Infanticide for the Disabled Pushed by Bioethicist

Udu Schuklenk, Professor of Philosophy and Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics at Queen’s University, who headed the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making, is advocating what he calls "postnatal abortion" for imperfect babies not wanted by his/her parent(s).

“Once we have concluded that death is what is in the best interest of the infant, it is unreasonable not to bring about this death as painlessly and as much controlled in terms of timing by the parents as is feasible.”

For background, read how American attitudes regarding "defective human beings" are trending toward that of Belgium where doctors kill months-old infants who are deemed deficient.

-- From "End-of-life debate turns to newborns: ‘Postnatal abortion’ morally acceptable in some cases, ethicist says" by Tom Blackwell, National Post 12/7/14

[Prof. Schuklenk] wrote the opinion piece after being invited to debate the newborn issue at a conference of the American Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery in Toronto earlier this year.

Euthanasia would even be preferable to “terminal sedation,” where food and liquids are removed from a dying patient, because it would save parents and medical staff the distress of seeing a baby waste away over days or weeks, said Prof. Schuklenk.

The Netherlands does permit euthanasia of some newborns. . . .

[Schuklenk] rejected the notion that allowing euthanasia in such cases would lead to a slippery slope where the idea is applied increasingly broadly. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Should severely disabled infants be euthanased?" by Michael Cook, BioEdge 12/6/14

After dismissing arguments drawn from human dignity, sanctity-of-life, and the principle of double effect, Schuklenk still has to explain why a suffering infant could not be simply sedated so that it would not suffer, thus avoiding the need for euthanasia. The answer he says, is that parents and doctors and nurses would suffer unnecessarily.

The unnecessarily prolonged dying of their infant son would extend a severely distressing situation for the parents. They would have to witness the deterioration of their infant son over a period of days, possibly weeks. Some of the attending health care professionals would undoubtedly also find it psychologically difficult to watch the child die foreseeably an unnecessarily slow death. …. Given that a terminally sedated infant would have no surviving interests to speak of, the interests of these other parties matter. If his prolonged dying is harmful to them, a further quality-of-life based argument in favor of terminating the infant's life is established.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The 'Quality of Life' Slouch Toward Infanticide" by Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online 5/15/14

[Udu Schuklenk writes in his] “What We Should Do About Severely Impaired Newborns?”

If we merely go by the newborn’s quality of life and life prospects it seems indeed best to end the unfolding tragedy sooner rather than later, but probably a decision should be arrived at with parental consent as opposed to against the unfortunate parents. It turns out that one can reasonably answer the rhetorical question of whether one would want to live in a society that terminated the lives of certain severely impaired newborns if one held the view – as I do – that the newborn’s current and future quality of life is all that matters here. I could live in such a society where empathy for human suffering trumps religious conviction.

Don’t be fooled by the “parental consent” nonsense. First, parents shouldn’t have the power to have their babies killed. Beyond that, if we owe a duty to the baby to kill him, then parental rights become irrelevant and it’s veto time. Relevantly, back in the late 1990s, The Lancet reported that 27% of infanticides in the Netherlands–all based on a supposedly “unlivable life” occurs without parental consent.

If the parents’ reason for wanting to love their baby as long as he lives can be viewed as religious–strongly hinted by Schuklenk as the only reason anyone could oppose, it’s really veto time!

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Dr. Death House Calls - Just Dial 6-6-6

Want doctor-assisted suicide in the convenience of your home? The Dutch voluntary euthanasia society plans to create death-mobiles for ill patients who want to die.

-- From "Dutch group proposes 'mobile' euthanasia teams" by The Associated Press 11/16/11

The Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2001 in cases where patients are suffering unbearable pain due to illness with no hope of recovery.

Spokeswoman Walburg de Jong of The Right To Die said Wednesday the idea is a logical extension of its plan - not approved by the government - to create a clinic for patients who meet the criteria for euthanasia but whose doctors are unwilling to carry it out.

The number of reported euthanasia cases in the Netherlands rose 19 percent in 2010 to 3,136. A parliamentary-appointed commission is reviewing current policy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Voluntary euthanasia group plans to set up 'help to die' teams" posted at Dutch News 11/16/11

'Most people want to die at home,' an NVVE spokesman told the paper. The clinic is still on the cards, but will only have a couple of beds for people who cannot die at home, the spokesman said.

