Skip to comments.NEWS ALERT! Brain-Injured Wife Goes Without Food or Water for Seven Weeks
Posted on 09/17/2010 4:15:52 PM PDT by wagglebee
click here to read article
Wow. A miracle.
This thread is a valuable resource. Imho, posting it regularly, perhaps monthly would be a very good thing.
I post the Terri Dailies on a regular basis.
It has always been a mystery to me that people think it is better to kill someone so that they do not die of their illness! It makes no sense!
This girl obviously wanted to live...she was hanging on. She may have known more than they ever knew. She said she didn’t want to live as a vegetable...but, did she really want to die of dehydration and hunger? When you are thinking these things over; ponder that question. Get facts about starvation and dehydration, THEN decide.
Thread by originalbuckeye.
The 37-year-old, left paralysed from the neck down following a car accident in 2002, had a bedside camera set up at his home after becoming concerned about the standard of care he was receiving. Footage recorded only a few days after it was installed shows Miss Aylward fiddling with the ventilator before a high-pitched warning tone sounds, indicating it is switched off. Mr Merrett is then left fighting for life as the nurse panics about what to do next, unable to restart the ventilator or properly operate resuscitation equipment. It was not until 21 minutes later that paramedics who rushed to the scene managed to turn the life support machine back on. But by that time, Mr Merrett had suffered serious brain damage, which has left him with the mental capacity of a young child. Before the incident, he was able to talk, use a wheelchair and operate a computer using voice-activated technology. His family claims that the brain damage has severely diminished his quality of life, and he is now mounting legal action. Miss Aylward, who was caring for Mr Merrett at his home in Devizes, Wilts, has been suspended while the incident is investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Ambition 24hours, the agency which supplied her, said it could not comment as an internal investigation was ongoing. The NHS Wiltshire Primary Care Trust, which was responsible for providing care for Mr Merrett, said it was unable to comment due to pending legal action. Karren Reynolds, Mr Merretts sister, told the BBCs Inside Out programme: "His life is completely changed. He doesn't have a life now. "He has an existence but it's nowhere near what it was before. He is very brain damaged compared to what he was before.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Thread by me.
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The president of Planned Parenthood has argued that the new federal health care reform ought to consider funding all contraception with taxpayer dollars because preventing new children leads to less government expense.
In an appearance on the Bill Press radio show, PP president Cecile Richards said that, although the costs of the federal health care bill already promise to skyrocket out of control, federal officials ought to consider covering birth control a priority because of the "cost savings" benefit of fewer children being born.
"I think it's important, Bill, to understand that unlike some other issues of cost, birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money," said Richards. "So an investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don't have children that they weren't planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy.
"So we actually feel that covering birth control is not only it's the right thing to do for women, it's good for women it's good for their health care, but it's frankly good public policy."
The remarks reflect sentiments aired by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when prompted to justify the contraceptive funding in last year's massive stimulus bill. The speaker explained that preventing births "will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
Richards also touted artificial birth control as "the most normative medical care that exists in America," calling the push for its universal availability a "no-brainer."
Planned Parenthood and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently launched a massive campaign, called "Birth Control Matters," to pressure the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that all prescription contraception is completely covered by health insurers under "preventive care."
Rita Diller, the national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International, indicated that the true reason for the abortion giant's campaign was not expanded contraceptive availability, but an expanded profit margin.
"In reality, birth control is already widely available to women and even young girls, on a sliding scale basis, so that those who cannot afford the dangerous steroidal pills can receive them at little or no cost," Diller told LifeSiteNews.com. Therefore, she said, covering all birth control as preventive care "will not increase its availability, but will dramatically increase Planned Parenthoods profit margin, by not only requiring new private health plans to cover 100% of the cost, but also requiring state Medicaid programs to pay 100% of the cost for all Medicaid recipients."
Diller noted that, according to the testimony of former Planned Parenthood chief financial officer P. Victor Gonzalez, the organization purchases contraceptives "at rock bottom prices and resells it at up to 12 times its acquisition cost."
"If Medicaid is required to pay 100 percent of the price Planned Parenthood charges for prescription birth control, it will be laughing all the way to the bank, at our expense," she said.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has challenged Planned Parenthood's campaign, arguing that contraception and sterilization "prevent not a disease condition, but the healthy condition known as fertility." In addition, the bishops pointed out the possibly severe repercussions such a mandate would pose for conscientious health care providers, especially in the case of abortifacient "contraceptive" drugs such as ella and other emergency contraception.
Thread by me.
