Skip to comments.Wesley J. Smith: Case of Rom Houben Should Prompt Renewed Look at Terri Schiavo's Death
Posted on 12/26/2009 6:22:59 PM PST by wagglebee
click here to read article
That’s the truth. We sat here cheering because we actually thought he was going to keep his word. Then he whined that he didn’t have the authority.
We will never move on until the evil trio - Schiavo, Greer and Felos -
Praying it will be in my lifetime!!!
I’ve tried to find some difference between Governor Jeb Bush and Governor Pontius Pilate. All I can come up with is that they lived a couple thousand years apart, and one turned his back on Jesus Christ while the other turned his back on Terri Schiavo. But those are just differences in their circumstances, not in the men themselves or in their actions. I still can’t find anything abut Jeb Bush which makes him any different from Pontius Pilate. They both succumbed to the call of “crucify, crucify, crucify.”
“Colorado RTL is informing pro-lifers, politicians and candidates of a crisis among the federal judiciary. For 35 years, pro-lifers have hoped that by electing pro-life presidents such as Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush, America would get judges who support the God-given right to life of the unborn. Justices, who we all hoped were pro-life, have made it increasingly clear that they are not.
Antonin Scalia has publicly stated that he would strike down any law that prohibited abortion in all fifty states, and Clarence Thomas has ruled that the public has the right to decide to legalize the killing of unborn children. Sadly, not even one of the seven current U.S. Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republican presidents support the right to life of the unborn.
Further, our pro-life presidents have nominated sixty percent of the U.S. federal judiciary, and yet the judiciary utterly rejects the right to life of the unborn. Also we should remember that the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision was written by a Republican Justice and passed by the Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, and abortion was legalized in Colorado by Republican governor John Love in 1967.
Colorado RTL is educating pro-life politicians and candidates to the sobering judicial crisis because it tells us that the status quo strategy of regulating abortion over the last decades is leading to a judicial culture exactly the opposite of what the pro-life movement had expected. When we ask judges to uphold abortion regulations, that very request moves “our own” judges to accept that the government has the right to regulate the killing of children, which they do by upholding the pro-life movement’s own initiatives.
Thus Colorado RTL advocates enforcement of the God-given right to life and promotes the Personhood strategy to end legalized abortion in America!”
The Republican judges also voted to kill Terri.
Yup. They put “self” ahead of doing what was right.
That needs to be said louder, and more often. I don't think many people get it. Yet.
To the best of my knowledge nobody has EVER presented any evidence to suggest that Terri had an eating disorder.
We do know that on the day Terri had her injury she spent more money having her hair styled than Mikey thought she should and he was angry. We do know that she had told friends that she was thinking about leaving him. And we do know that her injuries are totally inconsistent with what would normally happen when a person collapses.
Thread by mlizzy.
My son stood larger than life, the sun dancing on his hair, his eyes sparkling as he laughed with his teammates in all the bravado only teammates can share. Grinning from ear to ear, ahead in a major semi-pro football game, my son was radiant with the joy of it, and I thanked God for days such as this.
I once had the RIGHT to kill him. For a second I imagined him not there.
That thought shot through my body like ice and anger at women like Nancy Pelosi welled up inside. What kind of monster would fight to kill innocents? What sick and twisted people are these to campaign that our tax dollars be used to MURDER men like my son, to confuse young teens carrying children, to convince them they aren't children at all but worthless cells. Those poor teens and young women have no idea what they're doing and how they would regret it for the rest of their lives.
From the moment of conception it is determined what color eyes they will have, what color hair, whether or not they have freckles. As my son smacked his teammate in brotherly affection, overwhelmed with the glory of the day, it bristled me to know I could have ignorantly killed him thanks to the efforts of abortion-crazed politicians. . .
Thread by abb.
The Ronald Reagan U.C.L.A. Medical Center, one of the nations most highly regarded academic hospitals, has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patients life.
If you come into this hospital, were not going to let you die, said Dr. David T. Feinberg, the hospital systems chief executive.
Yet that ethos has made the medical center a prime target for critics in the Obama administration and elsewhere who talk about how much money the nation wastes on needless tests and futile procedures. They like to note that U.C.L.A. is perennially near the top of widely cited data, compiled by researchers at Dartmouth, ranking medical centers that spend the most on end-of-life care but seem to have no better results than hospitals spending much less.
Under the House health care legislation pending in Congress, the Institute of Medicine would conduct a study of the regional variations in Medicare spending to try to determine how to reward hospitals like Mayo for providing more cost-effective care. Hospitals identified as high-cost centers might even be penalized, perhaps receiving lower payments from the government. The Senate bill calls only for studies of Medicare spending variations, so it will be up to House-Senate negotiators to resolve the matter in the final legislation. . .
Thread by me.
Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reids Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it.
That and midnight-weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C.
No one is certain of whats in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients also known as rationing.
Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can't be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:
This is a rule change. Its a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I'm not even sure that its constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.
In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing death panel from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they're so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to bend the cost curve and keep health care spending down?
The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost.
In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bills calculations call for a reduction in Medicares spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:
It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.
Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call death panels the lie of the year, this type of rationing what the CBO calls reduc[ed] access to care and diminish[ed] quality of care is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.
This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We're talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the governments thumb. We're also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.
This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (Thats the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won't grow the deficit for the next ten years.)
The administrations promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?
This is about politics, not health care. Americans don't want this bill. Americans don't like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we're paying attention, and 2010 is coming.
Thread by reaganaut1.
While the national health coverage debate has been roiled by questions of whether the government should be paying for end-of-life counseling, physicians [...], in consultations with patients or their families, are routinely making tough decisions about the best way to die.
Among those choices is terminal sedation, a treatment that is already widely used, even as it vexes families and a profession whose paramount rule is to do no harm.
Doctors who perform it say it is based on carefully thought-out ethical principles in which the goal is never to end someones life, but only to make the patient more comfortable.
But the possibility that the process might speed death has some experts contending that the practice is, in the words of one much-debated paper, a form of slow euthanasia, and that doctors who say otherwise are fooling themselves and their patients.