The NVVE says only a third of the 10,000 euthanasia requests made every year are actually honoured. This is because the request procedure is complicated and many doctors are not aware of the finer points of the law, the organisation argues.

Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands under strict conditions. For example, the patient must be suffering unbearable pain and the doctor must be convinced the patient is making an informed choice. The opinion of a second doctor is also required.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Pope: Gay Agenda & Abortion Dooms Society

Pope Benedict XVI, addressing hundreds of thousands in Croatia, warned that Europe is doomed if Christians do not reject secularization, but rather uphold the 'Christian family' and oppose abortion and euthanasia.

For background, read Pope Calls Secularized, Anti-Christian Europe to God and also read Pope's Words Accentuate the Christian Challenge in Society

UPDATE 1/20/12: The Pope, and Obama's War on Christianity

-- From "Europe doomed if conscience isn’t rediscovered, Pope says" posted at EWTN News/CNA 6/4/11

“If, in keeping with the prevailing modern idea, conscience is reduced to the subjective field to which religion and morality have been banished, then the crisis of the West has no remedy and Europe is destined to collapse in on itself,” the Pope told a gathering of members from Croatia’s civil society in the capital of Zagreb on June 4.

“If, on the other hand, conscience is rediscovered as the place in which to listen to truth and good, the place of responsibility before God and before fellow human beings – in other words, the bulwark against all forms of tyranny – then there is hope for the future.”

This forming of consciences rooted in faith and reason is where “the Church makes her most specific and valuable contribution to society,” said the Pope, stressing that this formation should begin in the home, the parish and the school.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Stop disintegration of the family in Europe: Pope" by Philip Pullella, Reuters 6/5/11

Pope Benedict warned on Sunday that the traditional family in Europe was "disintegrating" under the weight of secularization and called for laws to help couples cope with the costs of having and educating children.

"Unfortunately, we are forced to acknowledge the spread of a secularization which leads to the exclusion of God from life and the increasing disintegration of the family, especially in Europe," he said in his sermon on the edge of the capital.

The sermon reflected the Vatican's belief that the Catholic Church in Europe is under assault by some national governments and European institutions over issues such as gay marriage, abortion, religious education and the use of Christian religious symbols in public places.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pope denounces 'disintegration' of Europe families" by Nicole Winfield, Associated Press 6/5/11

. . . while Croatia is nearly 90 percent Catholic, it allows some legal rights for same-sex couples and, thanks to leftover communist-era legislation, permits abortion up to 10 weeks after conception and thereafter with the consent of a special commission of doctors. Elsewhere in Europe, including in Italy, marriages are on the decline as more and more people choose to just live together.

He urged parents to affirm the inviolability of life from conception to natural death — Vatican-speak for opposition to abortion, saying "Dear families, rejoice in fatherhood and motherhood!" He also urged them to back legislation that supports families "in the task of giving birth to children and educating them."

"We want our children to continue to call their parents 'mamma' and 'papa' because that's their natural names," he told the applauding crowd. "Children have the right to publicly state that a 'father' and a 'mother' gave them life," he said, adding that the church also had the right to demand the government reverse its abortion law.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Pope: Societies drifting into a "desert of godlessness"

Doctor-assisted Suicide Morally Wrong: Poll

A new Gallup poll shows that more Americans oppose “doctor-assisted suicide” (48%) than those who consider it morally acceptable (45%).

-- From "Poll: Doctor-assisted suicide divisive" by UPI 5/31/11

Doctor-assisted suicide was the most controversial cultural issue in Gallup's 2011 Values and Beliefs poll, results indicated.

The three most controversial issues -- doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, and out-of-wedlock births -- were separated by fewer than 15 percentage points between participants who said they considered the issue morally acceptable from the percentage considering it morally wrong, the Princeton, N.J., polling agency said.

At least 8 in 10 U.S. adults interviewed in the survey said extramarital affairs, polygamy, cloning humans and suicide were wrong, while least six in 10 people surveyed said pornography and cloning animals were morally wrong, results indicated.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Assisted Suicide Support Drops to Lowest Level in 8 Years" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 5/31/11

Gallup found 51 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents and just 32 percent of Republicans who say they find assisted suicide morally acceptable. When looking at an age breakdown, the views of Americans are largely consistent with just 46 percent of those 18-34, 45 percent of those 35-54 and 43 percent of those 55 and older saying assisted suicide is morally okay.

