Bobby Schindler: Killing More Than Just the Patient

Townhall ^ | 4/1/11 | Bobby Schindler

[Sun]

“After pushing their own allegations, the facility was successful [in 2007] in having I deemed “unsuitable” as my husband’s guardian, severely limiting contact and removing any right to make decisions on his behalf.”

Disgusting and frightening for all of us.

[wagglebee]

The Swiss continue to celebrate euthanasia.

Thread by me.

Zurich voters keep 'suicide tourism' alive

ZURICH – Voters in Zurich have overwhelmingly rejected calls to ban assisted suicide or to outlaw the practice for nonresidents.

Zurich's cantonal voters by about a 4-to-1 margin Sunday defeated both measures that had been pushed by political and religious conservatives.

Out of more than 278,000 ballots cast, the initiative to ban assisted suicide was opposed by 85 percent of voters and the initiative to outlaw it for foreigners was turned down by 78 percent, according to Zurich authorities.

Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, and has been since 1941, provided the helper isn't a medical doctor and doesn't personally benefit from a patient's death. About 200 people a year commit suicide in Zurich.

"It's everybody's own decision. It must be allowed — they do it anyway," said Felix Gutjahr, a Zurich voter who opposed the ballot initiatives.

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

[wagglebee]

Notre Dame continues its embrace of abortionism.

Thread by topher.

New Notre Dame trustee donated thousands to pro-abort EMILY’s List

NOTRE DAME, Indiana, May 19, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The newest member of the University of Notre Dame’s board of trustees has dedicated thousands of dollars to supporting pro-abortion groups, including the pro-choice political action committee EMILY’s List.

The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) broke the story May 11 that Roxanne M. Martino, president and CEO of Aurora Investment Management and Notre Dame alumna, had donated a total of $16,150 to EMILY’s List, an organization dedicated to “electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.” Notre Dame announced Martino’s election last month to the university’s Board of Trustees.

EMILY’s List has helped the careers of such pro-abortion politicians as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

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

[wagglebee]

It seems the Obamas have a long history of pushing abortion.

Thread by julieee.

File Claims Obama's Father Paid for Abortion of His Half-Sibling

File Claims Obama's Father Paid for Abortion of His Half-Sibling

Washington, DC -- Newly-uncovered immigration files that are beginning to receive attention on the Internet make the claim that President Barack Obama's father got another woman pregnant after his birth and sent her to England for an abortion.

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

[wagglebee]

It looks like the French didn't dislike Nazism as much as they claim.

Thread by me.

Wesley J. Smith: Mandatory Testing for Down Syndrome Coming to France?

Wouldn’t it be nice if the purpose of pushing prenatal testing for Down syndrome was to assure that fetuses testing positive would be later welcomed into the world in full preparation for the medical challenges that sometimes arise in babies with the condition? Of course, the real point is to make sure that as many as possible are not allowed to be born.  And now France is thinking very seriously about requiring that all pregnant women be tested regardless of risk factors–that is, legally requiring–not just recommending–a medical procedure so that no babies with Down slip through undetected.   From the blog, Curse of Our Joy:

France already has an abortion rate of 96% once Down syndrome is detected through pre-natal testing, universal testing would be catastrophic to this population and to human rights in general, setting off a possible chain reaction throughout Europe. Below is a translation of the original letter from the Foundation Lejeune.

On May 25 and 26 of this year, the National Assembly [the lower house in the French Parliament] will resume its debates and votes concerning the proposed bioethics law. If the deputies follow the recommendations of the Senate and the Special Committee on Bioethics, the pendulum will swing, in the next few days, and France will implement a policy of eugenics with regard to infants with Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome.) Because all of us are vulnerable and called to show solidarity with those who are a little more so, we cannot accept this or let it happen.

Yea, gotta stop that 4% that make it through the eugenic filters! Liberté, égalité, fraternité, my right nostril.

I will try to check out this story further and report back.

