We stand at a cultural crossroads, the intersection of the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death. At this critical juncture, the choices we make matter, now and forever. Therefore, the members of Life is Worth Living, a lay apostolate, have chosen to promote the Culture of Life.
Our mission is to strive to affirm -- in thought, word, and deed -- the infinite preciousness of human life; to encourage service to others rather than radical self-interest; and to promote a climate of public opinion that recognizes the right of all human beings to life, respect, compassionate care, appropriate medical treatment, and equality under the law.
Urgent Euthanasia Update
posted by Webmaster
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Help Stop Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Human Life Alliance Weekly Wire, August 14, 2008
In Washington state a measure will appear on the November ballot allowing voters to decide if they should become the second state in the U.S. to legalize assisted suicide. Currently, Oregon is the only state where assisted suicide is legal.
In California, Assemblymember Patty Berg, has repeatedly tried to legalize assisted suicide. Her bill AB 2747 is being opposed by pro-life forces in the state.
You can make a difference educating people about end-of-life issues. HLA's Imposed Death can help people in your community understand important end-of-life decisions.
If you are in California or Washington state, please contact us about our rush-delivery services. Don't spend another day without this life-saving resource at your fingertips.
Labels: Euthanasia
Food and Water are Basic Human Rights
posted by Julie Grimstad
Thursday, May 22, 2008
As a patient advocate and a speaker on medical decision-making, the questions I am most frequently asked concern the withdrawal of food and fluids from persons who are seriously ill or persistently non-responsive (often referred to as being in a persistent vegetative state). If my audience is Catholic, I quote Catholic sources, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and statements made by Popes and Bishops. If not, my answer is basically the same without naming the source of my wisdom. I get a kick out of non-Catholics who respond enthusiastically. For instance, after I spoke to a Lutherans for Life group, one woman asked, “How did you gain the knowledge and ability to address this confusing issue so clearly?” With a chuckle I confessed to “plagiarizing” the teachings of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church, more than any other entity, unambiguously proclaims the truth, very clearly drawing the line between good and evil, right and wrong. Medical decision-making, in particular, calls for such sound moral guidance.
The Church defines euthanasia as “an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering” and calls it a “murderous act” [CCC, 2277]. Very simply then, if the withdrawal of food and fluids will be or is intended to be the cause of a person’s death, it is a morally unacceptable murderous act. In 1992, the Committee for Pro-Life Activities of the National Council of Catholic Bishops warned:
…nutrition and hydration (whether orally administered or medically assisted) are sometimes withdrawn not because a patient is dying, but precisely because a patient is not dying (or not dying quickly enough) and someone believes it would be better if he or she did, generally because the patient is perceived as having an unacceptably low “quality of life” or as imposing burdens on others.
Promoters of euthanasia call it “death with dignity,” a term that often masks a disdain for those who are weakest and most in need of human kindness. The professional obligation of physicians and nurses is to care for and preserve life where they can, not to preside over the planned deaths of patients whom they or others deem “better off dead”. Nevertheless, widespread legal and medical endorsement for ending lives by dehydration and starvation has misled many people.
On March 20, 2004, Pope John Paul II, for those who would listen, definitively put an end to any confusion about what the Church teaches on this matter. Addressing the International Congress on “Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State”, the pope said, “I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.” He called their administration “morally obligatory”. Like any seriously ill person, a person in a “vegetative state”, he said, “has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.).”
In 2005, when the fate of Terri Schiavo was being decided by a Florida court, Archbishop Raymond Burke spoke in defense of her life:
If Mrs. Schiavo were facing imminent death, or were unable to receive food and water without harm, then removing nutrition and hydration would be morally permissible. It is however never permissible to remove food and water to cause death. Food and water are basic human needs, and therefore basic human rights.
Archbishop Burke’s statement is a basic guide for making moral decisions regarding nutrition and hydration. It is also prudent to remember the Pope’s words that provision of food and water, even by artificial means, is not a medical act. Food and fluids do not become “treatment” when they are taken by tube anymore than penicillin or Pepto-Bismol becomes “food” when taken by mouth.
The Catholic Church, more than any other entity, unambiguously proclaims the truth, very clearly drawing the line between good and evil, right and wrong. Medical decision-making, in particular, calls for such sound moral guidance.
The Church defines euthanasia as “an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering” and calls it a “murderous act” [CCC, 2277]. Very simply then, if the withdrawal of food and fluids will be or is intended to be the cause of a person’s death, it is a morally unacceptable murderous act. In 1992, the Committee for Pro-Life Activities of the National Council of Catholic Bishops warned:
…nutrition and hydration (whether orally administered or medically assisted) are sometimes withdrawn not because a patient is dying, but precisely because a patient is not dying (or not dying quickly enough) and someone believes it would be better if he or she did, generally because the patient is perceived as having an unacceptably low “quality of life” or as imposing burdens on others.