Had Gallup used the term “assisted suicide” without including the word, “doctor,” support likely would have decreased further.

The Gallup poll also found strong opposition to human cloning, but support for embryonic stem cell research. Some 84 percent of Americans say human cloning is not morally justified but 62 percent of Americans say it is morally acceptable to engage in “medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos.” Another 62 percent were morally opposed to cloning animals — making it so the objections Americans have to cloning on any level is quite clear.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Evolutionist: 'Original Sin' is Creation of Man

A Nobel Prize winner is warning that the forces of natural selection in evolution instilled mankind with an innate "original sin" that – if not overcome – may lead to humanity's extinction.

-- From "Nobel winner: Natural selection threatens humanity's future" by Clint Witchalls, posted at CBS News 2/28/11

"Natural selection has resulted in traits such as group selfishness being coded in our genes," said Christian de Duve the co-winner of the Nobel prize for his research into cellular structure. In a Q & A with NewScientist, de Duve, who is a professor emeritus at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium and at Rockefeller University in New York, argues that those same traits which once helped ensure the survival of the species have fostered a sort of "here today, damn tomorrow" myopia that threatens our very future.

"These [traits] were useful to our ancestors under the conditions in which they lived, but have become noxious to us today. What would help us preserve our natural resources are genetic traits that let us sacrifice the present for the sake of the future. You need wisdom to sacrifice something that is immediately useful or advantageous for the sake of something that will be important in the future. Natural selection doesn't do that; it looks only at what is happening today. It doesn't care about your grandchildren or grandchildren's grandchildren."

To read the entire interview above, CLICK HERE.

From "Nobel scientist has new spin on 'original sin'" by Drew Zahn © 2011 WorldNetDaily 3/5/11

De Duve has written a book, "Genetics of Original Sin," in which he explains how he sees the intersection of his theories with the Bible.

"I believe that the writers of Genesis had detected the inherent selfishness in human nature that I propose is in our genes," he told NewScientist, "and invented the myth of original sin to account for it."

. . . while the Bible prescribes redemption and regeneration of the human heart through Jesus Christ as the solution to mankind's inherent selfishness, de Duve proposes another answer: population control.

"It is a simple matter of figures," he says. "If you want this planet to continue being habitable for everyone that lives here, you have to limit the number of inhabitants.

"Hunters do it by killing off the old or sick animals in a herd, but I don't think that's a very ethical way of limiting the population," he continues. "So what remains? Birth control. We have access to practical, ethical and scientifically established methods of birth control. So I think that is the most ethical way to reduce our population."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Death Panels? Atheist Doctors' Patients Terminate Sooner

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to make decisions that could end the lives of their terminally ill patients, compared to doctors who are very religious, according to a new study in Britain.

-- From "UK study: Nonreligious doctors hasten death more" by Maria Cheng, Associated Press 8/26/10

Dr. Clive Seale, a professor at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, conducted a random mail survey of more than 3,700 doctors across Britain, of whom 2,923 reported on how they took care of their last terminal patient.

Many of the doctors surveyed were neurologists, doctors specializing in the care of the elderly, and palliative care, though other specialists like family doctors, were also included.

To ensure doctors are acting in accordance with their patients' wishes, Seale wrote that "nonreligious doctors should confess their predilections to their patients."

Seale also found that doctors who were religious were much less likely to have talked about end of life treatment decisions with their patients.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Docs' Religion Tied to End-of-Life Care" By Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today 8/26/10

Physicians in the U.K. who reported being very or extremely religious were less likely to endorse certain end-of-life decisions, including continuous deep sedation and initiation of treatment that would be expected to shorten life, Clive Seale, PhD, of Queen Mary, University of London, reported online in BMJ.

"One potential response to the findings about the influence of religious faith is to suggest, as others have done, that religious doctors disclose their moral objections to certain procedures to patients so that patients can choose other doctors if they wish," Seale wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Suicide for Elderly Billboards Going Nationwide

Plain black billboards reading "My Life My Death My Choice FinalExitNetwork.org" are being placed by Final Exit Network, claiming to help people with the pain of incurable illness.


-- from "National campaign guiding ill adults to end lives advertises on Hillside billboard" by Steve Strunsky, New Jersey Star-Ledger 7/14/10

The [New Jersey] billboard, along with one in San Francisco and another planned for Florida, anchor a national campaign by the network to raise awareness of itself and its mission. Members say the locations were chosen for their reputations as socially progressive and, in Florida’s case, for its elderly population.