HT: E. Haupt

Update: Commenter Raven says the bill would require counseling be offered, not conducted, with a link to the French Assembly.  If anyone can speak French and would like to translate, that would be great.

But the purpose of the bill I think is as the blogger I quoted suggests–to increase the already sky high abortion rate of fetuses testing for Down, dwarfism, etc.  There is a strong pre natal eugenic drive in the West and pushing for more testing serves that agenda.  Of course, testing can also serve to make such births easier to prepare for, as Sarah Palin said her test did.  But note, one Canadian medical leader worried that her lead would cause fewer women to abort Down babies:

But others fear Ms. Palin’s emergence as a parental role model sends a different message. As a vocal opponent of abortion, Ms. Palin’s widely discussed decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same, according to André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Dr. Lalonde said that above all else, women must be free to choose, and that popular messages to the contrary could have detrimental effects on women and their families. “The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada,” he said…

“It’s very dark,” said Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. “They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes associated with Down syndrome. They hear about the burden … it places on children and a marriage. They hear about things like shortened life expectancy. They hear a lot about the challenges of a life with Down syndrome.” That’s why Ms. Palin has become an example that could possibly stem the tide of families who abort fetuses after a positive determination for Down syndrome, she said. “We know overwhelmingly the message families get is ‘Don’t have this baby, it will ruin your life,’ and I don’t think people would look at Sarah Palin and see a ruined life,” Ms. Flint said. “Regardless of politics, I think it’s a good example.”

I also believe that a societal expectation for that course–abort the “defective–is being forged.  That is a major purpose behind these testing proposals and a reason why some loathe Palin so deeply–as we have discussed at length on several occasions.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[wagglebee]

The evils of eugenics are returning with a vengeance.

Threads by GonzoII and me.

Abortions on Disabled Babies: The Prenatal Testing Sham

Each year, March 21^st is World Down Syndrome Day (WDSD). The date 3/21 was chosen as a representation of the genetic cause of the condition, a triplicate of the 21^st chromosome. WDSD seeks to raise awareness of a genetic condition that may very well diminish to the point of disappearing. This is due to the prenatal testing sham.

Since the beginning of the year, headlines have touted advancements in prenatal testing. Laboratories are promising a prenatal diagnostic test for Down syndrome based solely on a blood sample from the expectant mother. This would be an improvement over current diagnostic testing, which involves the insertion of a needle into the womb and a risk of miscarriage. The promised new testing is on the verge of realization as soon as next year.

This new testing is being justified for its ability to provide mothers with information about their pregnancies more safely and earlier than ever. News reports relay how the new testing will save babies, eliminating the risk of miscarriage inherent in current diagnostic testing and promoting healthy births. Once available, it is expected that the testing will have almost universal uptake. Indeed, the test developers are banking on this–literally, in the case of Sequenom, a publicly traded company whose stock price is rebounding after plummeting from earlier, false reports about its testing.

But what is less reported in the coverage on the new testing is its likely impact. Already, existing prenatal testing is followed by high termination rates, exceeding 70 percent in California, and 90 percent in England and Europe. At this high percentage, it is more accurate to call it an “elimination rate.” With each advance in prenatal testing, the next generation of children born with Down syndrome is smaller, so much so that there are close to 50 percent fewer children born with Down syndrome than if all were carried to term.

Some have argued that this impact is modern-day eugenics. Certainly the halving of future generations, with abortions being performed purely because of the genetic makeup of the child, sounds of eugenics. But the test developers, and many others, are quick to point out that the testing itself is purely informative. And many mothers of children with Down syndrome will say the same thing, expressing appreciation for having known their child’s condition prenatally so that they could prepare, on their terms, for how to share the news and for delivering at a hospital with the appropriate neonatal services. Furthermore, professional medical associations, noted bioethicists, and many courts in this nation have found an obligation that prenatal testing be offered, out of respect for the mother’s autonomy and her right to choose whether to continue her pregnancy.