TORONTO, Ontario, October 27, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) After proving the humanity of the unborn in an August video, teen pro-life orator Lia Mills has released a new video aiming to prove that the unborn are also persons by virtue of being human, as are other classes of humans who have been denied the status of person in the past.
The video, released Tuesday, comes out as Lia prepares to address the International Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa, taking place this Thursday through Saturday. She will be joined by a star-studded cast of major leaders from the international pro-life movement, including North American pro-life pioneer Dr. Jack Willke.
"The unborn are definitely human. It's obvious and its supported by science, says Lia in her new video. She points out, however, that people now generally accept the unborns humanity and argue instead that they can be killed because they are not yet 'persons'.
"How can we tell when exactly the unborn gain their personhood?" she asks.
To help, she goes to a dictionary, which defined person as a human being. Since the unborn are humans, that means based on this definition the unborn are persons as well," she says. But she then concedes that the issue is more complicated, because the definition of person changes depending on the academic discipline. In law, she points out, a person is whoever the governing authorities decide to give rights to. ... Under the law, you're only a person if the lawmakers say you are.
Lia then discusses four examples in history when lawmakers denied personhood to a certain class of people Jews in the Holocaust, black slaves in the US, North American natives, and women.
"The Jewish people were stripped of their personhood and thereby stripped of their rights and their value, and that's why all of the atrocities committed against them were considered acceptable," she explains.
People are quick to judge the Germans at the Holocaust, but we have our own Holocaust that's taking the lives of millions of unborn babies every year, says Lia. We do it using the same tactics that the Germans did. We deny personhood to the unborn and thereby deny them their rights and justify our own actions.
"Who decided that the Jews weren't persons, that the natives and slaves weren't persons, and that women weren't persons? she asks. Lawmakers."
Who decides today that the unborn aren't persons? Lawmakers.
Personhood has become a fabricated term used by lawmakers to decide who has rights and who doesn't, she continues. Personhood is denied to [the unborn] because they're dependent, because they look different, and because they can't do what older babies, children, and adults can do.
Should those in power be allowed to decide which humans are 'persons' and which are not, who gets rights and who doesn't? she asks in conclusion. Once you allow one group of humans to lose their personhood, every other group's personhood becomes vulnerable and no one is safe.
When will someone else decide that you're not a person?
The International Pro-Life Conference will be the first of its kind to take place in Ottawa in 20 years. Lia will be speaking at the conference Friday with Rebecca Richmond of the National Campus Life Network on youth in the pro-life movement.
Conference speakers include, among others, revered pro-life leader and pioneer Dr. Jack Willke (President, International Right to Life Federation), John Smeaton (President of The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, UK), Bill Saunders (Senior Counsel, Americans United for Life), Brad Mattes (winner of a 2010 Emmy Award for his pro-life TV show, Facing Life Head-on), and John-Henry Westen (Editor-in-Chief of LifeSiteNews.com).
A ticketed banquet on Friday night will feature Rev. Johnny Hunter of the Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN), and Canadian author and artist Michael OBrien will speak at a ticketed lunch on Saturday.
The conference is sponsored by Campaign Life Coalition, LifeCanada, LifeSiteNews, and the International Right to Life Federation. It will run from Thursday, October 28 to Saturday, October 30 and will be held at the Hampton Inn Hotel & Conference Centre, 100 Coventry Rd, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Thread by topher.
San Diego, October 27, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) As Americans approach the eve of election week, Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke has said in a new interview that they must recognize their solemn obligation to defend their unborn brothers and sisters when approaching the voting booth.
You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion, the archbishop told Thomas McKenna, President of Catholic Action for Faith and Family, in an interview released this week.
McKenna interviewed Cardinal-designate Burke in Rome on Oct. 20 literally hours after it was announced he would be elevated to cardinal.
(Click here to send a note of congratulations to the archbishop)
The archbishop told McKenna that, As a bishop its my obligation in fact, to urge the faithful to carry out their civic duty in accord with their Catholic faith. Catholics, he said, have a very serious moral obligation in voting to vote for those candidates who would uphold the truth of the moral law, which of course also serves the greatest good of everyone in society.
In recent years Cardinal-designate Burke, who is prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Churchs supreme court, has taught repeatedly that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights may not receive Holy Communion and that Catholics who know of the politicians voting record on these issues cannot vote for them and retain a clear conscience.
In the recent interview, the archbishop explained that such politicians create scandal, which he defined as doing something or omitting to do something that leads other people into confusion or error about the moral good.