Promoters of euthanasia call it “death with dignity,” a term that often masks a disdain for those who are weakest and most in need of human kindness. The professional obligation of physicians and nurses is to care for and preserve life where they can, not to preside over the planned deaths of patients whom they or others deem “better off dead”. Nevertheless, widespread legal and medical endorsement for ending lives by dehydration and starvation has misled many people.
On March 20, 2004, Pope John Paul II, for those who would listen, definitively put an end to any confusion about what the Church teaches on this matter. Addressing the International Congress on “Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State”, the pope said, “I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.” He called their administration “morally obligatory”. Like any seriously ill person, a person in a “vegetative state”, he said, “has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.).”
In 2005, when the fate of Terri Schiavo was being decided by a Florida court, Archbishop Raymond Burke spoke in defense of her life:
If Mrs. Schiavo were facing imminent death, or were unable to receive food and water without harm, then removing nutrition and hydration would be morally permissible. It is however never permissible to remove food and water to cause death. Food and water are basic human needs, and therefore basic human rights.
Archbishop Burke’s statement is a basic guide for making moral decisions regarding nutrition and hydration. It is also prudent to remember the Pope’s words that provision of food and water, even by artificial means, is not a medical act. Food and fluids do not become “treatment” when they are taken by tube anymore than penicillin or Pepto-Bismol becomes “food” when taken by mouth.
Labels: Euthanasia, Medical Decision Making
Historic Symposium Focuses on Winning Strategy to Fight Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
posted by Julie Grimstad
December 1, 2007
Over three hundred people from various nations met in Toronto, Ontario for a history-making event, The First International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Current Issues, Future Directions. Hosted by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Canada (EPCC), the symposium was co-sponsored by diverse groups from Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom as well as the Archdiocese of Toronto. With one thing in common—opposition to legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide—disability rights advocates, medical and legal professionals, pro-life activists, people of various religious faiths and atheists came together to learn from the experts, find common ground and strategize
Presenters exposed the new directions and strategies of the movement to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. According to Wesley Smith, who is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, attorney, international lecturer and author of several books on bioethics (just to name a few of his credentials), “The euthanasia movement has become much more sophisticated in the last few years.” The “crackpot element” is no longer driving the movement. It is now “a professional model” and “an elitist establishment movement” whose pitch is “just a little extra choice for people who are dying.”
The thread running through all the presentations was the urgent need to establish a common response to this world-wide threat. Many of the speakers were key participants in coalitions that defeated pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation in the US and UK. They outlined the lessons they’ve learned.
Use the Right Language
One lesson learned is that “all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering,” stated Rita Marker, attorney and executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. “The words used in a debate often determine the outcome of the debate.” Assisted suicide activists blame their failures on the use of the word “suicide” and insist on using what they call “value-neutral” terms. Marker advised symposium participants to always use the term “assisted suicide,” never terms such as “assisted dying” or “aid-in-dying.” The “s” word is powerful.
Dr. Peter Saunders, of Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK, helped defeat the “Joffe” bill, an assisted suicide measure. As an example of effective use of language, he cited a disabled person’s sound bite: “We don’t want assisted dying. We want assisted living!”
Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist and Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Medical University of Ohio, insisted that the term “euthanasia,” which literally means “good death,” should not be used. The term “imposed death,” he said, is more accurate
Emphasize Bad Consequences
Dr. Saunders, as well as the disability rights advocates who spoke, pointed out that changing the law will put pressure on vulnerable people to choose death rather than be “a burden” on others. Also, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) will be used to contain healthcare costs. Oregon pays for PAS as “comfort care” while refusing to pay for certain types of medical care for cancer patients.
In 2007, Dr. Robert Orr helped defeat a bill that would have legalized PAS in Vermont for persons with a life-expectancy of less than six months. “Inaccuracy of diagnosis,” he said, should be emphasized. He cited Art Buchwald, who was suffering from kidney failure and refused dialysis. He entered hospice in February 2006 expecting to die, but checked himself out several months later. Buchwald lived for nearly a year and wrote a book entitled “Too Soon to Say Goodbye.”
Dr. Orr outlined how, once legalized, euthanasia in the Netherlands slowly expanded from being permitted for patients who are competent and suffering to being imposed on “patients with no free will” and even infants with disabilities. The slippery slope is real.