There is little information about how many patients are terminally sedated, and under what circumstances estimates have ranged from 2 percent of terminal patients to more than 50 percent. (Doctors are often reluctant to discuss particular cases out of fear that their intentions will be misunderstood.)
While there are universally accepted protocols for treating conditions like flu and diabetes, this is not as true for the management of peoples last weeks, days and hours. Indeed, a review of a decade of medical literature on terminal sedation and interviews with palliative care doctors suggest that there is less than unanimity on which drugs are appropriate to use or even on the precise definition of terminal sedation.
Discussions between doctors and dying patients families can be spare, even cryptic. In half a dozen end-of-life consultations attended by a reporter over the last year, even the most forthright doctors and nurses [only hinted at the drugs' effects]...
So glad Palin warned us about those death panels.
We need to write short letters to editors to warn others that it is still in the Harrycare bill.
Terminal sedation IS NOT a treatment. It’s murder by poison.
Colorado has our own “bioethicist” death-peddler who has pushed
terminal sedation for years!
Abrams writes about the “wrenching” moral dilemmas in his book:
“Doctors on the Edge”
Why is Colorado the genesis of the evil death agenda?
Thanks Dick “Duty to Die” Lamm.
Thanks for the ping!
The killing of Terri was a true horror story. What is likewise shocking is how many people failed to react to what was done to her.
Edwarda doesn't have an estranged husband to kill her, so she lives. She is loved, and she is shielded from the hatred of the bloodthirsty eugenicists.
Read about Edwarda's amazing life story here.
Thread by jacknhoo.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The rift between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Catholic Church will likely grow thanks to new comments the abortion advocate made. Pelosi said in a new interview that the "free will" of women wanting abortions outweighs pro-life Catholic teachings.
Newsweek's Eleanor Clift conducted a year-end interview with Pelosi.
The conversation turned to the topic of abortion and health care and Pelosi blasted the Catholic bishops for their opposition to the pro-abortion bill.
She tells Clift it was frustrating that Catholic bishops "were not willing to accept what we know to be a fact" -- that the "public option" would supposedly not violate a ban on federally-funded abortions.
Then, as Clift asks about her "brushes" with the church, Pelosi drops a bomb.
"I have some concerns about the church's position respecting a woman's right to choose," Pelosi responds. "I am a practicing Catholic, although they're probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith."
"I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions," she continues. "And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will."
Pelosi also told Newsweek she doesn't appreciate being lobbied on abortion but understands her local Catholic officials will try to persuade her.
"When I speak to my archbishop in San Francisco and his role is to try to change my mind on the subject, well then he is exercising his pastoral duty to me as one of his flock," she said. "When they call me on the phone here to talk about, or come to see me about an issue, that's a different story. Then they are advocates, and I am a public official, and I have a different responsibility."
The comments will likely throw fuel on the fire of public opinion within pro-life and Catholic circles that Pelosi is well-outside the mainstream -- but she tells the pro-abortion Newsweek reporter she doesn't care.
"I don't choose to spend my time countering perceptions and mischaracterizations that the other side puts out there. I choose to do my job. Because we are effective, I continue to be the target," Pelosi contends.
Pelosi also talked about how she discussed the abortion funding in the health care bill with a Catholic leader.
"I talked to one of the cardinals. I said to him that I believe that what we are doing honors the principles we talked about: we want to pass a health-care bill, we want it to be abortion neutral, and we want it to [have] no federal funding [for abortion], which is the law. And we believe that our language does that," she recounted. "They said, 'We believe that it does not.' I said, let's sit down at the table and our lawyers can compare language."
For Pelosi, her motive appears to be more about winning than her reputation and standing.
"I don't care how popular I am. I'm not putting myself out there to run for higher office. I just [want to] make sure that we win the election next year," she said.
The new comments follow on the heels of Pelosi thanking God that the Senate health care bill funds abortions.
Thread by me.
Mike Beckner was fixing dinner when he got the phone call parents dread the one from a doctor trying to break awful news gently.
Earlier that day, Nov. 11, 2003, his daughter, Jodie, had driven up a mountain to catch the first day of snowboarding season at a ski resort when her SUV spun out on a patch of ice and hit another vehicle.
They were starting to tell me there was a car crash, recalled Mike Beckner, 60, of Encinitas. I couldnt process it. I was in shock. I handed the phone to my wife.
The Beckners reached the bedside of their comatose daughter the next afternoon, the beginning of a six-year rehabilitation struggle. Jodie Beckner was a top-notch college student and competitive gymnast, swimmer and diver at the time of the crash. Afterward, she fought her way back from an almost infantile state to become a woman as smart, funny and capable though profoundly changed as the one who drove up the mountain that day.
In December, Beckner, 24, of Ocean Beach earned her bachelors degree in public policy from San Diego State University. She hopes to enter an accelerated nursing program next fall and perhaps use her skills in the Peace Corps one day.
Jodie has been knocked down so many times over the past few years, but she keeps getting back up, said her mother, Kathy Beckner.
Today, all Jodie knows of the crash is what she has heard from others: Her car slid across the road into oncoming traffic. Her head slammed into an air bag, and the force rattled her brain, impairing her cognitive and emotional states.
She barely stirred for five days in the hospital and didnt recognize her family for three weeks. She said her last memory from before the accident is of a camping trip she took a week or two earlier.
The first three years of recovery were filled with intensive physical and occupational therapy, including neurological treatments that ultimately helped to restore the damaged circuitry in her brain.
Mike and Kathy Beckner said their daughter was emotionless and isolationist at first. Once she started a task, such as brushing her hair or working on a word puzzle book, she would keep at it continuously unless someone told her to stop.
She was like a zombie, Michael Beckner said.
You would look at her and look right through her, because there didnt seem to be anything there.
But Jodie Beckner soon made astonishing progress. Just six months after the crash, she took a job stocking shelves at a store. In summer 2004, she began college-level classes again.
At the rehab center, they said she was taking quantum leaps, Kathy Beckner said.
Jodie Beckner doesnt remember her decision to apply to SDSU in 2004, though she told her mother about wanting to live near her older sister, Mary Beth, in San Diego. She started fall courses on the campus with a vigor that astonished her parents, who moved from New Jersey to Encinitas in 2007 to keep the family close together.
