Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remembering Terri Schiavo: A Five-Year Anniversary Marked By Cruel Bigotry
Townhall ^ | 3/31/10 | Bobby Schindler

Posted on 03/31/2010 5:10:34 AM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-230 next last
To: wagglebee

Seems to me Kevorkian got let out of prison on humanitarian grounds bec he was dying of the HEP C. Well, he looked really great for a dying person w/the Hep. I bet the parole board got a kick back for letting Kevorkian out of jail early. If he was dying of Hep C, he’d be dead by now, not being interviewed on communist news network. Larry King usually handles the ghoulish topics ad nauseum.


151 posted on 06/28/2010 7:25:42 AM PDT by floriduh voter (BALLOON BOY: "WHO THE HELL IS WOLF? ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Seems to me Kevorkian got let out of prison on humanitarian grounds bec he was dying of the HEP C. Well, he looked really great for a dying person w/the Hep. I bet the parole board got a kick back for letting Kevorkian out of jail early. If he was dying of Hep C, he’d be dead by now, not being interviewed on communist news network. Larry King usually handles the ghoulish topics ad nauseum.


152 posted on 06/28/2010 7:27:31 AM PDT by floriduh voter (BALLOON BOY: "WHO THE HELL IS WOLF? ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
When people play god the end result is always evil.

Two threads by me.

Wesley J. Smith: Wrong IVF Embryos Implanted Leads to End of Once Wanted Life

This just makes my head explode.  A woman was implanted with the wrong embryos, and rather than honor another woman’s children and let them live, immediately terminated the pregnancy process.  From the story:

A woman who sought help from a prominent Connecticut fertility center last year received embryos, but they belonged to another woman with the same last name. The mistake happened in April 2009 at the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services at the University of Connecticut Health Center, which will pay a $3,000 fine. A lab technician only checked the last name on the container with the embryos and pulled the wrong ones from frozen storage, according to the state Department of Public Health. Procedure is to check the medical record number and last four digits of the Social Security number. That patient who received the embryos was informed of the error within an hour and decided to take the “morning after” pill to prevent the pregnancy, according to state records.

IVF has proven to have many casualties, most particularly embryos treated as a mere thing–but also sometimes, as here, would-be birth and biological parents who become embroiled in terrible, heart wrenching circumstances.  And that doesn’t even get into the culture of entitlement that IVF has helped foster (hello, Octomom!).

Still, what a contrast from the last time this happened.  When the mistake was discovered in that case, the birth mother and her husband chose life for someone else’s baby. Which choice reflects unconditional love?

__________________________________________________

Woman Kills Wrongly-Implanted Embryos with Morning-After Pill

HARTFORD, Connecticut, June 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a disastrous chain of events, a set of “wanted” embryos quickly became “unwanted” after an artificially impregnated women was informed by her fertility clinic that they had accidentally implanted the embryos of another woman by the same name.

The woman’s solution was to take the morning-after pill (which, ironically, pro-abortion forces insist is simply a form of contraception and cannot cause an abortion) and abort the nascent life within her.

The Associated Press reports that the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services at the University of Connecticut Health Center has agreed to pay a $ 3,000 fine over the incident, which took place last April, according to state health records.

Apparently, a lab technician had removed a batch of human embryos from the storage freezer without following proper procedure. She only matched the last name, but forgot to crosscheck with the last four digits of the woman’s social security number and the medical record number.

The lab technician discovered the error a day later – but by then it was too late. The woman had already been implanted with another client’s embryos, which had been on ice for approximately four years.

After being told about the error one hour after having the embryos implanted within her, the woman then decided she did not want to carry someone else’s baby, and took the morning-after pill.

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith commented on his blog about the event, saying it illustrates not only how children have come to be treated as a commodity through in vitro fertilization, but also how this process can sometimes snare “would-be birth and biological parents … in terrible, heart wrenching circumstances.”

The center has insisted that the mix-up is the first ever in their 24-year history, calling it “important and emotionally difficult for patients and center alike.”

Smith, however, pointed out that mix-ups have happened before at IVF clinics – although in at least one extraordinary case the birth mother made a painful, but life-affirming choice. Sean and Carolyn Savage of Ohio found out last year that their IVF clinic had transferred the wrong embryos. The Savages, however, refused to abort on account of their pro-life religious beliefs, and arranged to hand over the baby to his biological parents shortly after the birth.

“When the mistake was discovered in that case, the birth mother and her husband chose life for someone else’s baby,” remarked Smith. “Which choice reflects unconditional love?”

Carolyn Savage told Meredith Vieira of the TODAY Show back in September that the hardest experience would be the delivery of the child, where she would only have a chance to say “hello” and “goodbye.”

“Of course, we will wonder about this child every day for the rest of our lives,” she added. “We just want to know he’s healthy and happy.”

A follow-up with the TODAY Show in May, revealed that the baby Carolyn Savage carried to term was born Logan Morell, now approximately 8 months old. The Savages and the Morells have become friends through the painful experience. However the Savages declined to appear on the TODAY Show, saying that the months following Logan’s birth have been much more difficult for them to deal with than they expected, but they hope to write about their experiences in a book for 2011.


153 posted on 07/05/2010 9:37:01 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
This woman is disgustingly evil.

Thread by me.

Pro-Abort Catholic: Women Should Feel 'Guilty' if They Don't Abort Inconvenient Child

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Proponents of feminism within a religious tradition play a crucial role in subverting "religious fundamentalism" in Catholicism, according to a member of the pro-abortion group Catholics for the Right to Decide. 

Elfriede Harth, Secretariat of European Parliament Study Group on Religion and Secularity and a Spanish member of Catholics for the Right to Decide (whose U.S. partner is Catholics for Choice), made the remarks at this month's Women Deliver conference in Washington, D.C.

The conference was largely a push for population control in developing countries worldwide through contraception and abortion funding.

Harth named the orthodox Catholic movement Opus Dei as a formidable opponent to Catholics attempting to promote liberal doctrines within the Church, and said that religious feminists should work to "analyze and demystify religious fundamentalism."

"Religious feminist(s) play a crucial role in organizing resistance to religious fundamentalism," said Harth.

But perhaps more revealing were Harth's subsequent comments during a discussion with audience members following the breakout session. There, Harth discussed her group's conflict with the Church hierarchy over the use of the name "Catholic," admitting that "they don't like us at all."

"They're always trying to say we're not real Catholics, which is wrong, because the criterion to say you're Catholic is that you're baptized. That's all," she said. "And I don't accept that other people pretend that they define what is Catholicism. You know? The way the Vatican presents Catholicism is incomplete." She went on to claim that the Church suppresses discussion of "freedom of conscience" because the hierarchy is "so afraid that the institution breaks down."

On the topic of abortion, Harth called it "not true" that legislators who vote for abortion laws are excommunicated from the Church. "'Oh, legislators who vote for abortion laws they are excommunicated,' [according to some bishops,] but then when you go and tell them that's not true, then they have to retract. 'Oh yeah, you're right,'" she said.

According to Catholic moral teaching, substantial material cooperation in an intrinsic evil merits the punishment accorded to the deed itself; in addition, Section 915 of the Catholic Church's Canon Law states that those persisting in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Because of this rule, Archbishop Raymond Burke, the head of the Vatican's highest court, has repeatedly admonished bishops that pro-abortion politicians must be denied Communion.

Ultimately, said Harth, a woman has a right to abort because she "has a right to have a good life" and she does not have "the right to ruin it." "And if a pregnancy is going to ruin her life in any way, she has a right to get the abortion. She has the right. She has an obligation to protect her life from being ruined. ... Because you owe this respect to yourself because you're a child of God. You should feel guilty if you don't," she said.

Asked about the unborn child's rights, she answered that the issue was "important" to the choice to abort.  "If you have an abortion, there is a fetus that will be killed. No way. This is true. But ... for us, death is not the end of the story," said Harth. "And this unborn child or fetus or whatever you want to call it is ... well, we do not know what God is going to do with this creature. God has a lot of mercy, maybe...we don't know."

Afterwards, one audience member told LifeSiteNews.com that, as a practicing Catholic, she had felt "guilty" about promoting abortion but was reconsidering the matter thanks to Harth's justifications.

American Life League president Judie Brown called the statements "ridiculous," and said Harth's outrageous statements about Church teaching reveal the deficiency of many Catholic bishops in failing firmly to teach the Catholic stance on life issues.

"I think what she's actually telling us as schooled Catholics is that the Church has done a very bad job in teaching precisely what the Church does and does not teach," Brown told LifeSiteNews.com. "There is no people - period - who define what Catholicism is, it's set forth in the Creed, it's set forth in the Catechism, it's set forth by Christ himself."

"And when you choose to disagree with a basic fundamental teaching of the Church, you're not Catholic - no matter what you say you are," she added.

"In essence this woman, Harth, is either totally uncatechized, either that or she's staying within the Church with the expressed purpose of destroying it from within," said Brown, who expressed dismay over the massive scandal given by Harth and other dissident Catholics who convince others to abandon genuine Church teaching.

"In their confusion, they're guiding these souls to Hell - that's exactly what they're doing," she said.


154 posted on 07/05/2010 9:41:55 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Scanian; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
The body count continues to rise.

Thread by Scanian.

The Euthanasia Drumbeat Gets Louder

Across the world, the inexorable push for accepting the new culture of death continues unabated.

It's not a pretty picture, because whichever way you turn, there is pressure for assisted suicide and euthanasia to become an acceptable and even hallowed part of the social fabric.

While the roots of assisted suicide and euthanasia are hardly of recent vintage, the contemporary ground zero in our lifetimes is the Netherlands.

The Dutch pro-death story is the exemplar by which all pro-death efforts should be gauged because it shows how quickly a social taboo can be reversed in the public consciousness to being a desirable and even obligatory behavior.

By the late 1980s, the Netherlands had a problem. It was clear that in medical facilities across the country, hundreds of patients were being euthanized behind closed doors. The rising evidence of medicalized killing was problematic because euthanasia was then (and still is) illegal in Holland.

Predictably, rather than prosecuting medical personnel who were in effect executing their patients, the authorities' hand-wringing led to the Remmelink Report, which verified that illegal medicalized killing was a fact. Just as predictably, the Dutch solution was to regulate euthanasia rather than prosecute the killing as a criminal offense.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


155 posted on 07/05/2010 9:45:18 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Some in Hollywood are beginning to understand.

Thread by NYer.

Chosen Child

My mother did not, to my knowledge, abort any of her children. I do, however, distinctly recall a miscarriage she suffered when I was twelve years old, which caused her great emotional and physical pain. I understood, from my adolescent perspective, that what was lost was somehow precious to her. As another of her children, I felt deeply valued by her grief: Loss of an unborn child, I observed, was a sad and mournful event imbued with a full and unconditioned love.
 
Not so today, we must realize. As I prayed with 40 Days for Life in front of a San Francisco abortion clinic, a young woman positioned herself aggressively in front of me and said, "Don't you want to talk to me?" I looked up from my rosary, met her belligerent gaze, and said, "Frankly, no. I don't."
 
But she refused to leave, and I was trapped listening to a monologue about her mother: her mother's abortion, and her mother's opinions about abortion, and her mother's right to choose whether to birth or abort any pregnancy. Her angry, righteous defense of her mother's behavior and opinion was true torture for me; mercy and compassion were not quick to come in the absence of reason and dialogue. But I did learn something I had little appreciated: I learned that loss of an unborn child is no longer communicated as a sad or mournful event, and that the chosen children -- those that a mother chooses to bear -- struggle to reconcile their existence with the elimination of unwanted siblings.
 
A choice to abort a child is never the quick-fix, isolated, personal decision radical feminists and the lucrative abortion industry assert. It affects the pregnant woman, the father, and often the parents of the pregnant woman. It kills the nascent life. But a decision to abort an unwanted child drops the proverbial pebble into a still pond that ripples with effect to the shores of death. One brief, allegedly personal decision by a mother to unburden herself by killing an inconvenient child in utero will resonate throughout life. (We Catholics, of course, believe it resonates beyond just mortal life, a subject for another day.) Sadly, prevailing manners of political correctness stifle discussion and meaningful assessment of this perfectly predictable consequence of violence in the womb.
 
The regret many women suffer for the rest of their lives after an abortion has become so commonplace that it's nothing short of delusion that allows radical feminists to continue denying the phenomenon. That defenders of abortion attribute what regret exists to the induction of guilt by religious opposition is a purposefully unfounded, manipulative refusal to respect experiences that challenge the abortion mythology.
 
Consider the curious case of Ellen Burstyn -- neither a religious woman nor a pro-life advocate. The well-known 77-year-old actress (The Last Picture Show, The Exorcist, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore) shocked the secular world when she labeled her 18-year-old decision to abort "wrong, young, and dumb." That choice, she said, was "the lowest moment in her life." Understandably curious how a decision made more than 55 years ago could still deeply trouble Burstyn, an antsy male interviewer then asked, "Do you ever get over that?"
 
"No," Burstyn flatly replied, elegantly explaining that the choice to abort has "ramifications for the rest of our lives": It becomes a "dark thread" in our tapestry.  Burstyn's clear, precise statement is the sort of breach of PC etiquette that renews pro-abortion feminists' commitment to radical denial of reality.
 
 
The "choice" rhetoric so effectively manipulated by the abortion industry has created a hauntingly painful breach between mothers and children, hinted at by my agitated sidewalk companion and similarly ignored by abortion advocates. Another example gives voice to the fear that surely squeezed the heart of that young woman on the sidewalk.
 
I went with a friend to what should have been a lovely lunch out to "catch up." Partway through our meal, after much talk about our female friends working professional jobs, my companion blurted out, "If I had only aborted my eldest, I could have stayed in school and had a profession, too."
 
Shocked into sudden silence, I finally managed, "Do you really think that? Do you regret not having an abortion?"
 
My question provoked a lengthy, emotional rationale for why her life would have been better had she only had the presence of mind to abort her eldest -- a son, now happily married and father to my friend's dear little grandchildren. I listened in grotesque wonder, imagining how her son -- the only of her five children she apparently regretted -- absorbed her remorse for not having aborted him. More, I wondered: How does this young man deal with his mother's characterization of his life as an excuse and disappointment in place of the accomplishments she'd rather have attained?
 
Reasonably, this grown child might fear that his own shortcomings, needs, and development provoked, at least in some measure, my friend's regret. Voicing regret for not having aborted, is, after all, simply an expression of having made the wrong choice, as assessed with the benefit of subsequent consequences. For the mother who regrets a choice for life, those subsequent consequences are none other than the child himself.
 
In this way, being a "chosen child" has taken on a new meaning in the post-Roe v. Wade paradigm, a cultural construct based on the delusion that intentional termination of an unborn child is a private, personal matter and fueled by a commercial industry anxious to cash in on a wide range of abortion services and products. "Chosen" -- a term once richly imbued by Judeo-Christian history as that brand of unconditional love by God for each of His children (1 Jn 4:7, 16) -- has flattened and darkened to signify those children a mother opts to bear rather than abort.
 