Here's the perfect example of Catholics who betray their Catholic faith in political life, as legislators, as judges, or whatever it may be, leading other people to believe that abortion must not be the great evil that it is, or that abortion is in fact a good thing in certain circumstances.
To those who would vote for pro-abortion politicians because they agree with those politicians on other issues, the archbishop said he would say, "Do you follow the golden rule that was taught to us by the Lord himself in the Gospels?"
In other words, he explained, do you do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. Do you really consider it fair to advance some interest you have, which may be a good interest - whether its the environment, or whatever it might be - at the cost of denying to other members of society, especially those who depend upon us completely for life itself, to deny them the right to life?
I think that if most people would reflect in this way, simply in terms of the golden rule, they would realize that no, it can never be right.
The archbishop also pointed out that while some criticize the Church for upholding traditional marriage as a form of "discrimination" against homosexuals, such critics fail to recognize that, The Catholic Church, in teaching that sexual acts between persons of the same sex are intrinsically evil - are against nature itself - is simply announcing the truth, helping people to discriminate right from wrong in terms of their own activities.
While racial and other types of discrimination may be unjust, he said, "There is a discrimination which is perfectly just and good, and namely that's the discrimination between what is right and what is wrong."
In a press release announcing the interview, McKenna commented, Millions of Catholics have no idea its a sin to vote for candidates who favor these grave evils, which attack the very foundations of society." In his interview, said McKenna, "[Cardinal-designate Burke] makes it very clear what the responsibility of every American Catholic will be next Tuesday."
The videotaped interview is available in two five-minute videos on YouTube, and a 25-minute Q&A video interview that is available for broadcast at CatholicAction.org.
Thread by goldendays.
Obamacare Endgame: Doctors Will be Fined or Jailed if they Put Patients First by Dr. Elaina George If Obamacare is completely implemented, doctors will no longer be practicing medicine. They will instead become the drones tasked with deciding who gets the meager healthcare crumbs doled out by the bureaucrats who have the ultimate power over patient life and death. Those who are deemed to have illnesses that require treatments which are not cost effective can expect a one way ticket to a hospice.
Like so many bills passed by Congress, there was a hidden provision in the Stimulus bill passed in 2009. It spends 1.1 billion dollars to create an important piece of the framework for the healthcare bill called the Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. It is based on the false premise that doctors in consultation with their patients dont have the ability to make the right healthcare choices (see executive summary). The council consists of 15 people appointed by the President. They all have one thing in commonthey are all isolated from day to day patient care; and therefore, are insulated from the real practice of the art of medicine. It makes it easy to see patients as a cost center to be controlled. With views of members like Dr Emanuel, who champions the complete-lives system, it is hard to ignore the probability that senior citizens, those with chronic illness, and the very young will be on the outside looking in. This council is another example of the people of this country being told by the government that it knows what is best for us. The framework set up by the stimulus bill merely set the stage for the implementation found in the healthcare reform bill. How can the government get doctors to participate in Obamacare thereby a) willingly destroying the doctor patient relationship, and b) betraying their Hippocratic Oath to provide treatments that they deem to be effective? Simple fear and intimidation. A second board created by the stimulus bill called The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology will determine treatment at the time and place of care. They are charged with deciding the course of treatment for the diagnosis given by the doctor. Now it becomes obvious why there has been a big push towards the implementation of universal electronic medical record use. It becomes a tool to completely control the physician and the patient. Those physicians and hospitals that choose to practice individualized patient care in consultation with their patients will be punished because they are not meaningful users of the system over time. Beginning January 1, 2013 penalties for doing the right thing for a patient will cost the doctor $100,000 for the first offense and jail for the second offense. This will have a chilling effect and may be the straw that completely breaks the foundation of good medicine the doctor patient relationship.
46% of physiciansin a survey by The New England Journal of Medicine stated that they would leave the practice of medicine if Obamacare was implemented. This will only further decrease the quality of healthcare when the 30 million more people enter the system. Maybe thats why there is a big push in the healthcare bill to increase the number of other providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners.
There is no question that rationing will become our future. If you add 30 million more people into a system with fewer resources how could you possibly avoid rationing?
Perhaps those members of Congress who passed this nightmare dont care since they made sure that it wouldnt apply to them.
Thread by me.
LONDON, October 27, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) Unlike gold and platinum, life does not have value in itself, a member of the House of Lords and a campaigner for assisted suicide said in a televised debate last week. Medical professionals need to change their attitude towards assisted suicide, to take into account the wishes of patients who request to die, said Baroness Mary Warnock, known in Britain as the philosopher queen of bioethics.