Beckner juggled a full-time job and a full class load, studying extra to make up for shortcomings in her short-term memory. An SDSU program for students with disabilities helped ensure that classrooms accommodated her needs, such as letting her sit near the front so she could hear better. The car crash had damaged her hearing.
Im sure I had doubts, Jodie Beckner said. But Ive never said, I cant do this.
She claims no great spiritual rebirth from her close call, but said it has spurred her desire to help disadvantaged patients.
Kathy Beckner sees her daughters turnaround as a purposeful blessing.
Ive told her, You have a mission on Earth, Kathy Beckner said.
Its a miracle she has come this far.
"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."
Thread by me.
The nation's Catholic hospitals, including three in the Bay Area, face a new religious mandate in the new year: to provide life-sustaining food, water and medicine to comatose patients who have no hope of recovery.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the directive Nov. 17 to the more than 1,000 church-affiliated hospitals and nursing homes in the United States and to all Catholic doctors and nurses. Invoking a 2004 speech by Pope John Paul II, the bishops said Catholics must provide nutritional assistance to patients with "presumably irreversible conditions ... who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care."
A previous directive let Catholic hospitals and doctors decide whether the burdens on the patient outweighed the benefits of prolonging life. The bishops said the new policy was guided by "Catholic teaching against euthanasia" and by John Paul's observation that providing food and water "always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act."
The directive plunges the bishops into another health care controversy, on the heels of their lobbying for tight restrictions on abortion coverage in health legislation pending in Congress.
Catholic hospital officials say the November decree isn't rigid and leaves room for accommodating patients' wishes. But the bishops' language appears to conflict with a hospital's legal duty to follow a patient's instructions to withdraw life support, as expressed in an advance written directive or by a close relative or friend who knows the patient's intentions. . .
Thanks for the ping!
Two thread by me.
Amsterdam, (LifeNews.com) -- The number of euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands rose significantly in 2009 compared with 2008. There were reportedly 200 more deaths under the law, but pro-life advocates say those numbers are likely lowball estimates given the underreporting in the Dutch system.
The Dutch News indicates approximately 2,500 people died via euthanasia in 2009, but the actual number is unknown because the government estimates about 20 percent of cases are not reported.
The new government figures also include six registered cases of euthanasia on elderly patients with senile dementia, all of whom were supposedly in the early stages and able to make their wishes to die known.
In Holland, patients wanting to be killed must be in unbearable pain, the physician must sign off on the patient making an informed choice, and a second physician must certify the doctor's findings.
Alex Schadenberg of the Canada-based Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, discussed the new numbers.
He says the number of people dying in the Netherlands is higher because assisted suicide figures are not included. If they are included, another 500 people should be added to the 2,500 who were killed last year via euthanasia.
He also says deaths without explicit consent are not included and pointed to the most recent government report from 2005 showing 550 deaths are directly and intentionally caused by the physician but not reported as euthanasia because they lacked consent.
Schadenberg also notes that, as of 2007, approximately 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands were connected to the practice of terminal sedation.
"Many of those deaths were caused by dehydration, due to the physician sedating the patient and then withholding hydration until death occurs, which usually takes 10 - 14 days," he said.
Meanwhile, the Dutch News report "acknowledged that people with dementia are dying by euthanasia in the Netherlands, but the article didn't mention how many infants died by euthanasia in 2009," he pointed out.
"The Groningen Protocol allows infants who are born with disabilities to die by euthanasia based on the request of the parents and the agreement of the physician," he said.
Schadenberg said he is "concerned that since the Netherlands does not collect information concerning the euthanasia of people with disabilities, we therefore ask the question, how many people with disabilities are coerced into death by euthanasia based on a false concept that living with a disability is a life of suffering."
American bioethicist Wesley J. Smith also commented on the new numbers.
He says he has seen studies showing as many as 50 percent of all euthanasia deaths in the Netherlands going unreported -- meaning the lowball figures Schadenberg says are higher could be higher still.
Smith says he finds it "amazing" that the "number of euthanasia deaths are under-reported because non voluntary and involuntary euthanasia don't count as euthanasia because the patient didn't consent."
"And that isn't all. As Alex notes, these statistics don't include the unduly high numbers of terminal sedation deathspalliative sedation used not as a legitimate pain control technique but as back door euthanasia," Smith continued.
"I would also point out that Dutch doctors refer patients they don't want to euthanize with how-to-commit-suicide information," Smith added.
For Smith, "Heres the bottom line: The Dutch prove that once euthanasia consciousness is accepted, there is ultimately no real control."
Lets open the New Year as we left the old year, shall we?
You know - that part about how we are now becoming quite accustomed to killing people because somebody has decided they are not worth keeping alive.
All in the decedents best interests, of course.
Media in the Netherlands reports that there was an increase in the number of people euthanized in 2009 including people in the early stages of dementia. No surprise there, but I think its instructive to look at what is reported, and the subtle subtexts that are nevertheless coercive in slanting a favorable impression of medicalized killing.
Sidebar: Im not suggesting that the reporter deliberately thought this through, but I think its obvious that things in the Netherlands are so pro-euthanasia that the articles bias is assumed to be balanced coverage, which its not.
From a piece DutchNews entitled More Cases of Euthanasia in 2009.
First, the obvious is reported, that there were more 200 more cases of euthanasia in the Netherlands last year than 2008, where the killing total was 2,500.
It is not known how many cases of mercy killing there actually are in the Netherlands, but in 2007 experts said around 80% of instances are registered with the monitoring body.
Well, mercy for whom, exactly? What exactly is the nature of this mercy? How can we be assured that the mercy is not for those left behind who found the patient too much of a burden? What about the survivors benefitting from such mercy as they inherit goodies from the person they coaxed to assume a duty to die? No way to tell, of course.
Merciful because people are in unbearable pain and suffering? Not exactly, because many people who are euthanized are not in pain, and because, in the Netherlands, you can request euthanasia for just about any reason at all, pain or no pain.
Also, after all the fanfare in the Netherlands about making euthanasia legal so that it could be officially controlled, what do we find? Well, its not controllable.