Cheryl Eckstein, founder of Compassionate Healthcare Network (Canada) gave a rundown of Canadian “mercy-killing” cases. She said that the notion of “‘compassionate homicide’ is about as nonsensical as ‘loving rape.’” And Dr. Bill Toffler, national director of Physicians for Compassionate Care, lamented that his beautiful state of Oregon has “sadly become known for something that is deeply disordered.”
Personal Stories
As one participant said, “The shortest distance between a person and the truth is a story.”
Soft-spoken Alison Davis, representing No Less Human, a disability rights group in England, told her story. Because of her disability, she has constant pain and is dependent on morphine for relief. She told of times when she had wanted to die due to suffering and depression. If the UK had allowed assisted suicide, she expressed doubt that she would be here today. Davis emphasized the danger of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide: “Pain control is available, but it takes time and effort. Why bother if killing the patient is equally acceptable?”
Henk Reitsema, an articulate young man from the Netherlands representing Cry for Life, told the compelling story of his grandfather’s death by involuntary euthanasia in a Dutch nursing home. He said, “The way my grandfather died might be described as ‘palliation with the side effect of death,’” which is a common way of imposed death in his country. We “seem to have made the suffering of pain the only crime worth punishing with the death penalty,” declared Reitsema.
The familiar story of Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s dehydration death in a Florida hospice was related by her brother Bobby Schindler. There was not a dry eye in the room as he described Terri’s last days and the suffering her family endured and continues to endure because of her cruel death.
Dr. Paul Byrne’s topic was “brain death.” He told of several cases that compelled him to begin evaluating whether “brain death” is true death, or not. The first was in 1975. Joseph, a premature infant, had been on a ventilator for six weeks and an EEG was interpreted as “consistent with cerebral death.” Dr. Byrne did not turn off the ventilator; rather, he continued treatment. Joseph is now married with children and works as a fireman and paramedic.
Get Involved
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are now “medical treatment” in the Netherlands and Belgium. Switzerland does not penalize assisted suicide so long as it is not done for selfish motives, but physicians cannot be involved. In the U.S., PAS is legal only in Oregon. Opposition coalitions have defeated 89 efforts to legalize it in other states.
Compassion & Choices, the U.S. organization leading efforts to legalize PAS, has adopted the slogan “Oregon Plus One.” PAS promoters are determined to legalize assisted suicide in at least one more state in 2008. They are targeting Washington State in particular. Booth Gardner, popular former governor of Washington who now has Parkinson’s disease, is putting his popularity and considerable fortune behind the campaign to gather the 225,000 signatures needed by July to place a PAS initiative on next November’s ballot.
Rita Marker warned, “Any place that assisted suicide passes will affect the whole world.” Everyone who opposes assisted suicide, she said, “is a Washingtonian for the next year. You are important. Get involved.”
Conclusion
The sponsors and organizers, in particular Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the EPCC, deserve hearty congratulations for the shining success of this first of its kind symposium.
Over three hundred people from various nations met in Toronto, Ontario for a history-making event, The First International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Current Issues, Future Directions. Hosted by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition of Canada (EPCC), the symposium was co-sponsored by diverse groups from Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom as well as the Archdiocese of Toronto. With one thing in common—opposition to legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide—disability rights advocates, medical and legal professionals, pro-life activists, people of various religious faiths and atheists came together to learn from the experts, find common ground and strategize
Presenters exposed the new directions and strategies of the movement to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. According to Wesley Smith, who is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, attorney, international lecturer and author of several books on bioethics (just to name a few of his credentials), “The euthanasia movement has become much more sophisticated in the last few years.” The “crackpot element” is no longer driving the movement. It is now “a professional model” and “an elitist establishment movement” whose pitch is “just a little extra choice for people who are dying.”
The thread running through all the presentations was the urgent need to establish a common response to this world-wide threat. Many of the speakers were key participants in coalitions that defeated pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation in the US and UK. They outlined the lessons they’ve learned.
Use the Right Language
One lesson learned is that “all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering,” stated Rita Marker, attorney and executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. “The words used in a debate often determine the outcome of the debate.” Assisted suicide activists blame their failures on the use of the word “suicide” and insist on using what they call “value-neutral” terms. Marker advised symposium participants to always use the term “assisted suicide,” never terms such as “assisted dying” or “aid-in-dying.” The “s” word is powerful.
Dr. Peter Saunders, of Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK, helped defeat the “Joffe” bill, an assisted suicide measure. As an example of effective use of language, he cited a disabled person’s sound bite: “We don’t want assisted dying. We want assisted living!”