Gone is the notion of a child being loved just because he or she has been conceived, without expectation or condition. In its stead, the "chosen" child lives aware of his own mother's reasons for having him, aware that only the mother's sentiments differentiate the living child from the terminated child, aware that his own being might cause such burden or disappointment that his mother -- like my friend -- regrets his very existence.
 
The impact of this redefinition of "chosen" -- from a deeply religious term that conveyed unconditioned love to one replete with expectations, demands, and potential regret -- must concern New Feminists. The realities lived by my angry sidewalk interlocutor, the mother who regrets not aborting one of her grown children, and the children haunted by terminated unborn siblings they will never know will be denied, ridiculed, shamed, and lied about by the pro-abortion interests. The pro-choice interests have deeply invested in a delusion that abortion has, at worst, temporal, limited consequences -- and they will undoubtedly refuse to consider even sound science that could challenge that investment.
 
The work of understanding and publicizing the impact of abortion belongs uniquely to New Feminists, because it is precisely this sort of insipid, ignored cultural shift that has led and will continue leading to "a gradual loss of sensitivity for man, that is, for what is essentially human," as Pope John Paul II so clearly foresaw (Mulieris Dignitatem, 30). As even many non-religious women have recognized, women must "refuse to choose" (Feminists for Life), not only in deference to their own feminine design, but, as importantly, in concern for the whole of humanity to "ensure sensitivity for human beings in every circumstance: because they are human! -- and because 'the greatest of these is love' [cf. 1 Cor 13:13]." Women must not be robbed of their authentic femininity -- which, after all, concerns even the chosen children.

156 posted on 07/05/2010 9:48:07 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
People like Terri are murdered every day purely for greed.

Thread by me.

Withholding Care from Vegetative Patients: Financial Savings and Social Costs

In a recent column in the Huffington Post, Jacob M. Appel argues for “rational rationing” of health care resources by withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment from patients in a permanent vegetative state. He considers the case of Ruben Betancourt, which will soon be decided by the New Jersey Superior Court in Betancourt v. Trinitas Regional Medical Hospital.

Mr. Betancourt was a patient at Trinitas Regional Medical Hospital in Elizabeth, N.J., where he had successful surgery for a malignant thymoma in January 2008. But Mr. Betancourt suffered oxygen deprivation, resulting in severe brain damage, after accidental extubation of his breathing tube following the surgery. He lapsed into unconsciousness and was subsequently moved to various health care facilities, including a nursing home, where he was sustained on a feeding tube and dialysis.

When Mr. Betancourt was readmitted to Trinitas in July 2008 with renal failure, doctors balked at providing dialysis, artificial nutrition and hydration, and artificial ventilation, claiming that the patient was in an irreversible vegetative state, was actively dying, and that further treatment was medically and ethically inappropriate and inhumane. The hospital sought to remove him from life support. Mr. Betancourt’s daughter objected, saying that she thought her father was aware and reacted to his family, and that he was responding to treatment. Although he left no advance directive, his family believed that he would have wanted treatment continued. A legal battle ensued between the family and the hospital.

Mr. Betancourt died in May 2009, but his legal case remains on appeal. The court’s decision could have important implications for legal debates about medical futility, patient autonomy, and questions about when and under what circumstances doctors and hospitals can refuse to provide life-sustaining care to patients.

Appel argues that physicians and hospitals should withhold or withdraw care from permanently vegetative patients, because such care is costly and diverts money and medical resources from more worthwhile patients and endeavors:

Money spent on vegetative patients is money not spent on preventive care, such as flu shots and mammograms. Each night in an ICU bed for such patients is a night that another patient with a genuine prognosis for recovery is denied such high-end care. Every dollar exhausted on patients who will never wake up again is a dollar not devoted to finding a cure for cancer. While the visible victims may draw the headlines and attract indignant protests from so-called "pro-life" organizations, the invisible victims are people like you and me who will suffer from diseases that are never cured because funds are being poured down a healthcare sieve in order to maintain permanently-unconscious bodies on complex and costly forms of life support.

Appel does not mince words: “Let us make no mistake about what this would mean: It would mean declaring that the lives of PVS patients are worth less than those of others.”

Put in such terms, Appel’s case sounds simple. If we would just stop spending precious medical and financial resources prolonging the lives of permanently vegetative patients, we could use those resources where they can do more good, like for finding a cure for cancer. If only it were that simple.

Mr. Betancourt’s condition was indeed very grave, and his chances of recovering were slim. He suffered from chronic infections, sepsis, and hospital-acquired bedsores, in addition to his other maladies. Nonetheless, he lived for several months after doctors at Trinitas declared that he was “actively dying.” To generalize from one patient’s extremely poor prognosis to the condition of other vegetative patients, however, is unsupportable for several reasons.

First, and most importantly, there is a widely acknowledged problem of misdiagnosis in disorders of consciousness, which include the vegetative state. It is estimated that more than 40 percent of patients currently diagnosed in a permanent vegetative state are instead in a minimally conscious state – that is, they may be conscious, albeit to a limited degree. Clinicians and researchers are working to improve diagnosis, but at present it remains extraordinarily difficult, even for experienced neurologists, to distinguish between the vegetative and minimally conscious states.

Given the uncertainty, we should not be so quick to jump to conclusions about the irreversibility of a vegetative state. How quick would we be to terminate life support for patients with other conditions if there was a four in ten chance that they had been misdiagnosed? Regardless of the decision of the Betancourt court, any legal guidelines on withholding and withdrawing treatment from permanently vegetative patients will be meaningless – and potentially unjust – absent the ability to accurately and with medical and legal confidence diagnose patients.

Secondly, we do not know very much about the subjective lives of patients with disorders of consciousness. Vegetative and minimally conscious patients cannot, by definition, communicate meaningfully,and, therefore, effective measures of their quality of life are at present lacking.

 There is evidence from neuroimaging studies that minimally conscious patients can experience pain, that their brains respond emotionally to the voices of loved ones, and that they may be capable of cognition at a level that is not evident from their behavior. The evidence is not dispositive, but it nonetheless provides reason for concern about the quality of life experienced by these patients. Their lives may be worth living, or these persons may be even worse off than vegetative patients. We need to know much more, however, before we can draw any conclusions about what their lives are worth to them, or to their families.

Many patients with disorders of consciousness suffered traumatic brain injuries as a result of accidents, and many of them were quite young at the time of their injuries. They did not have advance directives, and, as with Mr. Betancourt, it was left to their families to make life-or-death decisions for them. We should respect the expressed wishes of patients when they are applicable, but when patients can no longer decide for themselves, or when they have not left instructions for their future care, the best way to protect their interests is to allow those who know them best to make decisions for them. Such decisions cannot come from a court in a one-size-fits-all statement about the value of a class of patients.

Finally, Appel’s argument implies a straightforward financial benefit to taking resources away from vegetative patients, as if solving the problem of runaway health care costs is as simple as shifting money from column A to column B on some national medical spreadsheet. That’s an extremely simplistic view of the economics of health care, but even if it were credible, the picture Appel paints of vegetative patients taking resources from more worthwhile patients is not accurate.

It is unknown how many patients there are with chronic disorders of consciousness, in part because most of them are not in acute care facilities like Trinitas, but rather in long-term custodial care facilities. Many of these patients get very little care beyond artificial nutrition and hydration, although they can live for decades. Indeed, one of the tragedies for these patients is that they are neglected both clinically and socially.

Clinical neglect is one of the factors responsible for the misdiagnosis of these patients – once institutionalized, they do not receive follow-up diagnostic tests that might detect a change in their neurological status. Neither do they receive rehabilitative care that might enhance recovery. A diagnosis of permanent vegetative state requires being vegetative for 12 months in the case of patients who suffer traumatic brain injuries, and six months for patients who suffer anoxic/hypoxic brain insults, such as Mr. Betancourt. During that time, very few of these patients would be taking up intensive care beds or resources. Mr. Betancourt himself was in a nursing facility for several months before his readmission to Trinitas.

The bottom line – and we are talking about the bottom line here – is that patients with chronic disorders of consciousness do not typically receive the kind of expensive technological interventions and intensive care that Mr. Betancourt received in his last days of life. These patients are not taking intensive care beds away from other acutely ill patients.

While there may be some savings to be reaped from terminating the lives of patients with chronic disorders of consciousness, it will not be the substantial windfall that Appel imagines. Neither can it be assumed that “every dollar” will be diverted, as Appel suggests, to preventive care, or finding a cure for cancer. Public money saved could well be redirected to priorities outside health care.

There are substantial social costs to declaring an entire class of patients “worthless.” Allowing health care providers, including institutions like acute care hospitals, to unilaterally decide, against the wishes of patients or their legal guardians, to withhold life-sustaining medical treatment invites abuse and diminishes transparency and due process.

In a society that values patient autonomy and decisional authority, taking decisional power away from vulnerable patients or their surrogates would amount to abandoning them and leaving their fates to others who may or may not be motivated by patient welfare. It would change the culture of medicine – at least for these patients, if not for others – from one that is patient-centered to one that is beholden to the bottom line. In weighing the possible financial savings against the social costs of declaring these patients “worthless,” it is not at all obvious that ending treatment for all permanently vegetative patients will result in a net benefit.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

157 posted on 07/05/2010 9:51:37 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Thank you Wagglebee & BTTT
158 posted on 07/05/2010 10:18:10 AM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


159 posted on 07/05/2010 10:54:33 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
This demonstrates the true mindset of the abortion movement.

Thread by me.

Women 'Must Be Prepared to Kill' Unborn Children to Protect Autonomy: Times Writer

LONDON, U.K., July 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After contemplating the immense mysteries of human life and sacrificial love in comparison to a woman's "right to fertility control," a writer for the Times of London concludes that attempts by pro-aborts to dismiss the life of an unborn child are a "convenient lie" hiding the fact that, "Yes, abortion is killing.”

“But,” she concludes, “it's the lesser evil."

Columnist Antonia Senior in a June 30 column (available by subscription only) says that, despite the fact that the abortion debate hinges upon whether the unborn child is a unique life or not, women who wish to assert the cause of their freedom from male domination "must be prepared to kill for it."

Senior begins by linking the cause of abortion to that of religious martyrs.

“Cradle Tower at the Tower of London is an interactive display that asks visitors to vote on whether they would die for a cause,” she says. "Standing where religious martyrs were held and tortured in Britain’s turbulent reformation, I could think of one cause I would stake my life on: a woman’s right to be educated, to have a life beyond the home and to be allowed by law and custom to order her own life as she chooses.

"And that includes complete control over her own fertility."

However, she admits that her "absolutist position” has been “under siege" since she gave birth to her own child.

She notes how "having a baby paints the world an entirely different hue" by revealing the underlying selfishness in what at first appears to be courageous self-affirmation.

Senior gives the example of Leo Tolstoy’s adulterous heroine Anna Karenina in the book by the same title, writing: “If you read the book as a teenager, you back her choices with all the passion of youth. Love over convention, go Anna! Then you have children and realise that Anna abandons her son to shack up with a pretty soldier, and then her daughter when she jumps under a train. She becomes a selfish witch.”

Senior then launches into discussing abortion, which she says "hinges on the notion of life," no matter what other arguments or tactics are employed. "Either a foetus is a life from conception, or it is not,” she notes.

Senior then admits that: "What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person — forged in my womb, not by my mothering.

"Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life.

"That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing miracle of life. In a resentful womb it is not a life, but a foetus — and thus killable."

This fact, she says, leaves feminism with a "problem," to which she attributes the "groundswell" of young pro-life feminists.

But, she insists, "you cannot separate women’s rights from their right to fertility control."

"The single biggest factor in women’s liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology."

She concludes therefore that, "As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil” – in this case in choosing "the expectation of a life unburdened by misogyny," which she suggests can only be achieved through abortion.

Hence, she says, "The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."


160 posted on 07/11/2010 9:54:29 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: rhema; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The culture of death IS a religion and it is Satanic.

Thread by rhema.

The Radical Religion of Abortion

And these secularist religions have their violent radicals, too. The Earth Liberation Front, a little irony challenged, has burned Hummers in an attempt to save the Earth from air pollution and deadly carbon. And some abortion-stalwarts say they’ll give up their lives to insure the right of every woman to procure violent death within her own womb. Antonia Senior of in the Times of London, who–to her immense credit–is utterly honest about what abortion is and does, visits the Tower of London; after pondering martyrdom, Senior identifies what she will not die for (dolphins, England) and writes:

“I could think of one cause I would stake my life on: a woman’s right to be educated, to have a life beyond the home and to be allowed by law and custom to order her own life as she chooses. And that includes complete control over her own fertility.”

[...]

Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life. That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing miracle of life. In a resentful womb it is not a life, but a foetus — and thus killable.

[...]

As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil. The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.

(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...


161 posted on 07/11/2010 9:58:03 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
This is EXACTLY the mindset of Zero and his death mongers.

Two threads by me.

Dignitas boss: Healthy should have right to die

Ludwig Minelli, the head of Dignitas, is 77. A trained lawyer, he founded the assisted suicide organisation 12 years ago.

The organisation, whose slogan is '"live with dignity, die with dignity", has helped over 1,000 people to die.

Many of them are people who have travelled to Switzerland because assisted suicide is not permitted in their own countries.

Dignitas has the status of an association under Swiss law, with two active members, Mr Minelli and one other.

The identity of the other member has not been revealed.

These two active members control the policy and financing of Dignitas.

Question: You have been described as a man on a mission, a man on a crusade...

I wouldn't say a crusade but I am persuaded that we have to struggle in order to implement the last human right in our societies. And the last human right is the right to make a decision on one's own end, and the possibility to have this end without risk and without pain.

Many people would say though that if there are to be organisations which organise assisted suicide that there should be some rules around how they function.

Well there are rules but there are no state laws. We have our own rules and the first rule is that we never precipitate an assisted suicide. Every step must be initiated by the member and not by us. And the third rule is that we are always first looking whether we will be able to help someone to continue with life rather than to end life.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...

__________________________________________________

Dutch Doctor Reveals Euthanasia Laws Passed through Covert Planning Phase

July 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A letter written by Aycke Smook, a retired physician from Bergen Am Zee in the Netherlands, was published on the euthanasia lobby listserve to commemorate the death of Adelbert Josephus Jitta, a retired Dutch Prosecutor who had worked to change the euthanasia laws in the Netherlands.

The letter explains how Jitta and Smook worked together to change the Dutch laws by establishing euthanasia protocols in the hospital, by undermining the Dutch euthanasia law and by prosecuting cases that were designed to be struck down by the courts to establish precedents that allowed euthanasia.

Dr. Smook started the article from July 6, 2010 by stating:

I just attended the cremation of Adelbert Josephus Jitta, (Sept 24, 1938 to June 30, 2010).

He was one of the most important protagonists of the Dutch law on euthanasia as a member of D66, a liberal/democratic party.

When he was a prosecutor in Alkmaar, we met each other during a meeting about reporting euthanasia cases in our hospital. Fortunately the board of the hospital was not against euthanasia, because they said that it was a medical decision with legal aspects. This was in the early eighties.

It took us some time and sometimes a keen struggle to get a standard formal procedure, after some prosecutions in one of which he had to prosecute me!