This is the medical, ethical, legal, and industry line: the availability of prenatal testing for Down syndrome is required out of respect for a woman’s right to choose. This, too, is a sham.

Since 2007, the professional recommendation has been for all expectant mothers to be offered prenatal testing for Down syndrome. A study issued the previous year found that almost half of all obstetricians admitted that their training on prenatal testing was “barely adequate” or “non-existent.” Studies since have shown that prenatal testing for Down syndrome overwhelmingly does not respect a woman’s autonomy. At best, less than half of all expectant mothers make an informed decision in accepting prenatal testing. The most likely outcome following a positive prenatal test, abortion, is rarely mentioned until a positive diagnosis, and then in a rushed, hurried, and often coercive fashion. Those who terminate often already consider themselves mothers and their fetus a baby, and recognize that their decision ends their child’s life.

What’s more is that, for all the talk of prenatal testing being only the sharing of information and not requiring abortion, test developers nonetheless count on most mothers terminating. They have to in order to justify the unnecessary costs of their testing. Over 99 percent of pregnant women are not carrying a child with Down syndrome. While a negative prenatal test may provide welcomed reassurance, from a dollars-and-cents perspective, it is an unnecessary expense. Developers of prenatal testing, however, have justified these unnecessary expenses by demonstrating through cost-effectiveness studies that such costs can be offset to the private insurer or the public healthcare system, provided that enough children prenatally identified with Down syndrome are terminated. In this way, prenatal testing is promoted as “saving” the health care system the added medical costs associated with Down syndrome. For all their public defenses, test developers nevertheless rely on a high percentage of abortions to justify the cost of their testing.

But the regime of prenatal testing for Down syndrome is exposed for the sham that it is when the double standard within prenatal testing is considered. In 2007, the same year that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that all women be offered testing for Down syndrome, ACOG’s ethics committee issued an opinion finding that prenatal testing for sex selection was unethical. The same arguments for prenatal testing for Down syndrome can be made for prenatal testing for sex selection. Sharing the information about the sex of the child is simply respecting a woman’s right to choose by giving her information she can use to determine whether to continue her pregnancy. But, in the same year that ACOG said all women should be offered testing for Down syndrome, it also said it is unethical to use prenatal testing for sex selection because it enforces sexist opinions that one sex is more desirable or valuable to society or a family than another. The ACOG committees that worked on the contrasting statements failed to appreciate the doublespeak, since prenatal testing for Down syndrome reinforces discriminatory attitudes against those considered to have disabilities. Upon seeing a baby girl, strangers do not ask “why didn’t her parents undergo prenatal testing,” but that question is asked of parents when that little girl happens to have Down syndrome.

The recommendation for universal offering of testing, however, has quickly become the standard of care, with the prenatal testing laboratories benefiting. If the test developers do believe that all they are providing is information, then perhaps they also should provide fuller and more complete information.

In 2008, the passage of the Kennedy-Brownback Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act expressly recognized the need for balancing the information on Down syndrome given after positive prenatal tests. Yet it has never been fully funded and has no compulsory language requiring the sharing of accurate information. The laboratories, however, would certainly strengthen their defense against the charge of purveying a sham on society if they were to provide more balanced and accurate information, and, in doing so, truly respect women’s autonomy.

Resources to balance the conversation are available right now: Lettercase distributes a printed resource, approved by representatives of ACOG, the American College of Medical Genetics, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the National Down Syndrome Society, and the National Down Syndrome Congress, for mothers still deciding about prenatal testing or following a diagnosis; Brighter Tomorrows is a physician training module on delivering a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of Down syndrome; Down Syndrome Association of Greater Cincinnati maintains a national registry of over 250 parents wanting to adopt children with Down syndrome; and Down Syndrome Pregnancy is an online resource for mothers who have decided to continue their pregnancy following a diagnosis.