There is no moral justification why the opinions of judges, lawyers and doctors should override those of the patient [who has expressed a wish to die], she said.
The mission of doctors is to help people, to make their lives better not worse. Sometime death is more desirable than life.
Mary Warnock is known as Britains leading bioethicist and proponent of assisted suicide. She recently commented that the refusal of doctors to participate in assisted suicide is genuinely wicked. Her books include Easeful Death: Is there a case for assisted dying? and Making Babies: Is there a right to have children?
Warnock said that to examine the issue from the law alone was legalistic and trivialised the issue: behind the law is a moral judgment, she said.
Those who argued along with Warnock for the motion of the debate, Assisted Suicide should be legalised: the terminally-ill should have the legal right to be helped to end their lives, included Emily Jackson, professor of law at the London School of Economics and Debbie Purdy, the well-known assisted suicide campaigner with multiple sclerosis. The debate was organised by the debating society, Intelligence Squared, which stages debates on topics of public interest around the world.
During the debate, Prof. Emily Jackson cited research from the American state of Oregon, and the Netherlands, arguing that patients asking for assisted suicide do so because of a loss of autonomy, a loss of dignity, or a loss of the joys of life. She said that it is up to the patient to decide.
Jackson did not mention recent studies showing that in Belgium, where euthanasia is legal, as many as 30 per cent of those killed by doctors did not give consent.
Jacksons assertions were challenged by Lord Alex Carlile QC, a barrister and Liberal Democrat peer, who noted that the law and practice in the Netherlands and Belgium had yet to stand up to a court challenge. He pointed out that with legalised assisted suicide, physicians would be allowed to act as judges, and said that there is no acceptable way to legislate for assisted dying.
Carlile, joint chair of Living and Dying Well, said that there is no reason to trust self-selected death judges and doctors any more than people of any other profession or job. He cited the European Convention on Human Rights, saying that under that agreement, it is only acceptable to take human life in self defence or in war. According to legal definitions in the Convention, assisted suicide constitutes homicide.
Called a leading philosopher, Mary Baroness Warnock was created a life peer in 1985. She was a key figure in the creation of Britains current law on artificial procreation, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill. She was a member of the House of Lords Select Committee on Euthanasia and forms part of a powerful political faction that continues to press for legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."
Of course it is not compassion but murder. Thanks for posting this.
Thanks for the ping!
Thread by me.
In a recent statement, Ludwig Minelli, founder of the Swiss death clinic, Dignitas, called for suicide drugs to be legally available to distraught spouses of his suicide clients should they wish to follow their loved ones in ending their lives.
Assisted suicide has become an increasingly controversial issue as advocates insist it is a humane, dignified way to die. Efforts to turn public opinion in favor of assisted suicide include an appeal to patient autonomy and freedom of choice. Opponents of assisted suicide are criticized for lacking compassion when they try to prevent an elderly, disabled or terminally ill person from deciding to end his or her suffering through suicide.
The choice to end ones life, however, is not an exercise of freedom; it is ultimately a manifestation of loss and despair. The desire to end a painful health condition is one reason for a suicidal tendency, but there are ways to eliminate pain without killing the patient.
By far, the most common reason for a suicidal tendency is ones self-perception as a burden, as not worthy of someone elses time or care. Something is very wrong when people, out of feelings of guilt, fear, or sadness, begin to define their worth and sense of self only in terms of their usefulness to others.
This idea of being a burden shows a lack of hope. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the 11th leading cause of death among the general American population, and the 3rd leading cause of death among young people between the ages of 15 and 24. (What does this lack of hope say about our culture and especially the younger generation?)
Taking ones life is not an act of courage; it is an escape. One could say, however, that the decision to go on living despite difficulties is the supreme act of courage and a significant expression of freedom.
If governments and societies encourage a right to die, among those who are elderly, handicapped, and terminally ill, where then can the line be drawn among others who also wish to end their lives? Does this not undermine suicide prevention efforts and create a double standard, when certain classes of people are officially seen as having good or acceptable suicides?
It is tragic for an elderly or disabled person to say, Im no good like this anymore, Im in pain, Im useless, Im ugly, Im running up medical bills for my family, I want to die and be gone. It is the suicidal person who is a prisoner, who feels trapped.
So where lies true freedom? To be secure about ones dignity and worth, to be convinced that one is immensely loved by God and has infinite value, allows a person to be truly free. In such freedom and security, to consider oneself as a burden is not even an option. Life is still too beautiful, still too full of mystery and wonder, to shut down. If life is a gift, one should never feel guilty for simply existing.