Remember, too, that the registering monitoring body (sounds so nice, certain, and transparent) is a review panel that examines the circumstances of the killing AFTER it has occurred.
Now, here's the next snippet that contradicts the whole pain-and-suffering angle.
There were also six registered cases of euthanasia on elderly patients with senile dementia, all of whom were in the early stages and able to make their wishes known.
Ah, I see. Where to begin? Dementia, though tragic and unfortunate, is not physically painful (originally, at the top of the slippery slope, euthanasia was ONLY for untreatable physical pain among the terminally ill). Psychologically painful? Clearly, for persons who are aware that their faculties are diminishing, but how do other people make this determination? (Those with dementia dont euthanize themselves, after all). Where is the bright clear line between someone with early dementia who requests euthanasia (in their right mind, so to speak) and someone whos condition is more far advanced and is judged not competent to request euthanasia?
Dont worry, the Dutch doctors have a solution for this latter group they kill them too. The explanation? Had these people been in their right mind, they would have requested euthanasia anyway.
On we go:
The law states a number of criteria, which must be met before euthanasia can be administered. For example, the patient must be suffering unbearable pain and the doctor must be convinced the patient is making an informed choice. The opinion of a second doctor is also required.
More shooting fish in barrels here: Wheres the unbearable pain in dementia? How can a doctor ever possibly be sure that, knowing a diagnosis of dementia has already been made, calibrate that the dementia is not affecting the request for euthanasia?
Short answer, Im afraid: All the contortions of logic and single-mindedness betray, with increasing smugness, that in many places we have decided who should live and who should die.
First those who are terminally ill and in untreatable pain. Then people who are not terminally ill but who might have physical or psychological pain. Then people who are judged to never be able to have a better quality of life. First adults. Then children.
Its been a number of years now since Pope John Paul II issued his important clarification regarding the so-called Persistent Vegetative State, to wit, that food and water are always to be cosidered Ordinary Means regardless of how they are administered, and may not be withheld from any patient, even if requested by the family or indicated in a living will. His statement, which was issued, in his words, with the full weight of my authority (the "full weight" of the Pope's authority being infallibility), didnt make much news at the time, since the Terri Schiavo case had already passed out of the news cycle.
This story is old (from November 23rd, 2009), but is important for obvious reasons. Its authored by Allen Hall, and was posted on the web site of The UK Daily Mail. It speaks for itself.
A car crash victim diagnosed as being in a coma for the past 23 years has been conscious the whole time. Rom Houben was paralysed but had no way of letting doctors know that he could hear every word they were saying. "I dreamed myself away," said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state. He added: "I screamed, but there was nothing to hear."
Rom Houben was trapped in a coma for 23 years and had no way of letting anyone know he could hear what they were saying (picture posed by model). Doctors used a range of coma tests before reluctantly concluding that his consciousness was "extinct". But three years ago, new hi-tech scans showed his brain was still functioning almost completely normally. Mr Houben described the moment as "my second birth". Therapy has since allowed him to tap out messages on a computer screen. Mr Houben said: "All that time I just literally dreamed of a better life. Frustration is too small a word to describe what I felt."
His case has only just been revealed in a scientific paper released by the man who "saved" him, top neurological expert Dr Steven Laureys. "Medical advances caught up with him," said Dr Laureys, who believes there may be many similar cases of false comas around the world. The disclosure will also renew the right-to-die debate over whether people in comas are truly unconscious. Mr Houben, a former martial arts enthusiast, was paralysed in 1983.
Doctors in Zolder, Belgium, used the internationally accepted Glasgow Coma Scale to assess his eye, verbal and motor responses. But each time he was graded incorrectly. Only a re-evaluation of his case at the University of Liege discovered that he had lost control of his body but was still fully aware of what was happening. He is never likely to leave hospital, but as well as his computer he now has a special device above his bed which lets him read books while lying down. Mr Houben said: "I shall never forget the day when they discovered what was truly wrong with meit was my second birth.... I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy my life now that people know I am not dead."
Dr Laureys's new study claims that patients classed as in a vegetative state are often misdiagnosed. "Anyone who bears the stamp of 'unconscious' just one time hardly ever gets rid of it again," he said. The doctor, who leads the Coma Science Group and Department of Neurology at Liege University Hospital, found Mr Houben's brain was still working by using state-of-the-art imaging. He plans to use the case to highlight what he considers may be similar examples around the world. Dr Laureys said: "In Germany alone each year some 100,000 people suffer from severe traumatic brain injury. About 20,000 are followed by a coma of three weeks or longer. Some of them die, others regain health. But an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 people a year remain trapped in an intermediate stagethey go on living without ever coming back again."
Supporters of euthanasia and assisted suicide argue that people who have lain in persistent vegetative states for years should be given the opportunity to have crucial medical support withdrawn because of the "indignity" of their condition. But there have been several cases in which people judged to be in vegetative states or deep comas have recovered. Twenty years ago, Carrie Coons, an 86-year-old from New York, regained consciousness after a year, took small amounts of food by mouth and engaged in conversation. Only days before her recovery, a judge had granted her family's request for the removal of the feeding tube which had been keeping her alive. In the UK in 1993, doctors switched off the life support system keeping alive Tony Bland, a 22-year-old who had been in a coma for three years following the Hillsborough disaster.
Dr Laureys was not available for comment yesterday and it is not clear why he thought Mr Houben should have the hi-tech screening when so many years had passed.
I thought the last line of Mr. Hall's article was interesting: he seems to be somewhat indignant that Dr. Laureys would interfere in this way. As for the assisted suicide crowd, I would suggest that the "indignity" of someone's supposed "vegetative state" doesnt compare to the indignity of death. Just ask Mr. Houben. He seems expressive enough now to comment on the situation. Perhaps thats why this story was so long in making it onto the page of any newspaper.
So, what's your guess? Is this new, expensive high-tech screeningavailable three years ago but only now being revealed to the publicgoing to be available in the Obama plan? One thing Dr. Laureys said sticks in my mind: "Anyone who bears the stamp of 'unconscious' just one time hardly ever gets rid of it again." Is this the road we are now traveling? that being uncoscious is now a stigmalike being black in Alabama in 1930that can get you killed if you're not lucky?
