week -- but bi-weekly, i.e., every two weeks.  Also, we’d like to inform them that Lay Pulpit has written several other articles about Schiavo (some with additional archival links).  (To see them, click here, here, here, and here, time permiting.  However, if you haven’t the time to read them all, this article – which recaps much of what was said in those articles -- will suffice.)  Many of Dannie and Tony’s bootlickers, we’re sure, may accuse us of “harping” about Schiavo.  If that is so – then may it continue for a long time to come.  The world must never forget what this poor woman went through, or what that depraved wretch said about her, for his words -- more than anything else -- define just how much of a moral maggot he really was -- and is.

10 comments:

  1. You listed Cekada and Dolan's view; what was the other part of the trio's view on this? Did Sanborn justify this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, he did. Although he was not quite so vocal about it as Cekada was (at least in PUBLISHING his views), he supported Checkie on this. (Checkie was the principal “mouthpiece” about Schiavo.) One article, “True or False Pope,’ has more on this (http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/blog-page.html). We’re sure that there are other sources, too. When we find them, we’ll post the links for you.

      Delete
    2. We recall that Checkie's Wikipedia (auto)biography used to say that both Wee Dan and Big Don supported his position on Schiavo. That line later mysteriously disappeared, to no one's surprise. When the heat turns up, the cockroaches scatter.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it seems that Donnie did a good “whitewash job” in removing any references to him supporting Checkie on SHIAVO – at least, on-line. We scoured the internet, but could find no references that positively state it. However, we did find a letter (from Fr. Martin Stepanich to Thomas Droleskey), where Stepanich mentions that “Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada based their diagnosis on the application of certain moral principles that seemed to justify the removal of Terri's feeding tube as being "extraordinary means" for keeping a helpless patient alive, and which could therefore be removed.” It is clear from that letter that it was COMMON KNOWLEDGE that Sanborn not only supported Checkie on SCHIAVO, but shared his views on it as well

      Delete
    4. Excellent Article!
      Watcher,
      I hope you never let the memory of Terri's murder ever be forgotten, lest it happen
      again at the hands of these heartless men, and supposed Doctors of our Souls.
      Here is the atrocity with Bp. Sanborn regarding Terri Shiavo.
      When the question was given to Bp. Sanborn by one of the faithful, about his position on Terri Shiavo, here is what he said: “ IF she could consume the Species, then I would Not endorse Fr. Cekada and his statement."
      It was then pointed out to Bp. Sanborn by the very same person that was down in Florida, and was friendly with the elderly Polish, Retired, One Star General, and priest, Fr. Malinowski who took Holy Communion to Terri on several occasions; where she received and was able to swallow the Host without any difficulty.

      Bp. Sanborn lowered his eyes and shook his head and then added, that the position of Fr. Cekada would have to be challenged in this case.
      In fairness to Bp. Sanborn, when cornered by this same person with all the outstanding evidence about Shiavo, did he finally admit, Fr. Cekada would have been wrong.

      In my opinion Bp. Sanborn was grossly negligent by not getting in touch with the elderly priest once he was made aware of all the details given him. He then should have contacted Fr. Cekada to advise him to make a statement that in light of new evidence the principles once applied on Terri Shiavo would have to be re-investigated, and therefore the opinion once held is no longer standing. That would have proved him a good bishop, and an intelligent man.
      To the credit of Fr. Eugene R. Berry, when given all the same information by this same person did everything in his power to make Cekada and Dolan aware of the information available to them from this elderly priest. They did nothing to correct, or apologize, or to help this single elderly priest to save Terri’s life. Perhaps this is why you cannot find any information to date of Bp. Sanborn endorsing Fr. Cekada anymore on Terri Shiavo.
      Perhaps he too took a lesson in: all that glitters is not gold, and all who claim to be what they are, they are not.


      Delete
    5. Yes, Sanborn may have admitted that “the position of Fr. Cekada would have to be challenged in this case” – but he DIDN’T. The big blowhard never publicly challenged (or chided) Phony Tony at all; he was too smart (and cowardly) to do that – because he needs Cheeseburger to be his (LOL!!) “theology ‘professor,’” and he can’t offend him in any way. The only thing that the Donster Monster could do was to clam up and “keep a low profile” in hopes that “Shiavo” would go away.