When he informed about that, he said that he had asked one of his colleagues to handle the case and that he already had asked Eugene Sutorius to defend me. After two years of uncertainty and the expense of 40,000 guilders, first paid by the NVVE, later by my insurance company, I was cleared.

And so by trial and error, we succeeded in the end to lay the foundation for our law in the Netherlands in 2002.

It was not an easy period for both of us, working in our totally different disciplines. The good thing of it was that from then on we could openly speak about euthanasia.

Dr. Smook then explains some of the cases Jitta was involved with. Dr. Smook stated:

When I started as a surgeon treating patients with cancer, we, the head nurse of the department and I gave the last medication behind closed doors on explicit demand of the patient. It was tricky but we had a good feeling about it, because in this way we could carry out the last wish of the patient.

After Adelbert and I started working on a new hospital euthanasia protocol, we once had a patient in the hospital who wanted euthanasia. But alas, it was during the weekend and he (Adelbert) and his family were out sailing and since this happened before the mobile telephone era I could not reach him. Half an hour after we had reported, as agreed, the euthanasia to the local coroner, the police came bursting in the department.

I think you can imagine the dreadful shock this created on all the nurses, patients and family around us. Adelbert had not yet informed all his colleagues and other people concerned. I was completely overwhelmed and very angry, but after an ample discussion and a good glass of wine, we could continue and refine the protocol.

The letter then explains his involvement with the euthanasia lobby. Dr. Smook writes:

He also was a speaker at the Maastricht conference in 1990 and at the WF (World Federation) meeting in Melbourne. When he stepped down as a prosecutor, he strengthened the board of NVVE. After his retirement he went on with his activities on euthanasia in the member support group of NVVE.

He was a widower for about two years now, which he found hard to accept. When he fell ill, he could take advantage of his own success for which he fought for years in the end.

Many people wonder what happened in the Netherlands. Why would a country that courageously opposed the Nazis and which refused to institute the T4 euthanasia program institute a wide open system of euthanasia that even accepts the euthanasia of newborn infants with disabilities through the Groningen Protocol, and the euthanasia of people with mental illness and depression?

The answer is that it was planned by a small group of people who were willing to put their professional lives on the line.

Reversing the cultural trend will likely require the same commitment.


162 posted on 07/11/2010 10:01:15 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: nhungerford; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
The dreams of Sanger and Hitler are coming true.

Thread by nhungerford.

New York City: More Blacks Aborted than Born

Racist eugenicist and Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger would be so proud:

"According to the city Health Department, 2008 saw 89,469 abortions performed in New York City — seven for every 10 live births. Among black women, abortions out number live births by three to two."

These statistics from New York City more closely resemble the abortion mill culture of post-communist countries like China and Russia (who have historically devalued the worth of individual human life in favor of the collective good), than the old Clintonian mantra, “safe, legal and rare.”

I realize that many people, liberal and otherwise, are proponents of abortion choice, but the situation in New York City raises important ethical questions on the consequences of this perspective: Even if one is in favor of legalized abortion, does such a person want to live in a society in which more people are aborted than born? My guess is that most people do not. Secondly, if the answer is indeed no, how do we avoid this situation? A system which merely offers abortion as an alternative cannot discriminate between what pro-choice people deem as acceptable reasons for abortion and say, a woman who wants to use it as birth control. You have to allow them all.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...


163 posted on 07/11/2010 10:04:00 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: mlizzy; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ..

Please DO NOT click the links on this thread if you are not prepared for it!

Thread by mlizzy.

Baby's head crushed in late-term abortion [GRAPHIC]

GRAPHIC! The mother and abortionists of this baby should be put up against a wall and executed.

(Excerpt) Read more at truthtube.tv ...


164 posted on 07/11/2010 10:07:15 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


165 posted on 07/11/2010 10:32:41 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Michael Savage is correct, liberalism is a mental disorder!! !
166 posted on 07/14/2010 12:15:36 PM PDT by Lesforlife (Co-sponsor Personhood CO 2010 ~ Woo Hoo 62!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Thanks for the pings. I'm 'not prepared' to click this morning. But when I need some graphic images, I'll check it out.

FYI - This is a day or two old, but I've posted it on the CA state message board as "Breaking". If someone wants to make it a thread, do it.


Breaking News: Planned Parenthood CLOSED - (from Friday email)

The pro-life community in Redwood City recently arrived at their local Planned Parenthood clinic to find this sign announcing the clinic has CLOSED!

“Now there are 11 cities and one Planned Parenthood”

Planned Parenthood closes one of two abortion centers in San Mateo County - (July 15, 2010)

Full details: http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=5d46c6bc-1aed-40d8-aa43-1a1b1689641a

From email, from: http://www.40daysforlife.com/sacramento/

167 posted on 07/17/2010 9:40:14 AM PDT by Pacific
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
As hard as it is to believe, this might just be the most evil abortuary in America.

Thread by me.

Abortion Clinic Owner Responds with Chainsaw as Radio Blares: 'God Bless Pro-Lifers!'

ROCKFORD, Illinois, July 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The staff at the Rockford abortion mill, which has been blaring the radio through its speakers to drown out pro-life counselors for several weeks, got an unpleasant surprise Friday morning when a local D.J. found out what his show was being used for.

LifeSiteNews.com has reported numerous times on the bizarre Rockford abortuary, which has taken to taunting pro-life witnesses with signage and other paraphernalia mocking Christianity and Jesus Christ, and even directing personal insults at local pro-lifers. (See coverage here)

The facility’s latest form of harassment, blasting a radio talk show through its outdoor speakers to keep women from hearing the message of pro-life counselors gathered outside, backfired when D.J. Doug McDuff's scheduled talk show guest cancelled, and he opened the phone lines for comment.

Seeing his chance, Rockford pro-life veteran Kevin Rilott whipped out his cell phone and was on air within seconds, loud and clear outside the abortion centre where he was standing. Rilott took the opportunity to explain to McDuff and his listeners how the radio station, WNTA, was being used to silence pro-lifers' attempt to help mothers in need.

McDuff, none too pleased, decided to take matters into his own hands. "God bless pro-lifers! God bless pro-lifers! God bless pro-lifers!" the D.J. shouted.

One of the staff members, who was walking from across the parking lot at that moment, was so aghast, Rilott told LifeSiteNews.com, that "I thought she was going to have a heart attack."

"The abortion mill nurse who heard this began waving her arms around her head like she couldn't believe what was being broadcast over the abortion mill public address system," related Rilott. "The look of almost terror and confusion on her face was priceless as she scrambled into the mill."

The D.J. then gave Rilott airtime to explain how those who keep vigil outside the Rockford mill come "to offer love, help, and hope to mothers in need," and to request prayer for mothers in need and an end to abortion.

The landlord of the abortion mill, still determined to drown out both the radio and the pro-lifers, charged outdoors with a chainsaw running. But even that was not enough to prevent at least one mother from hearing the message and choosing life for her baby.

Rilott said that a woman who had entered the clinic earlier in the morning left after the incident, before the abortionist arrived for the day. "She certainly heard it inside the clinic, and when she left she gave us a big smile and thumbs-up, and she left before the abortionists arrived," he told LSN. "So it was a good day."


168 posted on 07/18/2010 11:34:22 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ..
This is an amazing story!

Thread by Nachum.

Paralysed man blinked to stay alive as life support machine was about to be turned off

It is a decision no parent ever wants to make. But as the Rudd family watched their 43-year-old son lying paralysed and comatose on a life support machine, they came to a terrible conclusion.

Recalling a conversation where Richard told them he wouldn't want to be trapped in a useless body, his relatives agreed it was time to let him go.

Yet even as the Rudd family mentally prepared to say goodbye, his doctor made a startling discovery.

Despite his devastating spinal injuries, Richard Rudd was still able to blink his eyes in response to simple questions.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


169 posted on 07/18/2010 11:37:28 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Wesley J. Smith continues to expose the true agenda of the culture of death.

Thread by me.

Wesley J. Smith: Western Australian Euthanasia Bill Defines Dying as 2 Years to Live

The euthanasia agenda pretends to be narrow, but in actuality, it is very broad.  We have discussed the evidence of this repeatedly over the years at SHS. 

Further proof came today when I was asked whilst here in Perth to review the Western Australia Euthanasia Bill 2010. The bill would legalize doctors killing their terminally ill patients who ask for it.  But the definition of terminal illness is so broad that people who might live decades would qualify.  From the bill:

Terminal illness means a medically diagnosed illness or condition that will, in reasonable medical judgment, in the normal course and wiothout the application of extreme measures [whatever that means], result in the death of the the applicant within 2 years of the date on which the request was made.

Here’s the thing: Doctors usually can’t predict that far out when someone will die.  People expected to live two years, might live ten or twenty.  Heck, they might not expire of the supposedly condition at all. 

Here’s another matter I noticed that is ubiquitous in euthanasia/assisted suicide advocacy schemes, but rarely bring up:  The bill  gives a blanket priviledge to doctors from criminal and civil liability for performing euthanasia.  How ironic: A doctor who treats a patient could face liability for failing to meet the standard of care.  The same doctor who killed the patient would not be held to account for any standard of professionalism.  That means the bottom feeders who can’t do anything else could easily be attracted–like Kevorkian–to a killing practice.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

170 posted on 07/18/2010 11:40:47 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


171 posted on 07/18/2010 1:04:19 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: All; wagglebee

“’For my part, I’m glad he’s alive and didn’t make a living will. If he had, then we would never have known whether it was worth continuing with the treatment.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1294373/The-incredible-story-paralysed-man-blinked-stay-alive-life-support-machine-turned-off.html##ixzz0u5VrLQpp

Another “living wills” are a crock story.


172 posted on 07/18/2010 6:40:43 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

bttt


173 posted on 07/20/2010 2:41:19 PM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: mlizzy; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ..
Women should be told about the physical, mental and spiritual consequences BEFORE they kill their baby.

Thread by mlizzy.

Nebraska First to Allow Women to Sue for Psychological Injury After Abortion

Springfield, IL (April 13, 2010) – A new Nebraska law will allow women to sue abortion providers for psychological injuries related to unwanted, coerced or unsafe abortions, according to the Stop Forced Abortions Alliance.

"This is the first law in the country that allows women to hold abortionists accountable for negligent pre-abortion screening and counseling," said Paula Talley, one of the organizers of Stop Forced Abortions. "If it had been in place in 1980, I would have been spared the years of grief, depression, and substance use which followed my own unwanted abortion."

Judicial rules normally do not allow women to sue for psychological injuries after abortion unless the injuries stem from a physical injury. The new Nebraska law is the first law in the country to eliminate the requirement that the woman must prove that psychological injuries from an abortion stemmed from a physical injury.

The law also puts into place a specific standard of care for appropriate pre-abortion screening. Abortion providers may be sued for negligence if they fail to ask a woman if she is being pressured, coerced or forced to have an abortion. They may also be held liable if they fail to screen women for other statistically significant risk factors that may put them at higher risk for psychological or physical complications following an abortion.

Research has found that as many as 64 percent of women feel pressured by others to have an abortion. In addition, one study found that even though more than half of women reported feeling rushed or uncertain about the abortion, 84 percent said they did not receive adequate counseling and 67 percent said they weren't counseled at all.

In Talley's case, she said, the pressure to abort came from her employer.

"My abortion counselor never asked if I was being pressured," Talley said. "Nor did she inquire about my psychological history. If she had, she should have known that I was at higher risk of experiencing post-abortion trauma because I had a history of depression. Plus, I had moral beliefs against abortion, but I was rushing into a poorly thought out decision because I was so filled with fear and panic.

"If the abortion counselor had bothered to ask the right questions, she would have seen that I was more likely to be hurt than helped by the abortion, But I was never warned. They just took my money, and my baby, no questions asked."

The measure easily sailed through Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature with a 40-9 majority. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman is scheduled to sign the bill today. The law will go into effect on July 15.

Legislators Argue Burden and Constitutionality

The law requires that abortion providers must screen women for risk factors that have been established in the research for a year or more prior to the abortion. Legislators opposing the bill argued that it would be nearly impossible for abortion providers to keep track of all the research on risks factors. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Cap Dierks, disagreed.

Dierks said that a report from the American Psychological Association found that an average of 12 studies per year are published on the subject.

"Surely it’s not too much to ask abortion providers to read 12 studies per year," Dierks said. "Women rightly expect their doctors to keep up to date on their area of specialty. Why would we want the standard of care for abortion to be less than that for other medical procedures?"

Among those opposing the bill was Sen. Danielle Conrad, who argued that abortion providers are already giving women sufficient information.

"We do not need an additional layer on top of that," she said. She also argued that the bill was unconstitutional and placed an undue burden on women.

But Sen. Brad Ashford, an attorney and the chair of the Judiciary Committee that reviewed the bill, told the Legislature that the law did not raise any obvious constitutional issues because it relies only on civil remedies and does not place any burdens on women. He said that any burden caused by the screening requirements falls primarily on the abortion provider, not on the women whose rights are expanded by the bill.

State Lobbying Effort Focused on Injured Women

Greg Schleppenbach, Director of Pro-Life Activities for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, led the lobbying effort for the legislation. He said that "women deserve better than one-size-fits-all counselingor no counseling at all."

"Ninety-nine percent of abortions in Nebraska take place in two abortion facilities," Schleppenbach said. "Their informed consent counseling consists of recorded phone messages 24 hours before the abortions and most women never see the abortion provider except during the 10 minutes or so he is doing the abortion. Women deserve better."

Schleppenbach said that the stories he had heard from women who have suffered from emotional problems after an abortion provided the impetus for passing legislation that would improve their right to redress.

"Most people don’t realize that under the existing rules of law, it is essentially impossible for women to hold abortion providers liable for inadequate screening and counseling," he said. "This is why the standard of care for abortion counseling has fallen to such a dismal level. If abortion providers face no liability for inadequate screening, cost-cutting measures will inevitably lead to an assembly line process with one-size-fits-all counseling.”

Twenty-Five Year Effort to Change Malpractice Laws

Dierks’ bill was patterned after model legislation called the Protection from Coerced and Unsafe Abortions Act. The legislation was developed by the Elliot Institute, a post-abortion research and education group based in Springfield, Ill.

Elliot Institute Director Dr. David Reardon said that inspiration for the bill came from a 1985 article written by the group Feminists for Life.

"The article was identifying obstacles and loopholes in the law that made it nearly impossible for women to recover damages for abortion related injuries," Reardon said. "Plus, the short statute of limitations when dealing with medical procedures meant it was likely that women injured by abortion wouldn't be emotionally ready to come forward until it was too late. The article said this was similar to cases in which women who have been raped may feel too ashamed or afraid to come forward."

Reardon—who is the author of numerous studies linking abortion to higher rates of suicide, depression, anxiety, and substance abuse—said these observations shed new light on something he had been observing in the medical literature on abortion.

"Nearly every study done on abortion and mental health, whether before or since 1985, has found that certain subgroups of women were at higher risk of negative reactions," he said. "Most of these studies have been done by pro-choice researchers, so you can’t accuse them of bias. Many of the researchers openly recommend that these risk factors should be used to screen for at-risk patients so they could be given more pre- and post-abortion counseling."