Jim Goodness, a spokesman for the [Catholic Church] Archdiocese of Newark, said the message "cannot be condoned."

Therapists called the billboard "irresponsible," arguing it could serve as a "tipping point" for troubled teens or others at risk of suicide.

The network does not advocate physician-assisted suicide . . . Instead, it recommends suffocation by donning an air-tight hood and inhaling helium pumped in through a tube.

Thomas E. Goodwin, a physician who founded the network in Florida in 2004, is facing criminal charges of violating Georgia’s law against assisted suicide in the 2008 death of a 58-year-old man at his home near Atlanta. Network members face similar charges in Arizona. New Jersey also prohibits assisted suicide.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

ObamaCare Death Panel Lurks in New Jersey

In a case that could have nationwide implications, Trinitas Regional Medical Center here wants an appeals court to decide whether hospitals can refuse to continue life support over the objections of a patient’s family.

-- From "N.J. court to rule whether hospitals may refuse life support despite wishes of families, patients" by Sue Epstein, The Star-Ledger (New Jersey) 4/28/10

The hospital argued it should also be able to decide, in certain cases, whether to end life support even if patients have written directives stipulating they want life-sustaining efforts to continue.

"The hospital is not looking for the courts to overturn the advanced directives law, but to carve out an exception," said Kathleen Boozang, a professor of law at Seton Hall University School of Law. "I’d say the hospital is looking for a narrow decision that (when) doctors believe the care given is grossly inhumane and medically inappropriate, the hospital has the right to terminate treatment."

Indeed, Gary Riveles, the attorney representing Trinitas, said hospital physicians "have to have the right to say enough is enough. The patient or patient’s surrogate should not have the unfettered right to maintain life when there is no chance left."

In a New Brunswick courtroom today, attorneys for the family at the center of the Trinitas appeal, along with advocates for the disabled and others who filed as friends of the court, asked the appellate judges to allow the final decision on life support to remain with patients and their families.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Unemployed? Sell your kidney for $100,000

Paying people for living kidney donations would increase the supply of the organs and would not result in a disproportionate number of poor donors [?!?], a study by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center concludes.

-- From "Study: People would donate kidneys for payment" by Katharine Lackey, The News Leader (posted at USA TODAY) 3/30/10

The study, published this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine, asked 342 participants whether they would donate a kidney with varying payments of $0, $10,000 and $100,000. The study called for a real-world test of a regulated payment system.

The possibility of payments nearly doubled the number of participants in the study who said they would donate a kidney to a stranger, but it did not influence those with lower income levels more than those with higher incomes, according to Scott Halpern, one of the study's authors and senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics.

Though it is illegal to buy or sell any organ in the USA, payments are accepted for those who become surrogate mothers, donate eggs or participate in clinical research, Halpern says.

Lainie Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, says she feels the findings are flawed because interviews were done with participants waiting for a commuter train and thus left out poorer people who don't have jobs. "The buying and selling of organs will be exploitative because we will end up buying organs from very poor people," Ross says.

Last year, 6,475 people died while on the waiting list for an organ transplant, and 4,476 were waiting for a kidney transplant, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, part of the Health and Human Services Administration.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Liberal 'christians' Praise Montana Euthanasia Ruling

Montana Supreme Court clears path for third state to allow physician-assisted suicide, to the satisfaction of local 'church' leaders

-- From "Doctor-Assisted Suicide Gets OK in Montana" Associated Press 12/31/09

Patients and doctors had been waiting for the state's high court to step in after a lower court decided a year ago that constitutional rights to privacy and dignity protect the right to die.

The Montana Supreme Court opinion will now give doctors in the state the freedom to prescribe the necessary drugs to mentally competent, terminally ill patients without fear of being prosecuted, advocates said.

Oregon and Washington state allow assisted suicides for terminally ill patients, with Oregon adopting America's first "death with dignity" law in 1997. [Kathryn L. Tucker, the legal affairs director for Compassion and Choices,] said Montana doctors should now feel comfortable adopting procedures that doctors in the other two states use.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Baxter v. Montana: euthanasia finds support among Pro-Right-to-Die Christian Authority Figures" by Mariya Starchevsky, Newark Religious Issues Examiner 1/4/10

The moral stigma of suicide dates back to Christianity’s proliferation through Europe. Although the Bible does not condemn suicide explicitly, the view of “committing” suicide as a legal crime and a moral sin was adopted from St. Augustine and later by St. Thomas Aquinas. Pages 4-5. In history, suicide was a spiritual offense, because it was thought to mess with the Almighty’s plans.