It is the marketing of death as a solution that undermines hope and freedom. But it is the experience of love, authentic love which includes genuine concern and sincere affirmation that inspires hope, which makes a person want to live.
LifeNews.com Note: Kimberly Baker is a staff assistant for the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Thread by Colofornian.
Colorado voters on Tuesday rejected what was said to be the nation's only pro-life amendment.
Personhood Amendment 62, which would have given human rights to the unborn, was defeated by a nearly 3-to-1 margin. This is the second time the pro-life measure was voted down.
"Tonights victory sends a strong message that Colorado is a pro-choice state," Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Monica McCafferty told The Colorado Independent.
After a failed attempt in 2008, "pro-life missionaries" and volunteers were optimistic this time around as they mobilized churches and the pro-life faithful. Language was also altered to define "person" to include "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being" as opposed to "any human being from the moment of fertilization."
Opponents criticized the amendment, saying it would not only outlaw abortions but also ban emergency contraception that interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg as well as embryonic stem cell research.
But proponents of Amendment 62 pointed to the approximately 20,000 deaths through surgical abortion that occur every year in Colorado. Tens of thousands more are killed through chemical abortions and research, said Personhood Colorado Director Gualberto Garcia Jones.
"Twenty-thousand people is enough to fill the Pepsi Center. Twenty-thousand people with little arms and legs, eyes and ears, eyelashes and fingernails, and rapidly beating hearts are exterminated," he wrote in an earlier commentary.
"Amendment 62 stands for the revolutionary ... proposition that all human beings are created equal and are endowed by their Creator, not the government or the Supreme Court, with inalienable rights such as the right to life, due process of law, and equality of justice," he said. "Amendment 62 loves all human life with a wild abandon; the opposition loves power of the developed over the developing human being with a fierce defiance of science, reason and humanitarianism."
The measure was endorsed by Pam Tebow, mother of NFL rookie quarterback Tim Tebow.
"A child's right to life begins at conception, not at birth," stated Pam, who had been pressured to have an abortion by her doctor when she was pregnant with Tim.
Amendment 62 was the only pro-life law on the 2010 ballot in the nation, according to Personhood Colorado. Meanwhile, signatures are being collected in other states, including Florida, to get a personhood measure on a future ballot.
Thread by me.
France has just awarded the Légion d'honneur to a woman who has been a locked-in quadriplegic for 30 years. Maryannick Pavageau received the distinction for her battle against euthanasia. A resident of Sainte Nazaire, on the Atlantic coast, she gave an interview about her life to the local newspaper after this weeks award:
"I was 30 years old when I was struck down by this syndrome after a stroke. The disease was little known at the time, but Jean-Dominique Bauby has described it in his book The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. It is a paralysis of the limbs, sometimes more, but you retain consciousness. I was one of the first to survive. After three months in a coma, I woke up to the amazement of the doctors! I started speech therapy and I spent 32 months in the hospital."
Mme Pavageau is a member of the Association of Locked-in Syndrome (ALIS) and contributed to the 2008 Leonetti commission report about euthanasia in France. "All life is worth living, she told the newspaper. It can be beautiful, regardless of the state we are in. And change is always possible. That is the message of hope that I wish to convey. I am firmly against euthanasia because it is not physical suffering that guides the desire to die but a moment of discouragement, feeling like a burden... All those who ask to die are mostly looking for love."
Despite her paralysis and her need for round-the-clock care, she was inspired by her love for her family to fight for life. "My life is not what it could have been but it's my life. Finally, I have been faithful to my values. I had the love of my husband and my daughter Miriam, who was two years old at the time and that gave me the strength to fight. Despite my difficulties speaking Miriam has always understood me.
She is proud to receive Frances highest decoration: The Legion of Honor is a great recognition and I am very proud and excited to be decorated. Everyone who has a just and strong message to pass on should receive it."
Two years ago, she wrote an article in which she strongly criticised discussion of euthanasia in the media. Public statements produce unexpected collateral damage amongst people suffering from serious illness such as Locked-In Syndrome. We are constant consumers of TV and radio programs. In response to our deep discouragement and who is free from that? we are only offered this final right, hypocritically baptised as a sign of love. A recent study on the quality of life of locked-in sydndrome patients found, to the astonishment of the medical profession, that when asked if you had a heart attack, would you want to be resuscitated?, the great majority of us answered: Yes.
Thanks for the ping!
An amazing story.