Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a provocative article, an Italian medical professor argues that Pope John Paul II didn't just simply slip away as his weakness and illness overtook him in April 2005. Intensive care specialist Dr. Lina Pavanelli has concluded that the ailing Pope's April 2 death was caused by what the Catholic Church itself would consider euthanasia. She bases this conclusion on her medical expertise and her own observations of the ailing pontiff on television, as well as press reports and a subsequent book by John Paul's personal physician. The failure to insert a feeding tube into the patient until just a few days before he died accelerated John Paul's death, Pavanelli concludes. Moreover, Pavanelli says she believes that the Pope's doctors dutifully explained the situation to him, and thus she surmises that it was the pontiff himself who likely refused the feeding tube after he'd been twice rushed to the hospital in February and March. Catholics are enjoined to pursue all means to prolong life.
There is a huge difference between euthanasia and a patient refusing certain treatment.
If the pope was considered euthanized because the feeding tube was not put in earlier, then hospitals all over the world are committing euthansia everyday. Extended treatment to prolong life is often refused.
What were his doctors supposed to do? Force the feeding tube in over his objections?
What were his doctors supposed to do? Force the feeding tube in over his objections?
I think the point is he shouldn't have made objections. Refusing the tube was a willful act, indicating he wanted to die and made a decision that would help that come about. I believe the catholic church frowns on that. But of course the pope is supposed to be infallible, right? So even though he may have done something that's wrong, the fact that he did it makes it right, because anything he does must be right.
But you have made a good point, if the pope can refuse treatment, then it's easier for others to do the same.....right?
No, that's not how it works. The pope is above the rules because he's infallible. Plus, he's supposed to have a direct line to the big guy, being his agent and mouthpiece on Earth, so it can be argued that the big guy told him it was ok.
Good point. But can't we also argue that the Big Guy might also tell others that it's OK for them to refuse treatment too?
I believe, but not sure, that the Pope is considered infallible only when he says that he is speaking for God. At any other time, I think he is considered fallible just like any other person. It's that same old "feet of clay" thing which all mankind is supposed to have.
i think we are forgeting that from scriptures point of view there is nothing wrong with dying, infact as christians we look forward to death just as we look forward to life in this world, for wether we live or die it is all the same for us - a gain. so 1 - we should not and can not condem john for looking forward to death, 2- did he commit suicide or was he killed? no, but he allowed death to come quickly by refusing treatment, his death was still of natural cause.
But of course the pope is supposed to be infallible, right? So even though he may have done something that's wrong, the fact that he did it makes it right, because anything he does must be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyChief
No, that's not how it works. The pope is above the rules because he's infallible.
The Pope is not infallible except in terms of interpretation of scripture and decisions regarding church doctrine. The Pope is allowed to be, and is, human and fallible in his personal life.
Dr. Pavonelli was not in the Pope's room. She was not on his team of personal doctors, nor could she make a diagnosis over what he appeared to look like on TV. Maybe the Pope wanted to die with dignity without any artificial means to prolong his lifelong search and preparance for eternal life..If I was suffering and had no hope for any meaningful life and was considered terminal, why would I want to use any means possible to prolong death of this old, sick body, when an eternal perfect, spiritual body is so close..IMO witholding a feeding tube is not euthanasia, it is , in most cases honoring a persons last wishes and in the USA it is obeying a persons "Living Will"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