      Actually, that makes Donnie an even BIGGER leper than Tony or Dannie, because – although he knew better (and privately admitted to it), he failed to “go public.” That’s because Bombastic Don never picks on a fellow sleaze bag, but only on WOMEN and CHILDREN. If they ever do a remake of “The Wizard of Oz,” Donnie would be perfect for the part of the COWARDLY LION.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. Eureka! We have found a letter WRITTEN BY SANBORN HIMSELF (that confirms that he wholeheartedly endorsed Cekada’s position on Schiavo) that appeared on the freerepublic.com website, but which has apparently been removed by Big Don (because it’s no longer there). However, we copied it when it WAS there, and we are reproducing it here. However, because this blog only accepts so many characters in a comment, we must do it in two parts, as two separate “comments.” Her is the first part:

    A NOTE ON THE DEATH OF TERRI SCHIAVO

    by The Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

    I WROTE ABOUT this subject a little over a year ago, but because much has been said in recent weeks about it, I feel I should say more.

    The removal of the feeding tube is being styled by conservatives as a murder. This is false. A murder is a direct taking of an innocent life. But there was no direct taking of an innocent life here.

    Terri Schiavo was suffering from the failure of a vital organ, namely her brain. This failure of her brain caused other failures, most notably the failure of part of her digestive function, namely chewing and swallowing. Therefore she could not receive and digest food in an ordinary fashion.

    Whenever a vital organ fails, we die. Whether it be the heart, the liver, the kidneys, or anything else needed for the basic functions of life in the body, we die when they fail. These life functions can, in certain cases, be artificially continued, e.g., by a respirator, for those who cannot breathe. But by the ordinary course of events, these people will die of the failure of these organs.

    The general moral principle regarding medical treatments and life-support is that one is obliged to use ordinary means to preserve one's life, but one is not obliged to use extraordinary means to preserve one's life, although one may use them.

    So the question in this case is: is it extraordinary means to preserve Terri Schiavo's life to keep a feeding tube in her for fifteen years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the second part of Sanborn’s letter:

      I unhesitatingly respond yes, it is extraordinary. Why? Because the entire purpose of medicine is to aid the body to heal itself. When it becomes evident that the body will never heal itself in the case of the failure of a vital organ, then the prolongation of life becomes purely artificial. Think of a permanently brain-damaged person on a respirator, because he cannot breathe.

      If a reliable physician should attest to this state of affairs, or many reliable physicians in case of doubt, it would be perfectly moral to remove the extraordinary means of life-support.

      Medical treatments, furthermore, can be extraordinary for extrinsic considerations. For example, what might seem ordinary in itself, from a purely medical point of view, may be extraordinary from the point of view of the ability of the patient or of the family to pay for it, or to provide the care necessary to maintain the sick person in the kind of care he needs.

      Here is where the Schiavo case becomes more serious. If the removal of a feeding tube, in a case where there is no hope of recovery, is defined as murder, then the State will be obliged to prevent the removal of feeding tubes and respirators and of many similar devices and treatments for tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are on them, at this moment as we speak. As medical science progresses, for how long will people be able to be kept alive by these extraordinary methods?

      Now if the State is required to keep people in this condition indefinitely, the State is then also required to pay for their care. This could easily amount to $1000.00 a day or much more. So my question is, are all those who are calling Terri Schiavo's death a murder willing to pay the enormous taxes necessary to build facilities for these people on feeding tubes and respirators, and to care for them day by day? Would all of these people be willing to sell their homes and cars, and live in abject poverty, in order to keep all the Terri Schiavo's alive now and in the future? I doubt it. In such a case, I think that the common sense and reality of what extraordinary means signifies will dawn on them.

      For if it is murder to remove these means, then it is intrinsically evil to remove them. But if it is intrinsically evil, it is something which we can never do or cooperate in for any reason. As a result, the whole family would have to become homeless, and sell pencils on the street, in order to keep a loved one on a feeding tube or on a respirator until he or she is 105, or perhaps more aged. Does this make any sense at all?

      Delete
  3. People should read what a correctly trained Catholic priest has to say about this issue, just to be able to appreciate how monstrous Cekada's and Sanborn's views are. On the issue of feeding and hydrating, Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara concluded (emphasis his):

    "...we are convinced that the provision of food and fluids is not simply —or strictly — "medical care," but the minimum care that must be provided for the sick, whatever their medical condition. All beings need food and water to live, but such nourishment by itself does not heal or cure disease. In consequence, to stop feeding the permanently unconscious patient is not to withdraw from the battle against illness, but simply to withhold the nourishment that sustains all life.

    Moreover, to withdraw the artificial provision of food and fluids is not simply "to allow the patient to die" : what we are doing is not to cease a treatment against disease, but to withdraw what is essential to sustain the life of every human being, either healthy or ill. Death will happen, not because of the illness, but because of our omission to provide adequate nutrition and hydration.

    In consequence, it can be affirmed that the procedure is neither useless nor burdensome: it preserves life, and the material inconveniences that it provokes are certainly and abundantly compensated by the good that it preserves. Consequently, whatever the medical condition of the patient, artificial nutrition and hydration have to be continued."

    The full article is available HERE.

    ReplyDelete