One such study was published in a 1972 issue of Family Planning Perspectives, a publication of Planned Parenthood. The authors of that study found four risk factors that reliably predicted more post-abortion problems. They suggested that pre-abortion screening should be done using a short psychological profile which could be administered for less than a dollar per patient.

A similar 1977 study identified five risk factors that accurately predicted which women would have subsequent problems adjusting after abortion 72 percent of the time. But in interviewing women who were experiencing problems after abortion, Reardon found that abortion providers were ignoring the research. He was unable to find evidence that even one clinic in the country was doing evidenced-based pre-abortion screening.

Reardon said that this observation, combined with the insights from the Feminists for Life article, made him realize that the loophole in the law protecting abortion providers from liability for psychological injuries meant they could simply ignore all of the research on screening and risk factors. In fact, if proper screening led to a reduction of abortion rates among coerced and high risk women, they might actually lose money.

Reardon believes this lack of screening is an act of a medical negligence in and of itself.

"Without screening, it is impossible for a doctor to give informed medical advice," he said. "Performing an abortion on request, regardless of the risks, is contrary to both medical ethics and the law."

"If a woman walks into a doctor’s office and says, 'I have a lump in my breast and need a mastectomy,' and the doctor says ‘Jump up on the table and we’ll take it right out,' we don’t call that medicine. We call that malpractice. Added to that, the situation with abortion is even worse because many women and girls are having abortions they don’t really want, due to lack of resources and support, pressure, coercion, threats, emotional blackmail, disinformation or even force from others."

Reardon said that while Roe v Wade created a right for women to seek an abortion in consultation with a physician, the Supreme Court also wrote that "the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician."

Reardon believes that Roe intended for doctors to be held liable for inadequate screening and counseling.

"Nebraska has now done what the states should have been doing a long time ago," he said. "They have removed the loopholes in civil law that prevent women from being able to hold abortionists accountable for the negligent screening that predictably leads to so many unwanted, unsafe, and unnecessary abortions."


174 posted on 07/25/2010 1:11:45 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Ayn Rand is certainly popular for a reason, but she also had some very dangerous ideas.

Thread by marshmallow.

Ayn Rand: Architect of The Culture of Death

No philosopher ever proposed a more simple and straightforward view of life than the one Ayn Rand urges upon us.

"Yes, this is an age of moral crisis … Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley and the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality …. but to discover it."

Thus spake, not Zarathustra, but Ayn Rand's philosophical mouthpiece, John Galt, the protagonist of her principal novel, Atlas Shrugged. The "moral crisis" to which he refers is the conflict between altruism, which is radically immoral, and individualism, which provides the only form of true morality possible. Altruism, for Galt and Rand, leads to death; individualism furnishes the only path that leads to life. Thus, in order to go on living with any degree of authenticity, we must abandon the immoral code of altruism and embrace the vivifying practice of individualism.

Throughout the course of history, according to Ayn Rand, there have been three general views of morality. The first two are mystical, which, for Rand, means fictitious, or non-objective. The third is objective, something that can be verified by the senses. Initially, a mystical view reigned, in which the source of morality was believed to be God's will. This is not compatible either with Rand's atheism, or her objectivism. In due course, a neo-mystical view held sway, in which the "good of society" replaced the "will of God. The essential defect of this view, like the first, is that it does not correlate with an objective reality. "There is no such entity as 'society,'" she avers. And since only individuals really exist, the so-called "good of society" degenerates into a state where "some men are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires."

Only the third view of morality is realistic and worthwhile. This is Rand's objectivism, a philosophy that is centred exclusively on the individual. It is the individual alone that is real, objective, and the true foundation for ethics. Therefore, Rand can postulate the basic premise of her philosophy: "The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A – and Man is Man."

An individual belongs to himself as an individual. He does not belong, in any measure, to God or to society. A corollary of Rand's basic premise is that "altruism," or the sacrifice of one's only reality – one's individuality – for a reality other than the self, is necessarily self-destructive and therefore immoral. This is why she can say that "altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value." On the other hand, individualism, cultivated through the "virtue of selfishness," is the only path to life. "Life," she insists, "can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action." Man's destiny is to be a "self-made soul."

Man, therefore, has a "right to life." But Rand does not mean by this statement that he has a "right to life" that others have a duty to defend and support. Such a concept of "right to life" implies a form of "altruism," and consequently is contrary to the good of the individual. In fact, for Rand, it constitutes a form of slavery. "No man," she emphasizes, "can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'" Moreover, there are no rights of special groups, since a group is not an individual reality. As a result, she firmly denies that groups such as the "unborn," "farmers," "businessmen," and so forth, have any rights whatsoever.

Making sacrifices for one's born or unborn children, one's elderly parents or other family members becomes anathema for Ayn Rand.

Her notion of a "right to life" begins and ends with the individual. In this sense, "right to life" means the right of the individual to pursue, through the rational use of his power of choice, whatever he needs in order to sustain and cultivate his existence. "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil." As Rand has John Galt tell her readers, "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence." Man's existence must stay in existence. This is the mandate of the individual and the utility of the virtue of selfishness. Non-existence is the result of altruism and careens toward death. Making sacrifices for one's born or unborn children, one's elderly parents or other family members becomes anathema for Ayn Rand. She wants a Culture of Life to emerge, but she envisions that culture solely in terms of individuals choosing selfishly, the private goods of their own existence. If ever the anthem for a pro-choice philosophy has been recorded, it comes from the pen of Ayn Rand: "Man has to be man – by choice; he has to hold his life as a value – by choice; he has to learn to sustain it – by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practise his virtues – by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality."

No philosopher ever proposed a more simple and straightforward view of life than the one Ayn Rand urges upon us. Man=Man; Existence = Existence; only individuals are real; all forms of altruism are inherently evil. There are no nuances or paradoxes. There is no wisdom. There is no depth. Complex issues divide reality into simple dichotomies. There is individualism and altruism, and nothing in between. Despite the apparent superficiality of her philosophy, Rand considered herself history's greatest philosopher after Aristotle.

******************************

Barbara Branden tells us, in her book, The Passion of Ayn Rand, of how Miss Rand managed to make the lives of everyone around her miserable, and when her life was over, she had barely a friend in the world. She was contemptuous even of her followers. When Rand was laid to rest in 1982 at the age of 77, her coffin bore a six-foot replica of the dollar sign. Her philosophy, which she adopted from an early age, helped to assure her solitude: "Nothing existential gave me any great pleasure. And progressively, as my idea developed, I had more and more a sense of loneliness." It was inevitable, however, that a philosophy that centred on the self to the exclusion of all others would leave its practitioner in isolation and intensely lonely.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is unlivable, either by her or anyone else. A philosophy that is unlivable can hardly be instrumental in building a Culture of Life. It is unlivable because it is based on a false anthropology. The human being is not a mere individual, but a person. As such, he is a synthesis of individual uniqueness and communal participation. Man is a transcendent being. He is more than his individuality.

The Greeks had two words for "life": bios and zoe. Bios represents the biological and individual sense of life, the life that pulsates within any one organism. This is the only notion of life that is to be found in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Zoe, on the other hand, is shared life, life that transcends the individual and allows participation in a broader, higher, and richer life.

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis remarks that mere bios is always tending to run down and decay. It needs incessant subsidies from nature in the form of air, water, and food, in order to continue. As bios and nothing more, man can never achieve his destiny. Zoe, he goes on to explain, is an enriching spiritual life which is in God from all eternity. Man needs Zoe in order to become truly himself. Man is not simply man; he is a composite of bios and zoe.

Bios has, to be sure, a certain shadowy or symbolic resemblance to Zoe: but only the sort of resemblance there is between a photo and a place, or a statue and a man. A man who changed from having Bios to having Zoe would have gone through as big a change as a statue which changed from being a carved stone to being a real man.

The transition, then, from bios to zoe (individual life to personal, spiritualized life; selfishness to love of neighbor) is also the transition from a Culture of Death to a Culture of Life.


175 posted on 07/25/2010 1:16:40 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The culture of death will not be satisfied until they have the "right" to kill anyone at any time and for any reason.

Thread by me.

Disabled UK Man Petitions to Change Law to Allow Direct Killing for “Compassion”

LONDON, July 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A disabled British man with “locked-in” syndrome due to a stroke in 2005 is seeking a court order allowing his wife to kill him without fear of prosecution.

Tony Nicklinson, a 56 year-old engineer in Melksham, Wiltshire, is completely paralyzed and unable to speak. He communicates with the use of a Perspex board and letters, looking, blinking and nodding to spell out words. He said through his lawyers that he is “fed up with life” and does not wish to spend the next 20 years in this condition.

Under the current law, the lawyers said, the only way he could end his life was by withdrawal of food and water, but Nicklinson wants his wife Jane to be allowed to inject him with a lethal dose of drugs, something she has said she is prepared to do.

The legal team has launched a request of the Director of Public Prosecutions asking if Jane Nicklinson would be prosecuted for murder if she were to kill her husband at his own request. 

Jane told the BBC that her husband wants the same “rights” as everyone else to commit suicide. “He wants to be able to take his own life at a time that he chooses," she told the BBC. “He has no quality of life at all.”

“He just wants the same rights as everyone else. I mean, you or I can go out and commit suicide. He can't. That right was taken away from him the day he had his stroke.”

Bindmans, the solicitors acting on his family's behalf, however, did not mention “assisted suicide” in their statement, referring more forthrightly to changing the laws on homicide.

“Tony Nicklinson contends that the current law of murder, which prohibits in absolute terms all intentional killing, whatever the motive and regardless of the ‘victim’s’ wishes, constitutes an interference with his rights to respect for his private life under Article 8 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

“He states that he is not depressed and he is not in need of counselling. He has had almost four years to think about his future, and he does not relish the prospect.”

The news has prompted criticism from a disability rights group which says that Nicklinson’s request will undermine the absolute value of human life in the law. Janet Thomas of No Less Human said, “The killing of vulnerable, innocent people, whether able-bodied or not, is never right, even when those people ask to be killed. The deliberate killing of any innocent person damages the interests of us all.”

“Mr. Nicklinson feels he wants to die because of his disabilities - as if human value and worth are to be measured by physical ability. Human worth lies not in what people can do but in what they inherently are. Each human life whether damaged or not whether a short one or a long one is a gift of incomparable value.”

Thomas said that disabled people can come to terms with their condition and have it improved with “positive help and support from family, friends and the community, and by a refusal to accept that there is any life which is worthless.”

“Society, through its laws against murder and assisted suicide, comes down in favour of life. Every time someone decides that there are lives not worth living, he or she damages the security of all of us.”
 
In September last year, Britain’s Director of Public Prosecutions announced that the assisted suicide law would not be enforced in cases where it was judged that a person acted out of “compassion” in helping a relative or loved-one who had indicated a “clear, settled and informed wish to commit suicide” to carry about that wish. The announcement followed a decision by the Law Lords, at the request of assisted suicide campaigner Debbie Purdie, that the law should be “clarified.”

The Care Not Killing Alliance warned at the time that the decision would threaten the lives of vulnerable disabled people, saying that they “reject the concept of a ‘compassionate homicide’ and we reject the concept that a person that assists the suicide of another person is acting in a compassionate manner.”

The massive positive publicity surrounding the Purdie case and numerous high profile cases in which public figures have committed suicide at the Dignitas facility in Switzerland, has shifted public opinion in favor of legalizing assisted suicide in Britain. In January, a YouGov poll found that four out of five respondents supported a change in the law.


176 posted on 07/25/2010 1:19:46 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Soon the death mongers will have infomercials.

Thread by me.

Wesley J. Smith: Final Exit Network Billboards: Trying to Take Spotlight Off Group’s Criminality

 
 

I have been repeatedly asked my views about the Final Exit Network advocacy billboards that push assisted suicide.  I was going to post on it, but I was interviewed by Fox News Network on the issue, and I think my comments to Fox’s reporter will suffice.  From the story:

A national right-to-die organization has launched a controversial billboard campaign to inform terminally ill and elderly adults that they have a right to end their own lives — but critics say the group is simply preying on vulnerable senior citizens and mentally unstable people.

Well, FEN has never advocated restricting assisted suicide to the terminally ill.  Moreover, they have assisted suicides of people who were not dying–a point I made abundantly clear:

But others say Final Exit’s mission is unethical … and illegal. “The signs communicate a pro-suicide message that sends a dangerous message throughout society, including to people like the young who would not legally qualify for a lethal prescription,” said Wesley J. Smith, a California-based bioethicist who opposes assisted suicide. “I think they are trying to make themselves seem like an advocacy group rather than one in which some of its members engage in criminal suicide facilitation,” he said.

The story details allegations and pleas of FEN activists assisting suicides of people who clearly were not dying–which I covered here when it happened:

But Final Exit members, including Egbert, also are alleged to have been involved in the 2007 death of an Arizona woman, Jana Van Voorhis, who suffered from a serious mental illness, not a debilitating physical illness. Wye Hale-Rowe, then 79, and retired college professor Frank Langsner, who provided her guidance, as well as two other senior Final Exit officials — Egbert and Roberta Massey — were charged in the case that will go to trial next month. Hale-Rowe pleaded guilty in January to facilitation to commit manslaughter, a felony. She struck a plea deal with county prosecutors and agreed to testify against the three remaining defendants in the case…

Smith says the Voorhis case “shattered” the “pretense that the minions who participate in the Final Exit Network are mere counselors — rather than mobile assisted suicide clinics.”…Smith questions Final Exit’s judgment of “suffering” individuals and asks people to “take the time to look beneath the political posturing and the true agenda — death on demand for people with more than a transitory desire to die — comes clearly into focus.” “I think it is worth pointing out that the logic of these ideologues is impeccable. Once you accept the belief that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering, assisting the suicides of the mentally ill — whose suffering is often far worse than those with physical illnesses — can become compelling,” he said.

Proof of my points are found in the last paragraph from an “alternative” suicide counselor–who is clearly pro suicide–wants people to be able to choose not to burden others by being made dead:

But Carolanne Cortese Barton of Alternate Group Counseling in Bayonne, N.J., says she sees the logic behind the billboard campaign, “because in life everyone has a choice, this really is all we have.” “Family traditions have changed and children are no longer able to take their elderly parents into their homes for care anymore and therefore have to send them to nursing homes,” Barton said. She said the billboards create awareness that there are options out there for people who are suffering and do not want their families to suffer further by paying for treatment and care.

Wow.  Honesty.  How unusual in the drive to legalize assisted suicide.  Whether she is right is the debate we should be having.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

177 posted on 07/25/2010 1:24:45 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: stylecouncilor

Rand ping....


178 posted on 07/25/2010 3:51:52 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


179 posted on 07/25/2010 7:52:11 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Very helpful thread!

I’ve been slogging my way thru Atlas Shrugged with amazement
at its timeless application to today’s crisis du jour.

I plan to re-read this analysis again and continue my reading with
it in mind.