Dr. Paul Byrne, a neonatologist and Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Medical University of Ohio, insisted that the term “euthanasia,” which literally means “good death,” should not be used. The term “imposed death,” he said, is more accurate
Emphasize Bad Consequences
Dr. Saunders, as well as the disability rights advocates who spoke, pointed out that changing the law will put pressure on vulnerable people to choose death rather than be “a burden” on others. Also, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) will be used to contain healthcare costs. Oregon pays for PAS as “comfort care” while refusing to pay for certain types of medical care for cancer patients.
In 2007, Dr. Robert Orr helped defeat a bill that would have legalized PAS in Vermont for persons with a life-expectancy of less than six months. “Inaccuracy of diagnosis,” he said, should be emphasized. He cited Art Buchwald, who was suffering from kidney failure and refused dialysis. He entered hospice in February 2006 expecting to die, but checked himself out several months later. Buchwald lived for nearly a year and wrote a book entitled “Too Soon to Say Goodbye.”
Dr. Orr outlined how, once legalized, euthanasia in the Netherlands slowly expanded from being permitted for patients who are competent and suffering to being imposed on “patients with no free will” and even infants with disabilities. The slippery slope is real.
Cheryl Eckstein, founder of Compassionate Healthcare Network (Canada) gave a rundown of Canadian “mercy-killing” cases. She said that the notion of “‘compassionate homicide’ is about as nonsensical as ‘loving rape.’” And Dr. Bill Toffler, national director of Physicians for Compassionate Care, lamented that his beautiful state of Oregon has “sadly become known for something that is deeply disordered.”
Personal Stories
As one participant said, “The shortest distance between a person and the truth is a story.”
Soft-spoken Alison Davis, representing No Less Human, a disability rights group in England, told her story. Because of her disability, she has constant pain and is dependent on morphine for relief. She told of times when she had wanted to die due to suffering and depression. If the UK had allowed assisted suicide, she expressed doubt that she would be here today. Davis emphasized the danger of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide: “Pain control is available, but it takes time and effort. Why bother if killing the patient is equally acceptable?”
Henk Reitsema, an articulate young man from the Netherlands representing Cry for Life, told the compelling story of his grandfather’s death by involuntary euthanasia in a Dutch nursing home. He said, “The way my grandfather died might be described as ‘palliation with the side effect of death,’” which is a common way of imposed death in his country. We “seem to have made the suffering of pain the only crime worth punishing with the death penalty,” declared Reitsema.
The familiar story of Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s dehydration death in a Florida hospice was related by her brother Bobby Schindler. There was not a dry eye in the room as he described Terri’s last days and the suffering her family endured and continues to endure because of her cruel death.
Dr. Paul Byrne’s topic was “brain death.” He told of several cases that compelled him to begin evaluating whether “brain death” is true death, or not. The first was in 1975. Joseph, a premature infant, had been on a ventilator for six weeks and an EEG was interpreted as “consistent with cerebral death.” Dr. Byrne did not turn off the ventilator; rather, he continued treatment. Joseph is now married with children and works as a fireman and paramedic.
Get Involved
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are now “medical treatment” in the Netherlands and Belgium. Switzerland does not penalize assisted suicide so long as it is not done for selfish motives, but physicians cannot be involved. In the U.S., PAS is legal only in Oregon. Opposition coalitions have defeated 89 efforts to legalize it in other states.
Compassion & Choices, the U.S. organization leading efforts to legalize PAS, has adopted the slogan “Oregon Plus One.” PAS promoters are determined to legalize assisted suicide in at least one more state in 2008. They are targeting Washington State in particular. Booth Gardner, popular former governor of Washington who now has Parkinson’s disease, is putting his popularity and considerable fortune behind the campaign to gather the 225,000 signatures needed by July to place a PAS initiative on next November’s ballot.
Rita Marker warned, “Any place that assisted suicide passes will affect the whole world.” Everyone who opposes assisted suicide, she said, “is a Washingtonian for the next year. You are important. Get involved.”
Conclusion
The sponsors and organizers, in particular Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the EPCC, deserve hearty congratulations for the shining success of this first of its kind symposium.
Labels: Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide
Sedation and Dehydration- Mercy or Murder?
posted by Julie Grimstad
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) was legalized in Oregon in 1994. That law permits a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs at the request of a patient who is expected to die within six months. Thus far, every other state has resisted similar legislation thanks to the efforts of organizations and individuals opposed to PAS, including the Catholic Church. While the very public push to legalize assisted suicide diverted our attention, some ethicists and doctors quietly proposed a legal, but just as lethal, alternative – terminal sedation – and incorporated it into the practice of palliative medicine.