. . . [The case included an amicus brief filed by religious groups and representatives.] Making their plead for a right to die from a religious point of view were Rev. Canon Gary Waddingham (Episcopal Priest) Rev. Steve Oreskovich (Episcopal Priest), Rev. Meg Hatch (M. Div, UCC) Chuck Heath (M. Div. LCPC, Chaplain), Reverend John C. Board (Episcopal Deacon) Rev. Jean Collins, (Episcopal Priest), Rev. John R. Payne, Journey BE (Disciples of Christ) and Dr. L.A. Kemmerer (Professor). These authorities then list approximately 70 other religious figures from the United Church of Christ, the Church of England, the Unitarian Universalists Association of Congregations, the Methodist Church, etc., all who support euthanasia when concerning competent, terminally ill adults.

These religious amici stress that end-of-life decisions are deeply personal.

“Those who do not share in the religious beliefs and doctrines of groups opposed to aid in dying see this as an unwanted intrusion into what should be a private decision making process between patient and physician." - Deric Weiss, M.D.,Billings, Montana.

“An overriding theme in the [Bible] is ‘free will.’ That is, the reasonable belief that God granted human beings the ability to distinguish between good and evil and to make choices concerning both. - Rev. John C. Board, Episcopal Deacon.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Archbishop Slams Obama For Anti-Life, Anti-Family Agenda

Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court in the Roman Catholic Church . . . [said] that no matter what good positions a politician may hold on other issues it is never justified to vote for him if he supports abortion, euthanasia or same-sex marriage.

-- From "Archbishop slams Obama for anti-life, anti-family agenda, also slams Sebelius and Notre Dame" by Bill Dalton, Kansas City Star 5/8/09

The American bishop who heads the Vatican’s supreme court slammed President Obama today for pursuing an “anti-life and anti-family agenda” and called the University of Notre Dame’s plans to honor him this month “the greatest scandal.”

At the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday, Burke garnered frequent applause for castigating Notre Dame, Obama, and Catholics who stray from the church’s social teachings.

Dozens of Catholic bishops have criticized Notre Dame, the nation’s top Catholic university, for inviting Obama to deliver its commencement address on May 17, and planning to grant him the degree customarily given to graduation speakers.

Burke also denounced a number of early moves by the White House, including . . . research on certain types of embryonic stem cells, as well as preparing to roll back some conscience protections for health care workers.

Burke also criticized Catholics who support or work for the Obama administration, particularly new cabinet member Kathleen Sebelius.

Sebelius did not attend the annual Catholic prayer breakfast, nor did Vice President Joe Biden, who is Catholic, or any Catholic member of Obama’s cabinet.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia also delivered remarks on Friday, and urged fellow Catholics not to be ashamed of their theological beliefs amid a largely secular culture.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "No Other Issues Can Justify Voting for Pro-Abortion, Pro-Euthanasia, or Pro-Same-Sex Marriage Politicians, Says Vatican’s Top Judicial Official" by Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief CNSNews.com 5/11/09

“In a nation set so firmly on a path of violation of the most fundamental moral norms, Catholics and others who adhere to the natural moral law are pressured to think that their religious commitment to the moral law as the way of seeking the good of all is a merely confessional matter which cannot have any application in public life,” Burke told a crowd gathered at the Hilton Washington.

“Apparently, a number of Catholics in public life have been so convinced,” he continued.

“How often do we hear Catholic legislators who vote in favor of anti-life and anti-family legislation claim that they are personally opposed to what the legislation protects and fosters, but that they as public officials may not allow religious beliefs to affect their support of such legislation?” he asked.

“How often do we hear fellow Catholics supporting candidates for office, who are anti-life and anti-family, because of political-party loyalties or for reasons of other policies and programs supported by the candidate, which they deem to be good?” he continued.

To read the full text of Archbishop Burke's keynote address, CLICK HERE.

Bush Declares Sanctity of Life, Obama Silent

“All human life is a gift from our creator that is sacred, unique and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world,” reads the proclamation [by President Bush].