Absent some fundamental societal change, these offsetting resources are really the only chance we have to turn the tide of decisions following a prenatal diagnosis. Otherwise, we will continue to see ever fewer children born with Down syndrome. Those of us who happen to be blessed with a child with Down syndrome, or blessed to know one, know that our society will be that much poorer for every missed opportunity to experience the unique kind of love and compassion delivered by and to these fellow members of our society.

____________________________________________________

Eugenic abortion of disabled babies increasing in UK

LONDON, May 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The most recent available statistics from England and Wales show that eugenic abortions have risen by ten percent in the past year.

The 2010 statistics, published by the Department of Health this week, also found that unmarried girls are overwhelmingly more likely to abort their children than married women, with 81 percent of abortions carried out on single women. For every two abortions carried out on married women, 11 children of unmarried women were killed by abortion.

Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), commented: “The annual abortion statistics tell a tragic story of avoidable death – driven by commercial interests and sexual exploitation of women.

“The abortion industry and the Department of Health abet the anti-life culture by promoting the idea that sex – and abortion - must be available to everyone on demand.”

Despite the slight drop from 2009, the abortion rate in England and Wales has climbed steadily overall since the practice was legalized in 1967.

The report notes that 2,290 abortions, about 1 percent, were carried out under “Ground E,” or in cases where the child was suspected of having a handicap, in 2010, a rise of around 10 percent over 2009, when 2,085 disabled babies were aborted; the average for Ground E over the last 5 years has been under 2000.

There were also 85 abortions that involved “selective terminations,” that is, the killing of one or more children in the womb while leaving a twin alive. The practice, also commonly called “selective reduction,” was done in 51 cases. Seventy-eight percent of these were committed under ground E.

Attempts in Parliament in 1990 to lower the gestational age limit for abortion backfired when the change was allowed but only at the expense of disabled children. The age limit was lowered marginally from 28 to 24 weeks, but all restriction on eugenic abortion was lifted; now children suspected of suffering even mild disabilities can be killed legally up to the point of full gestation.

The total number of abortions for England and Wales was 189,574 in 2010, a 0.3 percent increase over 2009 and an 8 percent increase since 2000. The overall rate of abortion for women resident in England and Wales aged 15-44 was 17.5 per 1,000, which the report notes is more than double the 1970 rate of 8.0 per 1000.

Young women are especially at risk of abortion, with 33 abortions per 1,000 for women between 19 and 20. There has been a slight drop in the number of abortions conducted on teenaged girls, with 3.9 per 1000 for under-16s and 16.5 per 1000 for under-18s. This is compared with 2009 rates of 4.0 per 1000 and 17.6 per 1000 respectively.

Ninety-six percent of abortions were funded by the NHS, with 59 percent being contracted out to private abortionist organizations like Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

The number of so-called “medical” abortions, those carried out by the use of the drug RU-486, is also growing, constituting 43 percent of abortions, up from 12 percent in 2000.

[wagglebee]

This is too disturbing for words.

Thread by Nachum.

Elderly patients dying of thirst: Doctorsforced to prescribe drinkingwater to keep the old

Doctors are prescribing drinking water for neglected elderly patients to stop them dying of thirst in hospital. The measure – to remind nurses of the most basic necessity – is revealed in a damning report on pensioner care in NHS wards. Some trusts are neglecting the elderly on such a fundamental level their wards could face closure orders. The snapshot study, triggered by a Mail campaign, found staff routinely ignored patients’ calls for help and forgot to check that they had had enough to eat and drink.

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

[wagglebee]

More evil than Kevorkian.

Thread by me.

Baltimore doctor helps the ill commit suicide ("The New Doctor Death")

From a cluttered Baltimore apartment office, Dr. Lawrence Egbert says he has helped direct the deaths of nearly 300 people across the country.

Some of his patients, as he calls them, are racked with cancer, paralyzed or staring down Alzheimer's. Others simply want to slip away on their own terms. Sometimes family members gather around the bedside to say goodbye; in other cases, their appointed "exit guides" lock the door behind them and make arrangements for someone to stumble across the body.