180 posted on 07/31/2010 11:57:13 AM PDT by Lesforlife (Co-sponsor Personhood CO 2010 ~ Woo Hoo 62!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The biggest lie Zero has EVER told is that there won't be death panels that ration health care.

Thread by me.

ObamaCare and Britain's NHS Move Forward With Rationing of Health Care

LifeNews.com Note: Dr. David Prentice is Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at Family Research Council. Up to July 2004 he had spent almost 20 years as Professor of Life Sciences, Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine.

The U.K. is ramping up healthcare rationing under its National Health Service (NHS). According to The Sunday Telegraph, the NHS has drawn up plans for restrictions on the most basic treatments for the sick and injured. Operations including hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery will be rationed in a new attempt to save money.

According to the report, plans also include cuts for terminally ill patients (dying cancer patients will supposedly be sent home and told to manage their own symptoms), closure of nursing homes for the elderly, cost-cutting measures in pediatric and maternity services and care of the elderly.

Doctors have already been told that their patients can have some operations only if they are given “prior approval” by a “primary care trust”, with each authorization made on a “case by case” basis.

Why is this increase in healthcare rationing in the U.K. of concern for the U.S.? Because many of ObamaCare’s nationalized regulations for treatment will be designed by Dr. Donald Berwick. The President used a recess appointment to put Berwick in as Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Berwick is an advocate for government rationing of health care and says “I am romantic about the NHS; I love it.” (pdf of Berwick backgrounder)

But the NHS in Britain is a failure.

A recent study found that under the British nationalized health care system, inequities in the mortality rate between rich and poor have increased, with the inequalities today worse than those during the 1930's economic depression (prior to the NHS). The British government is apparently moving to a decentralized system of healthcare management (opposite to what ObamaCare is doing), to put power in the hands of patients and clinicians and eliminate layers of bureaucracy.

Redistribution of Health

To pay for ObamaCare, almost a half trillion dollars will be cut from Medicare, including Medicare Advantage. According to the Wall Street Journal:

“The law will spend $938 billion over a decade, mostly to expand coverage to lower-income Americans. To finance that, there will be $455 billion coming from cuts in government payments to health-care providers that serve patients on Medicare and two other federal programs. The hardest hit—to the tune of $136 billion—will be private insurance companies that run Medicare Advantage plans.”

The article notes that ObamaCare presages a redistribution of funds from the old to the young. A redistribution of health, as well as wealth. Not surprisingly, this redistribution is also something that Dr. Berwick has expounded on, noting that:

“…any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, MUST redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional.”

This same redistribution of health, from old to young, is also favored by another member of the ObamaCare team, Cass Sunstein, who has said:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Sunstein, the “Regulatory Czar”, will be helping Berwick develop those regulations on who gets healthcare in the U.S.


181 posted on 08/01/2010 10:10:03 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Dr. Alveda King continues to carry on her uncle's dream of real human rights.

Thread by NYer.

Pro-Life Rally Disrupted: Alveda King: ‘I Dare You to Arrest Me on My Uncle’s Grave’

PriestforLife.org

SPEAKING UP. Alveda King said ‘This is a time for boldness’ after Freedom Riders were denied the right to gather at the tomb of Martin Luther King Jr.

ATLANTA — A pro-life event at the Martin Luther King Jr. historic site was disrupted by officials July 24.

Participants in the “Freedom Rides for the Unborn” rally — more than 100 pro-life supporters — were kept from rallying on the federal park surrounding the gravesite of the black civil-rights activist even though they had a permit.

Meanwhile, pro-choice opponents who showed up without a permit were ushered onto the grounds for a counter rally.

Organized by Priests for Life and Martin Luther King’s pro-life niece Alveda King, who heads the organization’s African-American Outreach, the event brought several pro-life black pastors and a busload of supporters to the King Center in Atlanta in emulation of the civil-rights Freedom Rides of the 1960s.

The Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, an independent nonprofit founded by the King family, is part of a National Historic Site under the National Park Service, so both King Center staff and Park Service personnel were present at the event.

Free Speech Obstructed
When King and Father Frank Pavone, the national director of Priests for Life, arrived with the Freedom Riders, they were denied access to the King tomb by King Center staff.

When Park Service staff finally allowed King onto the federal property surrounding the center, she managed to get to the gravesite via a back way.

When she was stopped by the King Center’s CEO, John Mack, King was distressed enough by the obstruction that she climbed into a reflecting pool and reportedly said, “I dare you to arrest me on my uncle’s grave.”

Later she joined Father Pavone across the street from the center in front of a laundromat to deliver a speech calling for justice for the unborn.

Before the Freedom Riders arrived at the site, local pro-lifers were already running into trouble from the Park Service, according to Bridget Kurt, an Atlanta pro-lifer and event participant.

“When we got there, a rally of pro-choicers was already going on right on park property, chanting and using a bullhorn,” reports Kurt. “The park superintendent told us we couldn’t congregate on the sidewalk or go onto the grounds and that we couldn’t carry signs. She told us the pro-aborts had a permit but later changed that to say they had permission.”

Kurt was shocked by what transpired: “The Park Service and the King Center disrupted something that was to be very peaceful and prayerful. It all was totally contrary to the spirit of nonviolence that Martin Luther King stood for. I heard one park ranger joke about whether they should get their clubs out. It was a joke, but still, how nonviolent was that?”

Kurt published her version of events on the CNN iReport website under the headline “National Park Service violates free-speech rights of Alveda King and pro-lifers at MLK grave.”

For its part, the Park Service denies that remarks about clubs were made. Moreover, according to Marianne Mills, the public affairs spokeswoman for the National Park Service’s southeast region, any ordering about of pro-life supporters was intended to keep them and pro-choice demonstrators apart.

“The actions directed by Park Superintendent Judy Forte were focused on trying to separate the parties present as their conflict escalated, not show support for one group over another,” Mills told the Register in an e-mail.

Pro-Lifers Assert Rights
Some pro-lifers began turning their signs over to park staff, says Kurt, but she told Superintendent Forte, “We had every right to be on a city sidewalk. She told me to shut up and told a staff member to call 911. I said, ‘Fine, and I’ll call CNN.’”

Both followed through on their statements. However, neither CNN nor any local news agencies sent reporters. The Atlanta police did, however, eventually respond to Forte’s call.

“They told Forte,” says Kurt, “that we could use the sidewalks.”

According to Park Service spokeswoman Mills, Alveda King told Park Service southeast regional director David Vela in an e-mail exchange that the problems that day were with the King Center “and not the National Park Service.” Therefore, Mills told the Register, “the assertion that the ‘National Park Service violates free-speech rights of Alveda King and pro-lifers at MLK grave’ is incorrect.”

Not so, says Kurt. Egged on by King Center staff, Park Service officers did impede King initially, and before she arrived, they bullied and coerced pro-lifers into giving up their signs and tried to disperse them from city sidewalks.

“Park Service staff escalated a tense situation rather than calming it down,” Kurt says. “And it was quite apparent to me the superintendent did not understand free speech and the boundary between what was public and private property and that free speech is allowed on public property.”


182 posted on 08/01/2010 10:13:39 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: frithguild; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
The UK's health care system demonstrates EXACTLY what we can expect from Obamacare.

Threads by frithguild and me.

Girl texted pics of herself

A DESPERATE woman texted photos of herself slowly DYING to her mum as she lay suffering on a hospital bed - being ignored by NHS doctors. Tragic Jo Dowling, 25, sent over forty messages to her mother and best friend including pictures of a deadly rash spreading across her body as her life ebbed away.

The pretty youngster was diagnosed by her family GP with suspected Meningococcal Septicaemia after developing a purple skin rash and low blood pressure last November.

She was rushed to Milton Keynes Hospital where A&E doctors rejected the diagnosis believing instead her illness was a mild infection caused by her Cystic Fibrosis.

Doctors abandoned Jo on a observation ward and gave her headache tablets and fluids as they failed to spot the purple rash spread over her arms, hands and legs.

As the hours passed terrified Jo took photos of her rash on her mobile phone and sent them to her mum and best friend describing her condition as "getting worse".

The meningitis bug left her in septic shock choking and coughing as fluid filled her lungs and she died four hours after her last text message - just 14 hours after arriving at hospital.

Her family yesterday accused the hospital of "neglect" after an inquest at Milton Keynes Coroners' Court heard doctors failed to spot she was suffering 'blood poisoning shock'.

Coroner Tom Osborne criticised the hospital for a "communication breakdown" that led to her death as tragically a simple dose of penicillin and antibiotics would have saved Jo's life.

The inquest heard there were only two doctors on duty to cover the entire hospital the night Jo died.

Devastated mum Sue Christie, 48, of Milton Keynes, a distribution worker, said: "Our doctor knew it was meningitis but when we got to hospital all the care seemed to stop.

"They didn't seem to know what they were meant to do or what meningococcal septicaemia was.

"The hospital was saying it was just an infection. She had a lot of infections with Cystic Fibrosis but never a rash like this.

"I saw her picture messages and the rash was really bad. You couldn't miss them but the nurses did. I thought she was in hospital and with the best people.

"She wasn't given a chance and was left to die without being given any treatment.

"It is so sad as Jo had got through everything with her Cystic Fibrosis and was such a strong girl."

Jo was given penicillin and admitted to hospital at 3.25pm on November 23 last year with a letter from her GP Dr Nessan Carson diagnosing Meningococcal Septicaemia.

Dr Carson listed symptoms as low blood pressure, a raised pulse and a purple rash that would not disappear when pressed with a glass.

The inquest heard locum consultant Dr B. S. Khattak sent Jo for a CT Scan and lumber puncture and results were sent to micro-biology to determine which type of anti-biotics to use.

When the scans showed no traces of meningitis Dr Chris Akubuine, physician in general medicine, refused to continue treating Jo's symptoms with antibiotics.

Instead Dr Akubuine administered headache pills and fluids and left her in the Clinical Decision Unit (CDU) for overnight observations, the inquest heard.

Trainee GP Vivake Roddah failed to keep a written observation record but told the inquest he did not see Jo's purple rash on her hands, arms and legs.

Five nurses also told the two day hearing they did not spot any rash on Jo's body.

As her condition worsened Jo swapped 42 text messages with friends and her mum describing her illness and symptoms.

Just two hours after doctors ruled out meningitis she texted a friend to say "rash is getting worse".

She took around 10 photos of the purple rash on her legs, hands and arms and sent one to her mum complaining her condition was not improving.

Her death was pronounced at 5.20am on November 24 three hours after hospital logs show she was last checked on.

Dad Ivor Dowling, 52, a mechanic, said: "If she had been given antibiotics she would have survived. The hospital failed her.

"The first doctor who saw my daughter did everything he was supposed to do. But after that these doctors and nurses failed to spot her failing vital signs.

"They were obnoxious and arrogant. She was neglected."

Delivering a narrative verdict Deputy Coroner Tom Osborne ruled Jo died from a combination of Meningococcal Septicaemia and Cystic Fibrosis.

He criticised hospital doctors for failing to realise she was in 'blood poisoning shock'.

Mr Osborne said: "As a result of a breakdown in communication the antibiotics was not continued and resulted in lost opportunities to render further medical treatment."

Jo, who was on a waiting list for a lung transplant, occasionally needed a wheelchair to get around after she was diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis as a baby.

She worked as a cashier at Great Mills and The Bag Shop, in Milton Keynes, and competed in junior cross country championships as a child.

Her best friend Jess Wales, 20, from Kent, who received the other messages also suffered from cystic fibrosis and died in January shortly after a lung transplant.

A spokesman for Milton Keynes Hospital said: "Following Joanne's unexpected death, the Trust conducted a comprehensive internal investigation to review her care and treatment.

"The findings of the investigation were presented in detail at the inquest today and the recommendations are already being implemented.

"The Trust fully accepts the verdict of the inquest."

Former director Maggie Southcote-Want, 48, revealed a series of shocking incidents at the hospital at an employment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal in May.

Ms Southcote-Want claimed bodies were routinely dumped on the floor of the mortuary fridge and photographs of a car crash victim uploaded to websites, prompting a police inquiry.

She also claimed a locum doctor wrongly analysed dozens of breast cancer biopsies, a leading consultant was suspended for surgical blunders and two employees were caught having sex in the pharmacy during working hours.

The hospital denied the claims.

___________________________________________________

Malnutrition of elderly Scots is 'euthanasia'

WASHINGTON (BP)--Government-run hospitals in Scotland are guilty of a "form of euthanasia" by malnutrition, a patients' organization leader has charged.

Jean Turner, executive director of the Scotland Patients Association (SPA), said hundreds of patients, especially the elderly, are undernourished in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals because of a lack of assistance from staff members, according to The Herald of Glasgow, Scotland.

About 50,000 patients die in a state of malnutrition each year at NHS facilities, according to one recent report.

"The SPA would call this a form of euthanasia to allow dehydration and malnutrition to develop due to lack of awareness, lack of staffing or carelessness," Turner said, according to The Herald's July 4 story.

The patients' organization has urged the Scottish government to urgently tackle the problem of malnutrition of the elderly in the nation's hospitals. Turner indicated the problem stems from staff who do not help patients who cannot feed themselves.

One woman died of kidney failure, The Herald said, after 14 weeks in a hospital, and her family believes poor standards of care, particularly in nutrition, contributed to her death.

"Staff would tell me, 'It takes an hour to feed your mother and we don't have an hour,'" one family member told the newspaper, adding, "We believe that the care she received in that hospital is the reason she is not here today."

Turner said the case is one of many.

"If patients do not manage to swallow food, nutritious or otherwise, and drink then they will not heal, their general health will deteriorate and death may be an outcome, sooner or later," Turner said.

"... Whatever happened to measuring input and output and keeping charts to prevent this? We are in no doubt many wards short-staffed and staff do not have the time that they know is needed to provide the best care, but SPA would say it is down to all staff to be accountable and raise their issues of concern."

When the hospital staff is aware that a patient has difficulty eating, the patients' organization said it expects them to help the patient eat, The Herald reported.


183 posted on 08/01/2010 10:18:13 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The death mongers must be defeated.

Thread by me.

Selling Assisted Suicide, State by State

REUTERS/Staff

Wheelchair-bound disabled protesters against physician-assisted suicide are silhouetted as they hold up a banner outside the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 on the day of the Gonzales v. Oregon case. The Supreme Court revisited the emotionally charged issue of physician-assisted suicide in a test of the federal government's power to block doctors from helping terminally ill patients and end their lives.

DENVER — Kathryn Tucker has been busy the past few years. As director of legal affairs for Compassion & Choices, she peruses state constitutions and laws to see if they address assisted suicide, which she refers to euphemistically as “aid in dying.”

So far, Washington and Oregon are the only states that have legalized assisted suicide in this country. Some believe that Montana has also, but a legal analysis of two court decisions which supposedly legalize assisted suicide in the state questions that assumption.

For all its efforts, Compassion & Choices, which was once known as the Hemlock Society, has seen more setbacks than successes. But that hasn’t stopped its latest campaign from revving up in Idaho.

It started in the local press with a column Tucker wrote in the June 25 issue of the Coeur d’Alene Press.