But there's something else that this story brought to mind: a question that's been bothering your PP for some time now. Back when Terri Schiavo's life was being debated (and she was not unconscious, by the way), her husband, who had been in court trying to kill her, was already "keeping house" with a girlfriend whom he married in the Catholic Church within weeks of his wife's death. Yet, the Code of Canon Law clearly states:
Can. 1090 §1 One who, with a view to entering marriage with a particular person, has killed that person's spouse, or his or her own spouse, invalidly attempts this marriage.
§2 They also invalidly attempt marriage with each other who, by mutual physical or moral action, brought about the death of either's spouse.
The bishop of Palm Springs said a lot of stupid things leading up to Mrs. Schiavo's murder, then bolted to Sri Lanka during Holy Week, probably at the demand of the Holy See before he got anyone else killed. But I'm surprised he let this marriage take place. Oh well.... Should the marriage not work out, Mr. Schiavo and his new bride will have ample grounds for that annulment.
"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."
Thread by NYer.
Experts have noticed the problem. There's a shortage of people willing to step up and do the job. And because of that, the limited number of those who have joined are stretched thinner and have to work harder. Experts have noticed that their average age is climbing rapidly. And they've noticed that many of our best and brightest young people aren't interested in joining.
While I could be talking about priests, actually liberals are worried about the graying of abortionists. Poor things.
All I can think is that if only they let abortionists marry, none of this would happen.
Amanda Marcotte writes that pro-aborts must:
Address the shortage of abortion providers. We all know the drill: the average age of an abortion provider in this country is soaring upwards, and many doctors who deserve to retire and spend their days playing golf stay in the business because there's so many women who need abortions and so few people to provide them. Few counties have abortion providers, and many women have to travel hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles to get one. And it's because younger doctors don't want to perform abortions. They don't have any memories of the horrors of septic abortions (unlike many older doctors), and the harassment they face if they join up seems like too much trouble.Can you imagine that there are people out there who believe there aren't enough abortions taking place? Yeah, that's the problem in America.
The problem is complex, but not unfixable. We should lobby for stronger protections for abortion clinic workers, so that fear doesn't drive would-be providers away. More importantly, we need to find a way to get people with the right attitudes and the right skills into the business. Programs encouraging bright, young pro-choice people into medical school to train as ob-gyns who perform abortions is a good start. Pushing medical schools not only to teach the procedures for abortion, but also to highlight the dangers of self-abortion would also help. Perhaps a scholarship program for medical students who train to be abortion providers, or a debt forgiveness program for those doctors that provide abortion? There are endless possibilities, and we should undertake them.
Thread by me.
The first ten years of the 2000s (please, no arguments over whether the first decade really ends this year) brought bioethics front and center into national and international prominence as never before.
Since this is the time for creating top ten lists, I pondered the matter over my eggnog over the holidays and compiled for NRO, the ten most important stories in bioethics of the last decade (in descending order), with commentary. From my piece, Technological Morality:
10: The ascendance of an anti-human environmentalism...Radical environmentalism appears to have morphed into anti-humanism, the result of which could be a new impetus for eugenics and radical population control.
9. The growth of biological colonialism. Desperate and destitute people are increasingly being exploited for their body parts and functions
8. The increase in American pro-life attitudes. In the last decade, polling showed a dramatic increase in the number of people who identify themselves as pro-life If this trend continues, it could eventually shake the Roe regimen off its foundation.
7. The struggle over Obamacare. The political brouhaha over Obamacare was the bioethics story of 2009, not only in the U.S. but throughout much of the developed world The debate will not end with the passage or failure of a bill, and health-care reform will likely be one of the most important stories of the coming decade.
6. Legalization of assisted suicide in Washington...[T]he Washington victory boosted the morale of assisted-suicide activists, who promise to wage an energetic legalization campaign in the coming decade.
5: The success of adult-stem-cell research...For example, in early human trials, adult stem cells have helped diabetics get off insulin, restored sensation to paralyzed people with spinal-cord injuries, helped heal unhealthy hearts, and provided hope to patients with autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. These and other amazing advances in adult-stem-cell research provided one of the few pieces of truly good news in a sour decade.
4. Suicide tourism in Switzerland. Over the last decade, Switzerland became Jack Kevorkian as a country, its suicide clinics catering to an increasingly international clientele Alas, as was the case with Kevorkian in the 1990s, audacity was rewarded. In the face of a wave of high-profile suicide-tourism stories, Englands head prosecutor published guidelines that, in essence, decriminalized family and friends assisting the suicides of the dying, disabled, and infirm
3. IVF anarchy... IVF has led to childbirth as manufacture, with our progeny chosen for their genetic makeup. It is likely that babies will soon be created with three parents. What comes next is anybodys guess.
2. The Bush embryonic-stem-cell funding policy. When Pres. George W. Bush signed an executive order restricting federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research to lines already in existence on Aug. 9, 2001, he set off a nearly decade-long firestorm But the real poke in the eye for the Science Establishment and liberal media was that Bushs policy sent a clarion message that embryos which are, after all, nascent human life matter, thrusting his policy into a buzz saw involving our most touchy cultural issues, particularly abortion.
1. The dehydration of Terri Schiavo. The emotionally wrenching tug of war over the life of Terri Schiavo, covered sensationally by the international media and culminating in her slow death, was hands down the decades most important story in bioethics (as well of one of the most important stories of the early 2000s). Who hasn't heard her name? Who doesn't have an opinion about what happened?
There is much more to say about all of these stories than I could in the abridged version presented here or in the entire article. But I think it is very clear now: bioethics is important. Soon, I'll write up what I consider to be the ten biggest stories in bioethics of the coming decade.
It's only taken me close to a month but I wanted to introduce the newest member of our crew. Matthew joined us on December 10, 2009. He made the doctors run to the room and almost made it here before they did. He was an ounce shy of 10 pounds so I think he almost counts for two. All of his siblings are thrilled to finally have him to cuddle.
What a precious baby! Thanks for the pings!