The word “palliative” describes care that comforts and relieves or moderates pain and suffering, such as the care provided by a hospice. “Terminal sedation” is a term recently added to the stock of medical phrases most people do not understand. But it is vitally important that people do understand this controversial, increasingly common method of permanently ending a person’s suffering.
“Terminal sedation” (TS) essentially means that a patient is given a sufficient amount of drugs to render and keep him unconscious until he dies, usually days or weeks later. No further active treatment is done and nutrition and hydration are often withheld. TS is also referred to as “palliative sedation” or “total sedation”. The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) presses hospice agencies to adopt TS and make it “a comfortable addition to the palliative care repertoire” (Goldstein-Shirley and Fine, “Ethics of Total Sedation”, NHPCO Ethics Committee). The claim is made that TS is aimed at relieving pain and suffering, not the intentional death of the patient. That claim is misleading. One might wonder if it is an intentional half-truth, but it is impossible to know another’s intention. Facts, on the other hand, can be examined to discern whether or not TS is, in any given case, mercy or murder.
Sedation is an important medical intervention for some patients who are near the end of life and have symptoms—pain, difficulty breathing, agitation, etc.—that have become progressively more difficult to manage and when nothing else will work. Sedation should only be used to relieve severe physical distress and never to intentionally shorten life. When used for medically and morally appropriate reasons, sedation is merciful.
However, TS is not limited to patients who are so near death that further treatment and/or food and fluids will no longer sustain their lives. Sometimes TS and withdrawal of nutrition and hydration are combined to introduce a cause of death—dehydration—unrelated to the patient’s illness. Sedation is used to keep the patient unaware as dehydration ravages his/her body. Death by sedation and dehydration can take up to two weeks or longer. For this reason, TS is sometimes called “slow euthanasia”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines “euthanasia” as “an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering” and calls it a “murderous act”.
Sedation combined with dehydration is the treatment of choice for some patients who are not dying quickly enough to suit themselves or others. Regardless of who makes the decision, it is wrong. And, even though it may be legal, it is evil to deny food and water to anyone unless they will make the person’s condition worse or will no longer sustain life.
Regrettably, medical ethics and practice have largely degenerated from concern for doing what is right to merely doing what is legal. Obviously, what is legal is not always right.
The word “palliative” describes care that comforts and relieves or moderates pain and suffering, such as the care provided by a hospice. “Terminal sedation” is a term recently added to the stock of medical phrases most people do not understand. But it is vitally important that people do understand this controversial, increasingly common method of permanently ending a person’s suffering.
“Terminal sedation” (TS) essentially means that a patient is given a sufficient amount of drugs to render and keep him unconscious until he dies, usually days or weeks later. No further active treatment is done and nutrition and hydration are often withheld. TS is also referred to as “palliative sedation” or “total sedation”. The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) presses hospice agencies to adopt TS and make it “a comfortable addition to the palliative care repertoire” (Goldstein-Shirley and Fine, “Ethics of Total Sedation”, NHPCO Ethics Committee). The claim is made that TS is aimed at relieving pain and suffering, not the intentional death of the patient. That claim is misleading. One might wonder if it is an intentional half-truth, but it is impossible to know another’s intention. Facts, on the other hand, can be examined to discern whether or not TS is, in any given case, mercy or murder.
Sedation is an important medical intervention for some patients who are near the end of life and have symptoms—pain, difficulty breathing, agitation, etc.—that have become progressively more difficult to manage and when nothing else will work. Sedation should only be used to relieve severe physical distress and never to intentionally shorten life. When used for medically and morally appropriate reasons, sedation is merciful.
However, TS is not limited to patients who are so near death that further treatment and/or food and fluids will no longer sustain their lives. Sometimes TS and withdrawal of nutrition and hydration are combined to introduce a cause of death—dehydration—unrelated to the patient’s illness. Sedation is used to keep the patient unaware as dehydration ravages his/her body. Death by sedation and dehydration can take up to two weeks or longer. For this reason, TS is sometimes called “slow euthanasia”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines “euthanasia” as “an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering” and calls it a “murderous act”.
Sedation combined with dehydration is the treatment of choice for some patients who are not dying quickly enough to suit themselves or others. Regardless of who makes the decision, it is wrong. And, even though it may be legal, it is evil to deny food and water to anyone unless they will make the person’s condition worse or will no longer sustain life.
Regrettably, medical ethics and practice have largely degenerated from concern for doing what is right to merely doing what is legal. Obviously, what is legal is not always right.
Labels: Euthanasia, Hospice/Palliative Care