Tucker writes that “Idaho does not have a statute specifically addressing aid in dying, either to permit or prohibit the practice. It does not have [a statute making it] a crime of assisting another to ‘commit suicide.’ Accordingly, in Idaho, physicians can provide aid in dying.”

Margaret Dore, an attorney in Seattle who specializes in elder law, wrote a rebuttal to Tucker’s column for the Idaho Medical Association.

Dore stated that Tucker’s claim that there were no statutes dealing with assisted suicide “is untrue.”

“Idaho does have a statute prohibiting assisted suicide. Moreover, it has been in effect since 1994. Prior to that time, assisted suicide was prohibited solely by common law,” Dore emphasized.

“With assisted suicide prohibited by common law and not subsequently made legal, a doctor who causes a suicide with ‘deliberate intention’ is guilty of an unlawful killing … [and] can be statutorily charged with murder,” Dore explained.

Dr. Robert Ancker, an Idaho physician, board certified in hospice and palliative medicine, wrote a response to Tucker’s column as well.

He attacked her “factually untrue” reading of Idaho statutory law, which states that it “does not make legal, and in no way condones, euthanasia, mercy killing or assisted suicide or permit an affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life, other than to allow the natural process of dying.”

“Any coroner in Idaho will classify any ‘aid in dying’ death as an assisted suicide, thus making it illegal [according to] Idaho code,” Ancker emphasized.

He concluded that this is “a dangerous game that Ms. Tucker is playing with Idaho citizens. Worst of all, it takes away from meaningful conversations regarding death, dying, advanced directives, and comfort, palliative and hospice care.”

Ancker gave a rebuttal of Tucker’s comments July 17 at an event sponsored by the Idaho Medical Association. Margaret Keeler, a nurse who was present at the event, recalled that Tucker started her talk “by showing statistics about how many people have significant pain at the end of life and stressing a person’s right to have pain and symptom relief.” Ironically, later in her talk, Tucker gave a slide presentation on why people chose assisted suicide. The statistics showed that “91% of those surveyed gave ‘a loss of autonomy’” as their reason for asking for a lethal overdose, followed by “the patients’ inability to engage in life fully,” Keeler remembered.

She added: “Far down on the list was the issue of ‘unrelieved pain.’”  In other words, Keeler noted, “pain was not the chief reason, or even the more prominent reason, that people asked for help in dying.”

Keeler mentioned that Tucker was trying to convince attendees that “because they had three adjoining states [with] legalized assisted suicide [Oregon, Washington and Montana ], it lent support to a standard of care [for legalizing] the practice in Idaho.”

At one point in his rebuttal, Ancker asked the medical professionals in the room how many supported assisted suicide. No hands went up, Keeler recalled.

Connecticut Case

Tucker’s attempt to switch terminology in a Connecticut case last year failed as well. The murder-suicide of an elderly couple in North Haven, Conn., led to a lawsuit filed last October, Blick v. Connecticut, which was represented by local counsel and lawyers from Compassion & Choices.

Dr. Gary Blick, an HIV/AIDS specialist in Norwalk, Conn., and Dr. Ronald Levine, an internist in Greenwich, Conn., filed a legal challenge to the state’s assisted-suicide statute, saying that the threat of punishment prevents them from prescribing lethal doses of medication for their patients.

But in June, a Superior Court judge said that the lawyers failed to make their case by insisting that the issue was a case of “aid in dying” rather than “assisted suicide.” The judge ruled that the change in terminology would make no difference in prosecuting the plaintiffs.

Unbowed, Tucker said she would not rule out lobbying the Connecticut Legislature to take up the issue of legalizing assisted suicide.

Meanwhile, in Montana, there has been a groundswell of activity to fight assisted suicide in the state, according to Mo Wosepka, executive director of the Montana Catholic Conference. He spoke to the Register in July about the formation of a broad-based coalition to stop legalized assisted suicide following last year’s State Supreme Court ruling in Baxter v. Montana: that nothing in state law or the court’s precedent indicated assisted suicide was against public policy. The court did not determine whether the Montana Constitution guarantees a right to assisted suicide.

Montanans United consists of “physicians, health-care professionals, disability-rights advocates, faith communities, seniors, people who are seriously ill and their caregivers, and many other Montanans in communities across the state.” He is confident, he says, that this group will be successful in “getting the truth out” on assisted suicide and the proposed legislation. “With good information, people can make good decisions,” he said.

On May 30, state Sen. Greg Hinkle introduced “the Montana Patient Protection Act, prohibiting physician-homicide and physician-assisted suicide, based on Montana’s public policy to prevent elder abuse and to value all citizens.”

State Rep. Dick Barrett issued a formal request for a draft bill in favor of physician-assisted suicide, ensuring that terminally ill patients in Montana can elect to choose assisted suicide, while providing physicians protection from civil liability.

As Sen. Hinkle recently said, “[Compassion & Choices talks] about choice, but in many cases, there is no choice made. … They put the decision in the hands of other people — the doctor and the family.”

Legalizing physician-assisted suicide “opens a Pandora’s box,” Hinkle said. “I don’t believe the people of Montana want to go there.”

Disability

Bob Liston is disabled and has problems with the idea that those advocating for assisted suicide are really doing so out of a true concern for the suffering.

Liston is an organizer for Not Dead Yet in Montana, a group officially opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia, and works for Adapt, a national disability-rights organization. He told the Register, “I think that in Montana it is unnecessary for an assisted suicide law to be written because we already have laws on the books that allow a physician to provide palliative care up to and including efforts that might hasten death.” He added: “So, I have a really hard time seeing why we need to go beyond this.”

It is the faulty assumptions about those whose lives it will affect that he finds upsetting. “Compassion & Choices … seems to think that taking one’s own life is dignified, often using the example of [a disabled person’s need for assistance with personal care and hygiene] as a reason to not go on living.” But he adds that some disabled people need this kind of total assistance on a daily basis “and are grateful for it.”

Compassion & Choices “puts forth the argument that so few people in Oregon have chosen assisted suicide [because] the guidelines are so strict. Nothing could be further from the truth,” he insisted, adding: “We have no idea what is really going on in Oregon because recordkeeping is not required.”

Liston stated: “As a person with a disability, I would say that not only is this the wrong law [favoring assisted suicide] to pass — it is definitely the wrong message.”

“If [the citizens of Montana] put as much effort into suicide prevention for people wanting this, or services for people with disabilities to live in their communities, not just have a life in a nursing home,” Liston concludes, “we would be a much greater nation.”


184 posted on 08/01/2010 10:21:33 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: All; wagglebee

“hundreds of patients, especially the elderly, are undernourished in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals because of a lack of assistance from staff members, “

Even in a good hospital, we had to feed my dad, because it took him almost an hour to eat, and the hospitals just don’t have enough staff. They would only spend ten minutes, or so, and maybe figure the slow-eating patients just aren’t hungry (or they don’t want to lose their job because they have other duties).

Anybody who can, volunteer to feed patients at a hospital or nursing home, even if you can only do it once in awhile.


185 posted on 08/01/2010 10:40:07 AM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


186 posted on 08/01/2010 10:40:56 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: All; wagglebee
There's been another mysterious death at Michael Schiavo's job.

Where was Michael Schiavo? What did he know, and when did he know it?

-


News Release

Public Information Office:
(727) 582-6221

Marianne Pasha:
mpasha@pcsonet.com

Media News Line:
(727) 582-6495

Cecilia Barreda:
cbarreda@pcsonet.com

Fax:
(727) 582-5911

Sgt. Thomas Nestor:
tnestor@pcsonet.com

Inmate Found Unresponsive In His Bunk Is Later Pronounced Dead At Local Hospital - Investigation Is Underway

Release Number: 10-182

Who:
Inmate:

Kyle Donald Howard
DOB: 3/6/86
Address: 1310 Bayview Drive - Clearwater

Arrested on July 24, 2010
Transported to Northside Hospital on July 26, 2010

What: Sheriff's homicide detectives are conducting a death investigation involving Pinellas County Jail inmate Kyle Howard, who was found unresponsive on his bunk Monday in the Health Care Facility, and transported to Northside Hospital. He was pronounced dead at 4:45 p.m., Monday evening.

Where: The Inmate Health Care Facility is located at the Pinellas County Jail on 49th Street in Clearwater.

When: Howard was discovered unresponsive in his bunk in the Inmate Healthcare Facility just after 3:30 p.m., Monday, July 26, 2010.

How/Why: Kyle Howard was booked into the Pinellas County Jail in the early morning hours of Friday, July 24, 2010. He was arrested on a series of probation violations.

He was eventually housed in the Jail's Inmate Health Care Facility due to reported substance abuse issues. According to detectives, the inmate reportedly had not been feeling well and went to rest on his bunk. Another inmate attempted to rouse Howard for dinner just after 3:30, when Howard was found unresponsive.

The medical staff responded and CPR was initiated. Howard was transported out of the Jail by ambulance to Northside Hospital where he was pronounced dead at around 4:45 p.m.

Sheriff's homicide detectives routinely investigate these cases.

The autopsy was conducted this morning. According to detectives, there was no obvious cause, and that the determination is pending other test results.

The investigation continues.


187 posted on 08/07/2010 1:11:52 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: All; wagglebee
Patient dehydrated to death by jail workers at Michael Schiavo's workplace. No word on whether or not he was directly involved.

Pinellas County Jail death from negligence, attorney says

LARGO — Negligence by several Pinellas County Sheriff's Office employees caused the death of a 50-year-old woman with a history of mental health issues, according to an attorney representing the dead woman's husband.

Jennifer DeGraw of St. Petersburg was found unresponsive on the floor of her jail cell on March 24, 2009, eight days after Pinellas deputies arrested her on a charge of battery of a law enforcement officer.

In a notice of intent to sue that was sent to Sheriff Jim Coats last month, the attorney representing DeGraw's husband Michael said the preventable chain of events that led to the woman's death began when a deputy decided to jail DeGraw instead of committing her under the state's Baker Act.

~ snip ~

DeGraw was taken to the county jail and assigned to the medical wing. But the medical staff there failed to give her the medications she needed for the bipolar disorder as well as other health ailments, including seizures and hypertension, Laporte said.

~ snip ~

Laporte said Michael DeGraw called the jail several times to try to speak with his wife, but was never allowed.

"You've got a caring husband who calls the Sheriff's Office to help, and they essentially kill his wife," Laporte said.

DeGraw was revived in her cell, then taken to Northside Hospital and Heart Institute, where she was pronounced dead. Laporte said the cause of death was determined to be fluid and electrolyte imbalance.


188 posted on 08/07/2010 6:43:51 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: topher; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ..
It's taken a long time, but people are finally starting to see the truth about stem cells.

Thread by topher.

Mainstream Media Recognizes Adult Stem Cell Research Far Ahead Of Embryonic

WASHINGTON, DC, August 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Following an announcement on Friday by U.S. biotech firm Geron Corp. that it received clearance from the Food and Drug Administration to carry out clinical trials using stem cells derived from human embryos, the mainstream media has been awash in stories that acknowledge the success of adult stem cell treatments, and the absence of any positive results from embryonic stem cell research.

AP reported the fact that adult stem cells have the ability not only to differentiate into bone, cartilage and blood vessels, but have also been shown to stimulate tissue repair.

"That gives adult stem cells really a very interesting and potent quality that embryonic stem cells don't have," Rocky Tuan of the University of Pittsburgh told AP.

Harvard University’s Dr. David Scaden, on the other hand, told CBS News of adult stem cells: “That’s really one of the great success stories of stem cell biology that gives us all hope. If we can recreate that success in other tissues, what can we possibly imagine for other people?”

In one prominent case that is being cited by the mainstream press, a patient had a broken ankle that would not heal, despite multiple surgeries. Dr. Thomas Einhorn, Chairman of Orthopedic Surgery at Boston University Medical Centre, drew bone marrow from the man’s pelvic bone, and condensing it he then injected the four teaspoons of rich red liquid into his patient’s ankle.

Four months later, the man’s broken ankle had healed, which Einhorn credits to the adult stem cells in the marrow injection. Einhorn said he tried the procedure based on published research from France.

"Adult stem cells are being studied in people who suffer from multiple sclerosis, heart attacks and diabetes. Some early results suggest (adult) stem cells can help some patients avoid leg amputation. Recently, researchers reported that they restored vision to patients whose eyes were damaged by chemicals," AP reported, adding that adult stem cell treatments "have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases."

According to CBS news, U.S. scientists at biotech companies and at the Pentagon are devising potential treatments that use adult stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells, news that is being welcomed by those who oppose the destruction of human embryos, both for moral reasons and based on the fact that embryo research has not resulted in a single positive outcome.

Stories of "catastrophic" results from the experimental use of fetal stem cells abound.

Last year a report by Israel's Public Library of Science journal said that a young Israeli boy suffering from a fatal genetic disease was injected with fetal stem cells that resulted in the development of brain and spinal cord tumors. Tests revealed that the tumor tissue was composed of fetal cells.

A study published in the March 2001 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine describing the use of fetal tissue to treat Parkinson's disease, said that the treatment resulted in what the researchers themselves described as "disastrous side effects."

The study said the treatment caused patients to "chew constantly" and "writhe and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about."

Dr. Paul Greene, a neurologist at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, said that the results of the experiment were "absolutely devastating ... It was tragic, catastrophic. It's a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it off."

Earlier this year California's Institute for Regenerative Medicine quietly changed its focus, after years of fruitless work and the expenditure of billions of dollars, from embryonic stem cell research to adult stem cell research. The institute cited adult stem cell treatment as responsible for dozens of positive results and all-out cures for maladies ranging from spinal cord injury, to Alzheimer's, to type I diabetes.

Los Angeles-based Investor's Business Daily magazine commented that, "Five years after a budget-busting $3 billion was allocated to embryonic stem cell research, there have been no cures, no therapies and little progress. We are pleased to see California researchers beginning to put science in its rightful place."

The Vatican responded on Saturday to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of Geron Corp.'s clinical trials using embryonic stem cells.

Elio Sgreccia, emeritus head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, told Radio Vatican, "Despite the efforts that are made to deny it, science continues to show us that the embryo is a human being in the making" and condemned the move as "unacceptable."


189 posted on 08/08/2010 11:33:00 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
It's clear that Pelosi and her ilk don't believe that ANYONE has the right to life.

Thread by markomalley.

Pelosi Won’t Say When Jesus Got the Right to Life

(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a Catholic, publicly stated earlier this year that she had a duty to pursue policies “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, the “Word made Flesh.” But at a press briefing last week, when reminded of this statement, Pelosi declined to say when Jesus got the right to life.

“Whenever it was,” said Pelosi, “we bow our heads when we talk about it in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.”

Later, when asked in writing through her press secretary whether the speaker believed Jesus had a right to life from the moment of conception, the press secretary responded: “The speaker answered the question. Thanks.”

Pelosi, who favors legalized abortion, voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted in 2003.

On May 6 of this year, at a Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, Pelosi said: “They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word," Pelosi said, "is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.”

“Fill it in with anything you want,” she said. “But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

In the New Testament, John 1:14 states, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.”