The affectionate phrase my dearly departed father in law used,
“You’re Dutch!” takes on new meaning.
// 1. The dehydration of Terri Schiavo. The emotionally wrenching tug of war over the life of Terri Schiavo, covered sensationally by the international media and culminating in her slow death, was hands down the decades most important story in bioethics (as well of one of the most important stories of the early 2000s). Who hasn’t heard her name? Who doesn’t have an opinion about what happened? //
And the fact that it happened in the US. It is a dark blot of shame.
Great thread by Jim Robinson.
Scott Brown says on his campaign website that the decision on abortion should ultimately be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor. This is wrong. Her doctor is no substitute for God in matters of life and death of an innocent person. The goal of abortion is to end the God-given life of an innocent and helpless person before he is even born into this world.
Our nation was founded on the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the Rights to Life and Liberty.
Abortion is not a right. In fact it wrongly deprives an innocent person of HIS God-given unalienable RIGHTS to Life and Liberty.
Government sanctioned abortion is an abominable sin and a crime against mankind and against the constitution and against the very bedrock foundational principle establishing our nation under God, i.e., that our unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty are granted by God, not man and not government and neither man nor government can deprive us of same!
I can understand the willingness of conservatives to overlook or downplay Brown's stance on abortion to the larger goal of denying Obama and his murdering Marxist Democrats their 61st senate vote and possibly killing their evil abortionist agenda, but we can't just wash our hands of the issue and walk away any more than we could wash our hands and walk away from any other mass murdering tyrannical government operation.
The unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty MUST be resurrected and reasserted as the fundamental God-given rights to every innocent person in America, beginning with the most innocent of all, the unborn, or NO other of our rights can ever be protected.
They say that the only way we can do this is by changing one heart, one mind at a time. Okay, then I'd say the place to start would be with Scott Brown. If you are going to give him your support, your money or your vote then you should DEMAND that in return he immediately changes his stance on abortion. If he is to represent us as a U.S. Senator he MUST be required to uphold his oath to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, so help me God!
And this means he MUST be required to fully defend our unalienable Rights to Life and Liberty!
Support him if you must, but make the calls, write the letters, send the faxes, visit his office and make him realize that the unalienable Right to Life IS a constitutional right and abortion is NOT!!
Prayers for our nation and that we are understanding and abiding by God's will.
Thread by CondoleezzaProtege.
What a great cover!
News Stories Include:
* Images Make Movements by Lila Rose and Philip Gerard Johnson
* Here's the Blood by Tommy Silva
* Conceived in Rape by Catherine Palmer
* My Three Abortions and the Agonizing Recovery by Susan Swander
* Join the Team
(Excerpt) Read more at liveaction.org ...
Thread by lightman.
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- The congregation of Reformation Lutheran Church, Wichita, Kan., is preparing for next week's start of jury selection in the murder trial of a man accused of fatally shooting one its members, Dr. George Tiller. Tiller was serving as an usher when he was killed inside the church building on May 31, 2009, just as worship services were to begin.
Tiller, a controversial figure, was one of a few physicians in the United States who performed late-term abortions. He was often targeted by anti-abortion protests.
Scott Roeder, 51, Kansas City, Mo., is charged with first-degree murder. Roeder told the Associated Press in November that he shot Tiller to protect unborn children, according to reports from the news organization. Roeder is also charged with two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two other ushers.
In the midst of the shooting, the upcoming trial, the media reports, plus the subject of abortion and its strong emotions are the 700 baptized members of Reformation, many of whom whom were caught up in the violence of last May.
Advent and Christmas celebrations seemed to bring "a deeper sense of gravity" to the congregation, said the Rev. Lowell R. Michelson, senior pastor. "I've been speaking of light and darkness, and the love of Jesus breaking through the darkness and coming to us," he said in an interview. "At that time, the trial seemed well off in the distance."
But now members are focused on the coming trial and talking about it. This week, for example, Michelson, the Rev. Kristin M. Neitzel, associate pastor, plus other leaders have been discussing security issues, and had conversations with congregational members, leaders and the Tiller family. Pre-trial motions were to occur at week's end.
Michelson and Neitzel are planning how they will support the Tiller family and Reformation's members during the trial.
Some members have moved on from the shooting, while others have yet to discover the full impact of it on their own lives, both Michelson and Neitzel said. "We have a few people who still struggle with something so violent that happened in this place of peace," Neitzel said.
In addition to listening to members concerns during the trial and all the public attention it will likely draw, Michelson said the pastors will "encourage (members) to reach out in love to each other when they see a need."
"I've been amazed by the strength of this congregation throughout this whole ordeal, and their support for one another and for us," Neitzel said. "The congregation has held together and supported one another."
In worship during the trial period, Michelson said he won't focus on the court proceedings, but realizes it will be on the minds of Reformation's members. "It's my sense we need to name it, but that it not be an 'axis' on which our every moment together spins," he said.
The community has expressed support for the congregation, Neitzel said, adding that youth from the congregation who attended the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Youth Gathering in New Orleans this past July were surprised and pleased to meet fellow Lutherans who said they'd been praying for the congregation in the wake of the tragedy.
Michelson, Neitzel and perhaps as many as 11 other parishioners -- including Tiller's wife Jeanne -- may be called as witnesses for the prosecution at the trial. They are among more than 200 people named as potential witnesses by the district attorney. The pastors are also aware Reformation may be the site of anti-abortion protests, particularly on Sundays during the course of the trial. . .
Thread by me.
Thread by me.
America's growing fascination with what constitutes a living, breathing human being is a constant amazement to me. This idea was brought up again in the New York Times last month. Entitled "When does death start?," the article by Darshak Sanghavi provides a lesson in how easy it has become for man to dismiss acts of terror as simple practices involving medical decisions to end a human beings life.
Using the real-life experiences that followed a tragic accident rendering a fifteen-year-old girl named Amanda nearly dead, Sanghavi involves the reader in the emotions this young girls mother was experiencing. Having hooked the reader into sympathizing with the mother, he carefully turns the corner and addresses different ways of donating organs once a patient is subjectively defined as nearly dead.