A decade after Jack Kevorkian went to prison for helping a man with Lou Gehrig's disease commit suicide, Egbert, 83, has been dubbed "The New Doctor Death" by Newsweek after being criminally charged in two states for his role as medical director for the Final Exit Network. An Arizona jury acquitted him last month following a three-week trial in the death of a Phoenix woman. He has also been charged in Georgia.

The cases have revived the debate over assisted suicide and placed Egbert, a retired anesthesiologist, at the forefront of the debate over Americans' right to take their own lives. The Final Exit Network is the only known group performing such work, and members say their assistance is compassionate and progressive. Prosecutors call them "killers." Even other right-to-die advocates, including Kevorkian himself, disagree with their methods.

Amid the controversy, Egbert has been dismissed from his role teaching classes at the Johns Hopkins University and has had a falling-out with his church. After snapping his pelvis in a bicycle accident, he even contemplated taking his own life. But should he prevail in his pending case in Georgia, Egbert said, he'll resume his work with the Final Exit Network.

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

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[wagglebee]

Baby Joseph Updade

Father Frank Pavone reflects on the lessons learned in saving Baby Joseph from the death panels and the Canadian courts will decide whether to make death panels mandatory.

Threads by me.

Fr. Frank Pavone: Reflecting on Baby Joseph: Families Must Fight When Doctors Don’t

In the early hours of Holy Thursday, 2011, as Churches were preparing – and in some parts of the world already celebrating – the Mass of the Lord’s Supper and the washing of the feet, “Baby Joseph” was flown from St Louis, where he has been treated since I brought him there in mid-March, to his home in Windsor, Canada.

As the Church prepared to celebrate the day when the Lord gave us the command to “love one another,” Baby Joseph’s parents and older brother were enjoying the fruit of the hard fight that their love inspired. They fought to help their baby breathe and bring him home. Canadian medical and government authorities had resisted, trying to impose their own value judgment on his life.

Now, however, he was home, and the Priests for Life Family, including tens of thousands of people who sent emails to the Canadian authorities, is delighted to have helped.

Our mission to save Baby Joseph and help his family was never based on any prediction of the future, but rather on the value of his life here and now. Our critics, on the other hand, looking into the crystal ball that ‘right to die’ advocates seem to always think they have, claimed our intervention was futile because Joseph would only end up having a machine do his breathing for him.

We don’t have to answer their criticism; Joseph is doing that for us, with every breath he takes. He has gained benefit from his tracheotomy, is breathing on his own, and is free from the need to use any tubes or machines.

Doctors have not given a time estimate as to how long they think he will live. Nobody knows. What we do know is that there are several key lessons to draw from this story:

a)      Doctors do not always know best. Day by day, situations turn out better than many doctors predict. The desires of the patient and the family who seek care need to be honored.

b)      Families need to fight to care for their loved ones. Moe Maraachli and his wife Sana did just that. They did not let the death of a previous child bring them to despair about this one. Rather, they fought hard for Joseph to get the care that has now helped him. Their love reminded me of the love that Terri Schiavo’s parents and siblings showed for her, a love willing to persevere despite the public spotlight and pressure that they never sought.

c)      The meaning and value of life does not come from medical tribunals or courts, and it is not measured in years, months, or days. It is measured by giving and receiving love, first from God and then from each other.

d)     When people band together for the cause of life, victories can be won. So many people sent emails, prayed, and are helping pay for Baby Joseph’s care (see BabyJosephCentral.com). We need to stay engaged in the pro-life cause, because there are many more victories to win.

____________________________________________________

Who makes end-of-life decisions, family, or doctors? Ontario court to decide

TORONTO, Ontario, May 19, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The question of whether end-of-life decisions, such as whether or not to withdraw life-support, should be made at the discretion of a doctor or family members is at stake in the Rasouli case, taken before Ontario’s Court of Appeal yesterday.  The court’s decision could dramatically change how these important decisions are made in the province in cases such as the much-publicized Baby Joseph case.