The Apostle’s Creed says: “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.”

At her July 29 press briefing, CNSNews.com asked Speaker Pelosi: “You said at a recent Catholic Community Conference that your favorite word was ‘The Word, as in the word made flesh,’ and that we need to quote, ‘give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the Word.’ So, when was the Word made flesh? Was it at the Annunciation, when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Sprit, as the Creed says, or was it at the Nativity when he was born of the Virgin Mary? And when did the Word get the right to life?”

Speaker Pelosi responded: “Whenever it was, we bow our heads when we talk about it in church, and that’s where I’d like to talk about that.”

CNSNews.com then sent an e-mail to the speaker’s press secretary, Nadeam Elshami, seeking to clarify the speaker’s answer. The e-mail said:

“Speaker Pelosi said at a Catholic Community Conference that her favorite word was ‘the Word’ as in ‘the Word made flesh’ and that we ‘need to [give] voice to what that means in terms of public policy.’ We’d like to clarify the speaker’s position on this: Did Jesus have the right to life from the moment of conception?”

In an e-mailed response, the press secretary wrote: “The speaker answered the question. Thanks.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses Christ’s divinity from His conception. It states, “Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception.” (466)

The Catechism also states, “From its conception, the child has the right to life.” (2322)


190 posted on 08/08/2010 11:37:25 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Two threads by me on the evilness of the death mongers.

The legalisation of assisted suicide

The arguments for legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia are in the process of imperceptibly changing from a duty of compassion towards the suffering, into the right of self-destruction for the hopeless.

They are predicated on a potent individualistic delusion of isolated autonomous choice, a refusal to acknowledge the reality of our mutual interconnectedness and interdependence as human beings in society.

The principled opposition of our current law to homicide and assisted suicide provides an essential safeguard for carers, for the medical profession and for the elderly and vulnerable who may fear that their lives have become burdensome and valueless.

In our latest Cambridge Paper, Professor John Wyatt argues that the increasing public support for the legalisation of assisted suicide provides an urgent challenge to the medical and legal professions and to the Christian community as a whole.

Many people have a fear of inappropriate and burdensome medical over-treatment at the end of life, and this drives the demand for assisted suicide.

The provision of skilled palliative care is inadequate, few doctors receive detailed training in palliative techniques, and tragically, many people in the UK still die with inadequate pain and symptom relief.

Vastly more resources are spent by Government and medical charities alike on researching treatments for life-threatening illness, than are devoted to improving the quality and availability of end of life care.

As a community we need to insist on a reorientation of priorities so that care for the elderly, the chronically disabled and the terminally ill receives the focus that it deserves.

The growing focus on personal autonomy and self determination provides a challenge to the Christian community to demonstrate a countercultural and alternative understanding of the sanctity of human life and the nature of human interdependence and interconnectedness.

In a society where millions of elderly suffer isolation, abandonment and the silent horror of abuse, can the Christian community provide a resource of compassionate and sacrificial caring?

The arguments for legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia are in the process of imperceptibly changing from a duty of compassion towards the suffering, into the right of self-destruction for the hopeless.

They are predicated on a potent individualistic delusion of isolated autonomous choice, a refusal to acknowledge the reality of our mutual interconnectedness and interdependence as human beings in society.

The principled opposition of our current law to homicide and assisted suicide provides an essential safeguard for carers, for the medical profession and for the elderly and vulnerable who may fear that their lives have become burdensome and valueless.

In our latest Cambridge Paper, Professor John Wyatt argues that the increasing public support for the legalisation of assisted suicide provides an urgent challenge to the medical and legal professions and to the Christian community as a whole.

Many people have a fear of inappropriate and burdensome medical over-treatment at the end of life, and this drives the demand for assisted suicide.

The provision of skilled palliative care is inadequate, few doctors receive detailed training in palliative techniques, and tragically, many people in the UK still die with inadequate pain and symptom relief.

Vastly more resources are spent by Government and medical charities alike on researching treatments for life-threatening illness, than are devoted to improving the quality and availability of end of life care.

As a community we need to insist on a reorientation of priorities so that care for the elderly, the chronically disabled and the terminally ill receives the focus that it deserves.

The growing focus on personal autonomy and self determination provides a challenge to the Christian community to demonstrate a countercultural and alternative understanding of the sanctity of human life and the nature of human interdependence and interconnectedness.

In a society where millions of elderly suffer isolation, abandonment and the silent horror of abuse, can the Christian community provide a resource of compassionate and sacrificial caring?

__________________________________________________

Wesley J. Smith: The Selfishness of Assisted Suicide Advocacy/Ideology–Murder/Suicide

I make it a point of not criticizing people who commit suicide.  None of us knows what might cause such despair that we decide to terminate ourselves.  Indeed, my focus is on how a loving community responds to the suicidal despair of our brothers and sisters, not on judging people who have died.

But I am going to make an exception in this particular story.  Over the years, I have noticed an utterly “it’s all about me” orientation among the more doctrinaire assisted suicide types–not people who may support legalization in limited cases (not knowing it is a false premise)–but the committed activists, the kind who pour over stories of assisted suicides, attend how-to-commit-suicide seminars, and get the vapors at suicide machine conventions.  Not only are such assisted suicide fanatics disturbed, but often their actions cause great harm, not only to themselves but to society itself, e.g.,  the Final Exit Network members who helped a mentally ill woman kill herself in Phoenix.

An Arizona murder/suicide “death with dignity” shows what happens when one commits oneself wholeheartedly to  ideological hemlock. From the story:

An Arizona couple followed through with a decades-long plan to end their lives before the ravages of old age took their toll. Lansing C. Holden, 83, and his wife, Carol, 78, were found shot to death July 26 in a remote cabin south of Pagosa Springs in Archuleta County. Archuleta County Coroner Carl Macht on Wednesday said the deaths had been classified as a murder-suicide…The Holdens were members of the Final Exit Network, a nonprofit that promotes “the right of every adult to a peaceful, dignified death,” according to its website. Members receive consultations and advice about suicide methods. She wore an orange plastic bracelet that read, “Do not resuscitate” from the Hemlock Society, a national right-to-die organization. Such groups typically recommend less-violent means of death, like a lethal dose of medication, rather than a gunshot…

The Holdens were in fairly good condition considering their age, Macht said. Mr. Holden had the beginnings of heart disease and she had digestive issues…They left behind a suicide note signed by both participants and notarized March 3, 2010, in Arizona. The letter read: “Many years ago we decided to be in charge of the timing of our own death. Hopefully it would be when the lines of normal aging, health problems and finances all crossed. “It is our intention to avoid the indignities of prolonged nursing home care or terminal hospitalization. Unfortunately, there is little chance of ‘death with dignity’ under present laws which do not recognize our right to die a peaceful and painless death at the time and place of our own choosing. “We have concentrated on the quality rather than the quantity of our lives together, and now it is time to move on while we are still in control. We want our bodies to be cremated directly and no religious or memorial services.”

Oh, and get this bit of utter selfishness–making a cleaning woman find their bodies:

The couple e-mailed the homeowner before the shooting and asked that a cleaning lady be sent by. She discovered the bodies July 26 – about a day after they had been shot. “She was really shaken up,” Macht said.

This is no different than the double assisted suicide committed at Dignitas in Switzerland (more planned), or the recent well publicized double suicide in Wisconsin. And it is fully in keeping with Canadian assisted suicide advocate Ruth Von Fuchs who, for example, lauds suicide as a prophylactic against future suffering.  And indeed, it is just like the suicide of my friend Frances, who killed herself o her 76th birthday under the influence of  Hemlock Society literature–which is what dragged me into this field of advocacy in the first place.  Here’s what I wrote about that pointless death in my first anti assisted suicide piece in Newsweek, published June 28, 1993.  From my column, “The Whispers of Strangers:”

Frances once told me that through her death she would be advancing a cause. It is a cause I now deeply despise. Not only did it take Frances, but it rejects all that I hold sacred and true: that the preservation of human life is our highest moral ideal; that a principal purpose of government is as a protector of life; that those who fight to stay alive in the face of terminal disease are powerful uplifters of the human experience.

Of greater concern to me is the moral trickledown effect that could result should society ever come to agree with Frances. Life is action and reaction, the proverbial pebble thrown into the pond. We don’t get to the Brave New World in one giant leap. Rather, the descent to depravity is reached by small steps. First, suicide is promoted as a virtue. Vulnerable people like Frances become early casualties. Then follows mercy killing of the terminally ill. From there, it’s a hop, skip and a jump to killing people who don’t have a good “quality” of life, perhaps with the prospect of organ harvesting thrown in as a plum to society.

And that is precisely what is happening.

This couple didn’t just kill themselves, they did it in a way to create a public controversy.  That means we have a right to comment about what they did and what they believed.  They didn’t just devastate their family, they hurt society.  That makes what they did triply wrong.


191 posted on 08/08/2010 11:41:52 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
I cannot help but wonder what Terri was thinking as she was being murdered.

Thread by me.

Former ‘locked-in’ patient speaks of her will to live

A mother of two has revealed how she never lost her will to live after an illness left her paralysed and unable to speak for 18 months.

Kerry Pink was left suffering from a condition known as ‘locked-in syndrome’ by an undiagnosed neurological illness when she was just 35.

Mrs Pink, writing in the Daily Mail, said: “My memories are blurred. But some things remain absolutely certain. I know that however dark the twilight world I inhabited, I never lost my will to live.

Determined

“I was always determined to come back home. And it was my absolute faith in my husband Greg’s love that propelled me on – that and, of course, the knowledge that my two beloved children needed me there to care for them.”

Her comments come in the wake of a legal challenge by Tony Nicklinson, who also suffers from ‘locked-in syndrome’, to force the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue guidance clarifying whether his wife would be prosecuted for murder if she kills him.

Mrs Pink, whose determination is likely to strengthen calls for the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia to remain firm, also recalled how at one point during her illness she heard her doctors advising her husband that she wouldn’t make it through.

Terror

Describing the moment she said: “I remember a flash of abject terror, then anger. I clearly recall thinking: ‘How dare they say I’m not going to pull through.’

“I don’t ever recall being worried that the doctors would allow me to die. I always had absolute faith that Greg would not let them.”

And she also recalls how her family kept her going by talking to her and telling her to keep fighting.

Love

She says she remebers her children saying to her: “Mummy we love you. Come home soon.”

And while many people may have given up on her at one time, Mrs Pink is now able to walk a few steps and has recovered all of her speech.

And, with the help of her family or a carer, she is able to socialise and visit shops, pubs and restaurants.

Her comments come after Richard Rudd, who currently suffers from ‘locked-in syndrome’, used eye movements to signal to doctors that he wanted to live as they were about to switch off his life support machine.

Overjoyed

Mrs Pink said that she wanted to show Mr Rudd that it “is worth battling on”.

She added: “When the day of my home-coming finally arrived I was overjoyed. AJ, then 12, yelled, ‘Mummy’ and raced down the ramp they’d put in for my wheelchair.

“Georgie, ten, peeped shyly round the door and as Greg wheeled me into the house there were tears of happiness in all our eyes.

Laughter

“Today my life is rich in love and laughter and I revel in my children’s achievements. AJ, now 20, is a mechanical engineer and Georgie, 18, is training in childcare.”

Last month a severely disabled woman urged other disabled people who may feel like ending their lives not to abandon hope for the future.

Marini McNeilly, who also suffers from ‘locked-in syndrome’, is paralysed and can only move her face, head and, very slightly, her fingers.

But in an interview with The Times newspaper she called for other sufferers not to give up hope, saying: “Hope is the last thing you should lose.”

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

192 posted on 08/08/2010 11:45:48 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


193 posted on 08/09/2010 6:55:33 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
The culture of death has long sought to change the meaning of words to advance their agenda.

Thread by markomalley.

“Get a Life!”

“Get a life!”  An angry shout from a passing care reached our ears.  And again, a little later, came the same cry from another car: “Get a life!”

Irony of ironies.

For this is exactly what we hope to do: get a life (saved).

Now “Get a life!” is certainly not the worst thing that someone hears as they pray in front of a Planned Parenthood or abortion mill.  Much worse remarks are flung at us. Yet I am struck by this irony.  Can it be that they do not realize that these places deal in death?  Some have said we are ‘blocking freedom’. Freedom from what?  Is freedom the same as liberty?  Can we have liberty without life?  Isn’t life the first right of an American?  Is there a difference between freedom and license?  Does anyone know this?

“It’s not your body”, is hollered at us. No, it is not. Nor is it the body of the woman that is being sacrificed on the altar of abortion.  It is not her body either.  She may well, in most cases, have had a choice prior to this moment. But now there should be no “choice” which is a word perverted to mean abortion.

“Reproductive Health” is the innocuous term used to cover up the abomination of abortion.  Some even claim a religious veil on this intrinsic evil with some clergy and others promoting the decimation of peoples.  Or there are the countless others who remain silent or “neutral” in the face of the greatest evil of our age.  They might say, “I am personally opposed, but…” ; they look the other way while millions of unborn children die.

Get a life!  Yes, I have a life. But the child dismembered in the abortion clinic will not “get a life”. The mother will go on doing whatever she is doing but the little soul is returned to God before drawing breath. And the mother’s soul dies.  Get a life!  The life of God in the souls of those who promote, provide, and procure abortion dies.  For them we pray that reconciliation and repentance be found.

Get a life!  God is the Author of life.  It is the devil who deals in death. Demonic is the institution that deals death.  The devil, that “liar and the father of lies…a murderer from the beginning” as Jesus states in the 8th chapter of the Gospel of St. John, is the one behind “reproductive choice”.  Ultimately it must be realized that “we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness” (Eph 6:12). This is a spiritual battle.  We must call on our spiritual weapons to fight it.  This combat is one done on our knees. The legal system will not bring about the changes needed in hearts and souls. We beg the Author of Life for the graces needed to touch hearts and souls to embrace life, to “get a life”.


194 posted on 08/15/2010 10:18:45 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The death mongers are dropping all pretenses that they just want "dignity" for the terminally ill.

Thread by me.

Wesley J. Smith: Dutch Culture of Death - Now, Proposed All Comers Suicide Clinics

There is no denying the evidence that euthanasia consciousness leads to a broader culture of death that eventually accepts all comers.  Latest examples from the Netherlands, which probably has the most liberal legalized euthanasia law in the world:

The Dutch pressure group Right to Die NL (NVVE) is investigating the feasibility of setting up a clinic for suicide and euthanasia. It would help people who sincerely wish to die and have nowhere else to turn. The NVVE says the clinic could assist people with chronic psychiatric problems, with Alzheimer’s or dementia and people who feel they have “completed” their life. These categories of people do not meet the requirements of hospices, which specialise in terminal care. Euthanasia is available in most Dutch hospices. The NVVE would like to see the “life’s end” clinic made part of an ordinary hospital or nursing home.

Perhaps they are trying to catch up with Switzerland’s suicide clinics.  Regardless, their logic is impecable. Once killing is considered an acceptable answer to human suffering, nihilism is unleashed and the “what” that causes “suffering” ceases to matter. Culture of death, Wesley?  What culture of death?