In Amandas case, there was a challenge to the treating physician. Upon examination of the child, whose own reflexes indicated that her brainstem was still working, Dr. Monica Kleinman decided that she could not pronounce the child brain dead. Clearly, the organs could not be taken from a patient who did not meet the brain death criteria. But there were other ways of getting those organs and the doctor understood what they were:
To diagnose brain death, doctors typically go through a checklist of about a dozen items, including assessing reflexes like blinking, coughing and breathing, which are all controlled by the brainstem. The criteria are extremely strict, and only a tiny fraction of severely brain-injured people meet them. Kleinman realized that Amanda, despite her severe brain damage, was not one of them. There was, Kleinman told Beaulieu, another option one that was still controversial and had never been pursued successfully at Childrens Hospital. The procedure was called donation after cardiac death, or D.C.D., and it would exploit the other way the law defines death: as the irreversible cessation of the heartbeat.
Before delving into this matter, that involves the desire among some physicians, ethicists and others with a vested interest to redefine death in such a way as to provide the most bang for the buck in the organ donation business, one thing must be made perfectly clear. Amanda was severely brain damaged, she was not terminally ill, she was not at deaths door, she was inconveniently clinging to life as far as the organ vultures were concerned.
Once a decision is made to get the organs, the alternatives are readily at hand. To further justify the taking Amandas organs, and the possibility of countless others in similar condition, Sanghavi reports,
With modern technology like respirators and tube feedings with synthetic formulas, [Amandas mother] Beaulieu might have kept her unconscious, brain-damaged child alive indefinitely. But as she sipped coffee in her apartment from a mug reading #1 Mom, Beaulieu told me that if Amanda had lived, she could never bike, rollerblade or go out with friends, and she'd never want that. If people with no hope for meaningful recovery can be kept alive artificially, shouldn't they also be permitted to die artificially?
And therein lies the rub. The subjective judgment of an agonizing mother reinforced by a medical team was all that was required. Once everyone was in agreement, taking the organs commenced without a hitch.
If one studies the entire history of mans efforts to redefine what it means to be dead, starting with the Harvard Criteria of 1968, it is all too clear that medical ethicists, bioethicists and clinicians have been attempting to serve the growing needs of the organ transplant advocates for years. They continue to do all they can to expand the definition of death in a way that, one assumes, will relieve the anguish of a family whose loved one is in a bad situation while helping someone else to live longer. It is perceived to be a very noble idea, but it is anything but.
As Paul Byrne, M.D. points out:
In medicine we protect, preserve, and prolong life and postpone death . . . Our goal is to keep body and soul united. When a vital organ ceases to function, death can result. On the other hand, medical intervention can sometimes restore the function of the damaged organ, or medical devices (such as pacemakers and heart-lung machines) can preserve life. The observation of a cessation of functioning of the brain or some other organ of the body does not in itself indicate destruction of even that organ, much less death of the person.
But the slippery slope keeps sliding, paying little to no heed to Byrnes and others like him who understand that a human being is alive until he dies, not until someone hastens his death by whatever means appears to be appropriate.
Practicing nurse and medical ethics writer Nancy Valko has had a great deal of experience with patients like Amanda and with the subject of non-heart-beating organ donation, or NHBD. She writes,
In cases of severe head injuries, strokes or other critical conditions that can qualify a patient for NHBD, it is virtually impossible at the beginning to accurately predict whether the patient will die or what level of recovery he or she may eventually attain. As a nurse for 34 years, I have personally seen many such patients, who initially needed a ventilator and who were even expected to die, go on to completely recover.
However, for those who advocate the subjective art of deciding who should live and who should die based on a sliding scale of what it means to be a human being, the redefinition necessary to excuse some people from living is not a problem. And if enough concur in such a view, and a consensus is created, then no one need feel guilty about the matter.
Sadly, in addition to cases like Amanda, we have another focus of attention, as Wesley J. Smith pointed out recently regarding the subject of palliative sedation (a nice set of words for early imposed death):
A hospice nurse correctly points out that PS [palliative sedation] is a rarely needed last resort:
Too often, palliative sedation is used as a first-line therapy rather than a therapy of last resort. In some units, palliative sedation is used on one-third to one-half of patients. That is far too often. Most expert providers will use palliative sedation extremely rarely in a 20- to 25-year career. Further, expert providers do not use palliative sedation lightly. They consult with colleagues to make sure that all other means of symptom management have been tried.
But when cost cutting is high on the agenda, and there are too few beds in a critical care unit, a consensus can provide the protection needed to intentionally sedate a patient to death. And whos going to ask questions, call for an inquiry or otherwise discuss the possibility that a crime might have been committed?
Clearly, health care doesn't always mean what we think it means. Thats the bottomline when discussing what it means to die in America today.
The most disturbing aspect of all this recent reporting on brain death, non-heart-beating death, palliative sedation and terminal sedation is not that it is happening, but that those who are its staunchest advocates apparently have no pangs of conscience about what they are literally imposing on the vulnerable. It is as if any thought of sinful acts simply isn't entering the minds of such people.
That is the core problem with pro-death advocacy. There is no guilt experienced for having committed a wrong because in their world there is no right or wrong, only opinions that sometimes are in disagreement. Sadly, the idea of feeling guilt for having done something as horrendous as killing another person or arguing in favor of doing so is not even a consideration.
But wait! The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us: Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
And Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, expanded on this teaching in a speech entitled Conscience and Truth. Quoting psychologist Albert Gorres, he reminds us:
Whoever is no longer capable of perceiving guilt is spiritually ill, a "living corpse, a dramatic character's mask," as Gorres says. "Monsters, among other brutes, are the ones without guilt feelings. Perhaps Hitler did not have any, or Himmler, or Stalin. Maybe Mafia bosses do not have any guilt feelings either, or maybe their remains are just well hidden in the cellar. Even aborted guilt feelings ... All men need guilt feelings."
If there is an antidote to the escalating trend to kill those perceived to be inconvenient, unwanted or otherwise expendable, it is guilt because without it, man can perpetrate any horror you can think of and the acts committed will soon become commonplace practice. Clearly, terrorism comes in many formsnot the least of which is direct killing of the vulnerable.
Thanks for the ping!
we don’t have the ability to be worried about both?
Can we hear a loud Amen and Hallelujah from the true
patriots in this land?
Thank you, Jim Robinson for bringing the necessary focus to the matter
Beautiful baby boy!!
I think what worries me the most is that come November we will be hearing, “see, if we nominate more people like Scott Brown we can win more seats.”
We’ve been hearing “no more RINOs” for a year and now that same group is pimping for a RINO.
Further, abc news confirmed that there is an Ethics Panel in Haiti and they are deciding who lives and who dies. Triplets: one lived but the status of the two dead was not delved into but it sound like they were euthanized.
Ethics Panels are death panels and I bet you Felos or friends are down there to do what they did to Terri only with morphine or people are being neglected until they expire.
Any stories about Haiti's Ethics Panel? I'd like to know who's on it... They are probably pals of George Soros who hates the U.S. but loves the power it brought to him via his front man BHO.
Terri was murdered. Let’s just remind the folks whenever possible.
Thread by me.
EDMONTON, Alberta, January 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The parents of a critically-ill three-month-old boy have found themselves in a legal fight for his life, after being informed by the hospital that staff will be removing his ventilation because they have deemed that he cannot recover from brain damage he suffered during birth.
On October 24th, after a long, 40-hour labour, Isaac and Rebecka May and their son Isaiah James had to be airlifted to Edmonton's Stollery Children's Hospital because Isaiah's umbilical cord had been wrapped around his neck, resulting in severe oxygen deprivation.
While the hospital declared Isaiah brain dead shortly thereafter, Isaac and Rebecka have since joyfully watched him defy doctors' prognoses. In a court affidavit, Rebecka explained that doctors had predicted Isaiah would only live a few days, that he would not grow, move, or urinate independently. However, she says he has grown to almost eleven pounds, urinates on his own, dilates his pupils, and opens his eyes on a daily basis.
"Isaiah has moved his hands, arms and feet with increasing frequency and has arched his back," she wrote. "He has brought his knees to his abdomen and has lifted his ankles up off the bed without touch or stimulation.
Considering his progress, the Mays were shocked last Wednesday when they received a letter from the hospital informing them that Isaiah was not improving and that the hospital intended to remove his ventilator by this Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.
"The diagnosis is unchanged, wrote Neonatal Intensive Care Unit clinical director Dr. Ernest Z. Phillipos. There is no hope of recovery for Isaiah."
"This mechanical ventilation may keep him in his present condition for some time but will not provide any benefit to him whatsoever because his severe brain injuries are irreversible, he said further. "We must put the interests of your son foremost and it is in his best interests to discontinue mechanical ventilation support."
The young parents took the hospital and Alberta Health Services to court today, seeking a 90-day injunction against the order. They are also demanding access to Isaiah's medical records, which have been withheld. Justice Michelle Crighton decided that she would await judgment until January 27th.
The hospital's decision to cut off Isaiah's ventilator is the culmination of the Mays' three-month struggle to obtain appropriate care for their child, explained Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist with nearly five decades of experience and a former president of the Catholic Medical Association. In their desperation, the Mays sought out Dr. Byrne's aid, and he said he has been in regular contact with them about their son.
Shortly after the doctors at Stollery declared Isaiah brain dead, said Dr. Byrne, the parents were told that the doctors weren't going to treat the baby anymore.
They treat the baby on a ventilator, but they don't do any blood tests, they don't do any blood counts, or anything that needs to be done, he said. For example, he said that the normal procedure for anyone needing to be intubated as long as Isaiah is to perform a tracheotomy, due to the risk of damage to the vocal chords. The parents have requested the procedure, but [the doctors] won't do it, he said.
The hospital did agree to conduct a blood test after the parents pleaded, discovering that Isaiah was anemic. They gave him blood transfusions, which helped. But, said Dr. Byrne, the mother tells me that no blood tests have been done since November 15th.
This mother and father were not willing to accept that their baby was dead when [the doctors] said that the baby was brain dead, he observed. Of course brain death never was true death and never will be true death. It was something that was just made up so they could get [organs] for transplantation.
Dr. Byrne said further that since starting his neonatal intensive care unit in 1963, and working in the field since then, I've never found a situation where the baby needed to be taken off the ventilator. I've never done that. He described one instance where a baby's brain waves completely flattened out, but he persevered, and the boy eventually achieved straight As in school, ran track, and is now married with three children.
This is a horrible situation, said Mary Ellen Douglas of Campaign Life Coalition. The parents have to beg and plead for help for their child, and when such minimal amount of help was given, the baby responded well to it, and yet the hospital has decided this baby is to die, and they're doing absolutely nothing to help the child.
This is a terrible precedent that they're setting for all babies that are born with difficulties, she said, and the courts should be aware of this, and stop the hospital from carrying out this action.
Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has spoken with Rebecka several times, and explains that this situation appears to be an example of futile care theory.
Even though the life-sustaining treatment is beneficial for Isaiah and may in fact lead to his survival, he wrote on his blog, according to this theory, he is not deserving of the treatment because even if he does survive, his life is considered futile.
The goal for the family is to bring Isaiah home and care for him themselves, he said. The hospital is overstepping its role by unilaterally deciding when to remove life-sustaining treatment from a child that is improving.
This baby needs more time, he continued. The family wants to care for their baby and I believe the hospital should be doing their best to allow that to happen.
LifeSiteNews did not hear back from Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach's office by press time.
Stollery Children's Hospital has issued a statement expressing their sympathy for the Mays, and stating that It is appropriate to turn now to the courts for direction. They have refused to answer questions.
View photos and videos of Isaiah James on the Facebook page Prayers for Baby Isaiah James.
Stollery Children's Hospital
8440 112 Street Northwest
Edmonton, AB T6G 2B7
General Phone Line: (780) 407-8822
Alberta Health Services - Complaints
Mail Slot 57
11111 Jasper Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 0L4
Dr. Ernest Z. Phillipos
Office of Premier Ed Stelmach
Room 307, Legislature Building
10800 - 97th Avenue
Phone: (780) 427 2251
Fax: (780) 427 1349
"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for posting this.