Doctors at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, where 59-year-old patient Hassan Rasouli has been since surgery in October, say the Iranian immigrant is in a persistent vegetative state, with no hope of recovery.  They are appealing a Superior Court decision from April that ruled the doctors needed the family’s permission, or permission from Ontario’s Consent and Capacity board, in order to remove Rasouli from life-support.

The Rasouli family disagrees with the doctors’ diagnosis.  They say that their father, who suffered bacterial meningitis after surgery to remove a brain tumor, is able to communicate with them and shows progress in his recovery, although he presently requires the assistance of a ventilator and feeding tube.

“He talks to us with his eyes,” said Rasouli’s 27-year-old daughter, Mojgan. “We want my father alive.”

Rasouli’s son, 23-year-old Mehran, said, “When I speak to him, he opens his eyes. He knows me.”

Rasouli’s wife, Parichehr Salasel, was a doctor in Iran before the family immigrated to Canada last year. She has refused to give permission for her husband’s ventilator to be removed, saying she believes he is improving and that removing life-support would violate his religious beliefs as a Shia Muslim.

The doctors’ factum in court, however, states, “Doctors are obliged to offer treatment that can benefit the patient, and they are obliged not to offer treatment that is futile.”

Dr. Brian Cuthbertson and Dr. Gordon Rubenfeld of Sunnybrook say that, as the medical experts, they should be the ones deciding when patients will no longer benefit from treatment.

“The underlying issue is whether or not doctors have the right to withdraw treatment that they view to be of no benefit to the patient, or in other words, at end of life, futile,” said Mark Handelman, lawyer for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, which has intervener status in the case.

“We’re still without an authoritative answer to a very pressing question,” Harry Underwood, the lawyer representing the doctors, told the court. “How are patients’ best interests to be protected?” Underwood argued that according to common law, doctors are not required to obtain consent before withdrawing medical treatment that they believe to be futile.

The Rasouli family’s lawyer, Gardner Hodder, told the court the diagnosis of permanent vegetative state, such as Rasouli was given, is often incorrect.  Withdrawing life-support, he added, is a medical treatment and, therefore, by definition of Ontario law would require consent.

Lawyer Hugh Sher, also representing the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, agreed with Hodder.  The Superior Court decision of April was correct, he said: doctors do not have the unilateral right to withdraw life-support treatment.  In cases such as Rasouli’s the decision should be taken before Ontario’s Consent and Capacity board, he said.

The Consent and Capacity Board is a group of lawyers, psychiatrists, and citizens in Ontario who are appointed by the province to resolve disputes such as in the Rasouli case between doctors and the family.  Ontario is the only province with such a system.  Rather than a lengthy court battle, which often ends with the death of the patient in question before a court ruling, the Consent and Capacity Board usually decides cases within a week.

“Society needs to be very careful with decisions to withdraw life support and granting doctors the unilateral right does not protect people who are misdiagnosed or not actually dying and it doesn’t respect the beliefs and values of people who live with a faith tradition that includes certain ethical traditions,” cautioned Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

“The Rasouli case will determine whether doctors are required to obtain the consent of the patient, the patient’s guardian, or the Consent and Capacity board before withdrawing life support. This decision will apply to all life-sustaining interventions, including the withdrawal of hydration and nutrition.”

“The fact is that if the position of the doctors is upheld, doctors will not be required to obtain consent before they withdraw life-sustaining treatment that the doctor deems to be futile,” he said.

“Life is a gift from God,” Rasouli’s wife said following the court hearing. “He would want to live.”

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

[floriduh voter]

You can initially tell if someone is dehydrated by pulling on the top part of the hand. If it doesn’t spring back, they are dehydrated. This applies to people who think they are fit and to people who depend on someone to help them with water/beverages. People in nursing homes wait for hours for everything. The ones without visitors are neglected the most. They’ll let a water container get moldy before they’ll clean it, fill it and give the patient water. MOLD ON A WATER CONTAINER.