195 posted on 08/15/2010 10:22:05 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
CBS can hardly contain their enthusiasm for Zero's death panels.

Thread by me.

The Cost of Dying: End-of-Life Care (CBS Pro-Death Panel Propaganda)

(CBS) This story was originally published on Nov. 22, 2009. It was updated on Aug. 6, 2010.

Every medical study ever conducted has concluded that 100 percent of all Americans will eventually die. This comes as no great surprise, but the amount of money being spent at the very end of people's lives probably will.

Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives. That's more than the budget for the Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of Education. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact. Most of the bills are paid for by the federal government with few or no questions asked.

Now you might think this would have been an obvious thing for Congress to address when it passed health care reform, but as we reported last November in the midst of the debate, what use to be a bipartisan issue has become a politically explosive one - a perfect example of the rising costs that threaten to bankrupt the country and how hard it is to rein them in.

Marcia Klish is either being saved by medical technology or being prevented from dying a natural death.

She is 71 years old and suffering from the complications of colon surgery and a hospital-acquired infection. She has been unconscious in the intensive care unit at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., for the better part of a week.

One of her doctors, Ira Byock, told "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft it costs up to $10,000 a day to maintain someone in the intensive care unit. Some patients remain here for weeks or even months; one has been there for six months.

"This is the way so many Americans die. Something like 18 to 20 percent of Americans spend their last days in an ICU," Byock told Kroft. "And, you know, it's extremely expensive. It's uncomfortable. Many times they have to be sedated so that they don't reflexively pull out a tube, or sometimes their hands are restrained. This is not the way most people would want to spend their last days of life. And yet this has become almost the medical last rites for people as they die."

Dr. Byock leads a team that treats and counsels patients with advanced illnesses.

He says modern medicine has become so good at keeping the terminally ill alive by treating the complications of underlying disease that the inevitable process of dying has become much harder and is often prolonged unnecessarily.

"Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying. But in fact, there are things worse. Most generally, it's having someone you love die badly," Byock said.

Asked what he means by "die badly," Byock told Kroft, "Dying suffering. Dying connected to machines. I mean, denial of death at some point becomes a delusion, and we start acting in ways that make no sense whatsoever. And I think that's collectively what we're doing."

A vast majority of Americans say they want to die at home, but 75 percent die in a hospital or a nursing home.

"How do so many people end up in the hospital?" Kroft asked Dr. Elliott Fisher, a researcher at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy.

"It's the path of least resistance," Fisher said.

The institute did a detailed analysis of Medicare records for patients in the last two years of their lives. Fisher says it is more efficient for doctors to manage patients who are seriously ill in a hospital situation, and there are other incentives that affect the cost and the care patients receive. Among them: the fact that most doctors get paid based on the number of patients that they see, and most hospitals get paid for the patients they admit.

"The way we set up the system right now, primary care physicians don't have time to spend an hour with you, see how you respond, if they wanted to adjust your medication," Fisher said. "So, the easiest thing for everybody up the stream is to admit you to the hospital. I think 30 percent of hospital stays in the United States are probably unnecessary given what our research looks like."

And once someone is admitted to the hospital, Fisher says, they're likely to be seen by a dozen or more specialists who will conduct all kinds of tests, whether they're absolutely essential or not.

Meredith Snedeker's 85-year-old mother spent her last two months shuttling between a nursing home and community hospital in New Jersey, suffering from advanced heart and liver disease.

Dorothy Glas was a former nurse who had signed a living will expressing her wishes that no extraordinary measures be taken to keep her alive. But that didn't stop a legion of doctors from conducting batteries of tests.

"I can't tell you all the tests they took. But I do know that she saw over 13 specialists," Snedeker told Kroft.

Asked what kind of specialists, Snedeker said, "Neurological, gastroenterologists. She even saw a psychiatrist because they said she was depressed. And she told the psychiatrist, 'Of course, I'm depressed. I'm dying.'"

When we reviewed the medical records, we discovered that there weren't 13 specialists who attended to her mother: there were 25, each of whom billed Medicare separately.

The hospital told 60 Minutes that all the tests were appropriate, and an independent physician said this case was fairly typical.

Among the tests conducted was a pap smear, which is generally only recommended for much younger women, not an octogenarian who was already dying of liver and heart disease.

"In medicine we have turned the laws of supply and demand upside down," Elliot Fisher said. "Supply drives its own demand. If you're running a hospital, you have to keep that hospital full of paying patients. In order to, you know, to meet your payroll. In order to pay off your bonds."

"So, the more M.R.I. machines you have, the more people are gonna get M.R.I. tests?" Kroft asked.

"Absolutely," Fisher said.

"There are people that would argue this is great medicine. You get tested for every conceivable, possible malady you might have," Kroft pointed out.

"Often the best care is saying 'Let's see how you do on this particular treatment for a couple of days. And see if you respond.' Not necessarily doing a lot of tests," Fisher said. "The best care may well be staying home with a trial of a new medication, rather than being admitted to a hospital where you can be exposed to a hospital-acquired infection. We have a system that rewards much, much more care."

In almost every business, cost-conscious customers and consumers help keep prices down. But not with health care. That's because the customers and consumers who are receiving the care aren't the ones paying the bill.

"The perverse incentives that exist in our system are magnified at end of life," David Walker, who used to be the government's former top accountant, told Kroft.

Walker used to be the head of the Government Accountability Office. He now heads the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which is a strong advocate for reducing government debt. He says that 85 percent of the health care bills are paid by the government or private insurers, not by patients themselves. In fact most patients don't even look at the bills.

"Does that make any sense to have, I mean, most things you buy, the customer has some impact," Kroft remarked.

"We have a system where everybody wants as much as they can get, and they don't understand the true cost of what they're getting. The one thing that could bankrupt America is out of control health care costs. And if we don't get them under control, that's where we're headed," Walker said.

With end-of-life care, there are also delicate cultural and political considerations.

Patients, with their families' support, want to cling to life, and it is often easier to hope for a medical miracle than to discuss how they want to die.

When we met Charlie Haggart, he was 68 years old and suffering from liver and kidney failure. He wanted a double transplant, which would cost about $450,000. But doctors have told him he's currently too weak to be a candidate for the procedure.

At a meeting with Haggart's family and his doctors, Dr. Byock raised the awkward question of what should be done if he got worse and his heart or lungs failed.

Byock told him that resuscitation rarely works on someone in Haggart's condition, and that it could lead to a drawn out death in the ICU.

"Either way you decide, we will honor your choice, and that's the truth," Byock reassured Haggart. "Should we do CPR if your heart were to suddenly stop?"

"Yes," he replied.

"You'd be okay with being in the ICU again?" Byock asked.

"Yes," Haggart said.

"I know it's an awkward conversation," Byock said.

"It beats second place," Haggart joked, laughing.

"You don't think it makes any sense?" Kroft asked the doctor.

"It wouldn't be my choice. It's not what I advise people. At the present time, it's their right to request it. And Medicare pays for it," Byock said.

Haggart died a few months later. A family member told us that his condition deteriorated so much they decided to let him go peacefully.

But when it comes to expensive, hi-tech treatments with some potential to extend life, there are few restrictions.

By law, Medicare cannot reject any treatment based upon cost. It will pay $55,000 for patients with advanced breast cancer to receive the chemotherapy drug Avastin, even though it extends life only an average of a month and a half; it will pay $40,000 for a 93-year-old man with terminal cancer to get a surgically implanted defibrillator if he happens to have heart problems too.

"I think you cannot make these decisions on a case-by-case basis," Byock said. "It would be much easier for us to say 'We simply do not put defibrillators into people in this condition.' Meaning your age, your functional status, the ability to make full benefit of the defibrillator. Now that's going to outrage a lot of people."

"But you think that should happen?" Kroft asked.

"I think at some point it has to happen," Byock said.

"Well, this is a version then of pulling Grandma off the machine?" Kroft asked.

"You know, I have to say, I think that's offensive. I spend my life in the service of affirming life. I really do. To say we're gonna pull Grandma off the machine by not offering her liver transplant or her fourth cardiac bypass surgery or something is really just scurrilous. And it's certainly scurrilous when we have 46 million Americans who are uninsured," Byock said.

"Every other major industrialized nation but the United States has a budget for how much taxpayer funds are allocated to health care, because they've all recognized that you could bankrupt your country without it," David Walker told Kroft.

Asked if he is talking about rationing, Walker said, "Listen, we ration now. We just don't ration rationally. There's no question that there's gonna have to be some form of rationing. Let me be clear: Individuals and employers ought to be able to spend as much money as they want to have things done. But when you're talking about taxpayer resources, there's a limit as to how much resources we have."

But if recent history is any guide, rationing has become the third rail of American politics, even though Elliot Fisher says we already limit health care based on income and whether people have insurance.

After analyzing Medicare records for end-of-life treatment, Fisher is convinced that there is so much waste in the present system that if it were eliminated there would be no need to ration beneficial care to anyone.

Multiple studies have concluded that most patients and their families are not even familiar with end-of-life options and things like living wills, home hospice and pain management.

"The real problem is that many of the patients that are being treated aggressively, if you ask them, they would prefer less aggressive care. They would prefer to be cared for at home. They'd prefer to go to hospice. If they were given a choice. But we don't adequately give them a choice," Fisher said.

"At some point, most doctors know that a patient's not likely to get better," Kroft remarked.

"Absolutely," Fisher agreed. "Sometimes there's a good conversation. Often there's not. You know, patients are left alone to sort of figure it out themselves."

That's what Meredith Snedeker says happened to her mother. Though she received $40,000 worth of care in her last two months of life, not one of her 25 doctors sat down with Dorothy Glas and her family and discussed how she wanted to die.

Marcia Klish might have lingered for quite some time in the intensive care unit at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. But Dr. Byock and his team had a number of meetings with her closest friend, Barbara Menchin. She said Klish would not want to be kept alive on machines if there was no meaningful hope of recovery.

It was decided the doctors would not try to resuscitate her if her condition worsened, which it soon did.

"Her heart has just flipped into a rhythm that doesn't allow it to beat effectively," Byock told Menchin.

Klish died a few moments later.

"This is a hard time in human life. But it's just a part of life," Byock said.

"Collectively, as a culture, we really have to acknowledge that we're mortal," he said. "Get over it. And start looking at what a healthy, morally robust way for people to die looks like."

If you are wondering whether the health care reform legislation passed in March addressed any of the end-of-life issues raised in our story, the short answer is no.

The new law is designed to slow the growth of Medicare expenses, and includes a pilot program to reward doctors for the quality of care they provide rather than the quantity. But it also reduces Medicare payments for hospice programs that studies have shown to be very cost efficient.


196 posted on 08/15/2010 10:24:53 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


197 posted on 08/15/2010 10:25:59 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Over-the-counter abortions are soon to be a reality.

Thread by markomalley.

FDA approves ella as 5-day-after emergency contraceptive (a/k/a abortion pill)

The Food and Drug Administration approved a controversial new form of emergency contraception Friday that can prevent a pregnancy as many as five days after sex.

The decision to allow the sale of the pill, which will be marketed under the brand name "ella," was welcomed by family-planning proponents as a crucial new option to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But critics condemned the decision, arguing that it was misleading to approve ella as a contraceptive because the drug could also be used to induce an abortion.

(snip)

Supporters and opponents both said the decision marked the clearest evidence of a shift in the influence of political ideology at the FDA. The last time the FDA considered an emergency contraceptive -- making Plan B available without a prescription -- the decision was mired in controversy amid similar concerns voiced by antiabortion activists. After repeated delays, Plan B was approved for sale to women 17 and older without a prescription.

Ella, which was approved in Europe last year and is available in at least 22 countries, was unanimously endorsed by an FDA advisory committee less than two months ago. Women will need a prescription but could keep a supply at home.

"Women's health advocates appreciate that the review process for ella was consistent with standard FDA procedure and based on scientific evidence, not politics," said Kirsten Moore, president of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. "Approval of ella is further evidence that the FDA is committed to restoring scientific integrity in its decisions."

For their part, critics said the decision reflected the abortion-rights stance of the Obama administration.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


198 posted on 08/15/2010 10:27:58 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Another group in Canada has decided to fight back.

Thread by me.

'Living with dignity' is group's message

MONTREAL - According to surveys, 80 per cent of Quebecers, including doctors, say they are in favour of "dying with dignity," but a new grassroots group is quietly building opposition to the campaign to legalize euthanasia.

"Our biggest concern -and what's at stake here -is that we don't want the practice of euthanasia smuggled into the public health care system under the guise of medical treatment," said Linda Couture, director of Living With Dignity, a nonpartisan, nonreligious group focused on end-of-life issues.

Couture's group has started an online campaign calling on Quebecers to say "no" to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

A separate group of about 50 McGill University professors, including several from faculties of medicine and pharmacy, recently warned that Quebec risks making doctors "society's executioners" by attempting to decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Both groups submitted briefs to the National Assembly committee that is to hold public hearings on the issue in September.

"We want to make sure people know what's involved and what their rights are," said Couture, whose group sees itself as the "voice of the silent and vulnerable," including the elderly, the sick and the handicapped.

As soon as its English-language website went live last week (the French site was up in June), signatures on the manifesto jumped to more than 1,000, Couture said.

The group is concerned that the Quebec College of Physicians, the province's medical regulatory body, last year came out in favour of euthanasia as appropriate care under certain circumstances when death is imminent and inevitable.

A debate on end-of-life issues is a good thing but Quebecers are being asked to give their opinions on a topic few know much about, Couture said.

There's a lot of confusion with definition of terms in end-of-life care, Couture added -for example, between palliative sedation and euthanasia.

Few people want to suffer but there's no need to kill the patient to kill the pain, she said.

"We have a lot of unanswered questions: How much will it cost in Quebec? Who will pay for that? Who will practise (euthanasia) and where? How will that change the relationship between doctor and patient?"

Her concerns about terminology echo the Canadian Medical Association Journal position that confusion over euthanasia burdens the end-of-life debate. "Opposing sides use it to further their ideological views: murder vs. mercy; the right to live vs. the right to die with dignity; selfishness vs. compassion," Ken Flegel and Paul Hebert (senior editor and editor-in-chief) wrote in an editorial titled Time to Move on From the Euthanasia Debate.

They called on doctors to promote honest dialogue. For example, adding enough sedation to relieve pain and agitation and improve comfort in a cancer patient may increase the probability of death -but that's not euthanasia.

Those who oppose euthanasia are easy to mobilize, fanned by religion or ideology, said Helene Bolduc of the Association quebecoise pour le droit de mourir dans la dignite.

"It's not that we're fanatic about euthanasia. We want choice for those who are sick and suffering and can't go on anymore."

For information about the Living With Dignity manifesto, go to www.vivredignite.com/en/welcome.html

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

199 posted on 08/15/2010 10:31:06 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I recall some posters stating when we discussed Terri's death, "Get over it" as if it were something like spilling coffee or breaking a plate.

A particularly offensive statement - to me - is their twisted use of the phrase "death with dignity."

200 posted on 08/15/2010 10:32:00 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-230 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson