Special Edition: A Letter by Donald Sanborn

Editor’e Note: Normally, we publish only every other week.  But today, we have – flash! – a special edition!  (We will, of course, publish next week, as usual, on our regular “bi-weekly” schedule; but we’re providing this “special edition” for your ADDED reading pleasure!)  Here it is:

In our last article, Schiavo: The Physiology of Dehydration, one commenter wrote in to ask if Donald Sanborn supported Cekada’s position on Schiavo. We said that he did; and two pieces of “proof” that we offered were 1) a letter written by Fr. Martin Stepanich to Thomas Droleskey (click here to see it), and 2) an excerpt from True or False Pope? (by Messrs. Salza and Siscoe).  The problem with that second source is that the “link” that we provided “does not work,” i.e., when one clicks on it, it says, “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”  (We’re not sure why, but we’re investigating.)

Another problem is that other corroborating sources that we were hoping to find on the internet (confirming Sanborn’s support of Cekada on Schiavo) also “did not exist.”  We just couldn’t find any.  Sure enough,  Pistrina Liturgica, in a later “comment,” confirmed, for instance, that a reference confirming Sanborn’s “Schiavo” support of Cekada -- in the original Wikipedia biography of Cekada – was no longer there.  Unfortunately, it had been removed.  Pistrina (and we) both suspect that a certain “someone” had it removed, because it was an embarrassment for him.  What we suspected was that Donnie had removed other references as well (about his support of Checkie on Schiavo); and, sure enough, he did: we scoured the internet, but could find nothing further.

But, in gathering information for another article, we (providentially!) came across something that we had copied (from the internet) some time back: a “note” written by Big Don himself that confirms that he did indeed support Checkie’s position!  (Click here for the website.)  Now, in scouring this website, you will exclaim, “But there’s nothing from Sanborn here!”  And you’d be right: there IS nothing there – because that “someone” had that removed too!  However (as we said), we providentially copied it before it WAS removed.  Here it is:

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?
 
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?

By the way, we left this “note” “just as it was” (in its original format, font, etc.), as it appeared on that website.  We don’t think that Big Don will be able to contend (or pretend) that it never existed, because it could be “unearthed” if need be.  (Anything ever written in “cyberspace” is there forever.  It can never really be “erased.”)  We have recreated it here to let Big Don know that – try as he might – he cannot erase all the evidence of his “Schiavo” support of the Cheeseburger.  We’d also like to add this: “Shame on you, Donnie!  You thought you could get away with it, didn’t you?!”  Well, he didn’t.  His attempt to cover up his involvement shows both his (attempt at) cunning and his cowardice.  But, as all can see, it was a futile effort.  Big Don blew it! 

Donnie, just as you did in the case of the SGG School scandals, when you IGNORED the facts that were readily available to you, and wrote your caustic letter to Mr. Brueggemann (see our post, A Tale of Two Letters), you did the same thing here with Schiavo.  Without bothering to check any of the facts in the case – facts readily available on the internet – you IGNORED them here too, and preemptively took Checkie’s side, citing the same erroneous “cost” and medical reasons as he.  Supporting his erroneous position was more important to you than telling the truth.

For instance, you claim that “the state” would be stuck with “paying the tab” for Terri’s care.  That’s a lie.  There was $750,000 set aside for her care (that Michael Schiavo chose to use for himself and his sleep-in girlfriend). And, as our next article will show, the Schindlers (Terri’s family) were willing to pay her expenses anyway.    You insinuated that Terri was on “life support.”  No she wasn’t.  She was not on a respirator or anything of that sort.  She was breathing on her own, without any such assistance – and she was making progress in her recovery, until Michael had it stopped.  While she was recovering, she was merely being fed through a feeding tube, which – contrary to what you infer -- is cheaper than conventional feeding.  (And, according to the nurses attending her, she was able to swallow anyway – another fact that was pointed out to you in person, which you privately acknowledged at the time, but publicly chose to ignore later on).  All this and more was readily available to you -- but you ignored it all.  Sanborn, you are a liar and a coward.