-- From "Bush: 'Sanctity of Human Life Day'" by Andy Barr, Politico 1/15/09

“The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence and funding crisis pregnancy programs,” the proclamation continues.

“The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.”

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Belgium, a Glimpse of America's Future?

In Belgium, if the government allows your child to reach their first birthday (hundreds of babies are exterminated annually AFTER birth), your child's education and future is under the government's strict control.

-- From "Watching Out for Her Little Ones - Belgium and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child" by Peter Kamakawiwoole, ParentalRights.org 12/15/08

In March 2008, Belgium made international headlines when it sentenced two sets of Belgian parents to five months in prison, and fined them 4,100 euros ($8,000). The crime? Failing to vaccinate their children against polio. The government, hiding behind privacy laws, declined to comment on why the parents had refused the vaccine in the first place, or how long a reprieve they had been given in which to comply before going to jail.

The Belgian government is also deeply involved in education. Parents can place their children in community schools, or in public or private schools. Unlike their American counterparts, however, Belgium’s “private schools” are not strictly run by private individuals, but receive subsidies from the government, along with significant oversight from national and local education ministries. All schools - even within the home - are required to teach children “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the cultural values of the child and others,” under Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Public, private, and home schools are all inspected by the government to insure compliance, and disobedience could result in the children being placed in a school of the government’s choosing.

Since 2002, Belgium has allowed doctors to terminate the lives of infants under the age of 12 months if they feel the baby is somehow disabled or deficient, and is likely to suffer in life as a result. More than half of the Belgian babies who die before they are a year old are killed by deliberate medical intervention. In 16% of cases, parental consent was not even considered. To put these numbers in perspective, the CIA World Fact Book estimates that roughly 106,000 babies are born in Belgium each year. Even using conservative estimates of Belgium’s rate of “assisted-suicide” in infants, one can estimate that some 470 children will die before they celebrate their first birthday. Of these 470, more than 200 will die not from natural causes, but from direct medical intervention. Forty (40) of them will die regardless of their parents’ wishes, objections, or pleadings. Such a program might produce a “better society,” but one is left in horror at the ultimate sacrifice of innocent babies.

Unfortunately, the program has been deemed so “successful” in Belgium that in March 2008, the government began considering legislation that would also make assisted-suicide available to teenagers and younger children who are terminally-ill.

To read the full report, complete with footnotes, CLICK HERE.

Pope Benedict XVI Opposes Legalized Euthanasia

-- From "Pope: 'Accept Death at Hour Chosen by God'" by Angela Doland, Associated Press 9/15/08

Lourdes, France (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI urged ailing pilgrims to accept death "at the hour chosen by God," reasserting the Vatican's opposition to euthanasia on Monday at an open-air Mass for the sick.

In his homily, the pope said the ill should pray to find "the grace to accept, without fear or bitterness, to leave this world at the hour chosen by God." The Vatican vehemently maintains that life must continue to its natural end.

The message has special resonance in Europe. Belgium and the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia, and Switzerland allows counselors or physicians to prepare a lethal dose, though patients must take it on their own.

France permits patients to refuse treatment that can keep them alive but stops short of allowing euthanasia. The debate in France was revived this year with the death of a woman whose tumor burrowed through her head, leaving her with constant pain, hemorrhaging and difficulty eating.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

TX Hospital Pressures Parents to Withold Treatment from Comatose Teen

THREE days after their teenage daughter went in to a coma following surgery, doctors started pressuring Sabrina Lopez' parents to withhold treatment and feeding.

From "Doctors vs. Parents: Who Decides Right to Life? by Chris Vogel, posted 5/1/08 at Houstonpress.com:

Lopez and Murray say that doctors and hospital staff began pressuring them to withhold treatment and feeding, which would ultimately starve Sabrina to death. To the parents, this was unacceptable. They wanted their daughter to live.

"I was very disappointed with the way Memorial Hermann handled things," Lopez says. "They put it out on the table that we were being selfish."

Murray and Lopez accuse the hospital staff, doctors and nurses of doing everything they could to try to end Sabrina's life during the ensuing six weeks, including:

• Refusing to implement simple procedures such as giving Sabrina feeding and breathing tubes that would have enabled the parents to take their daughter home and care for her themselves,

• Attempting to turn relatives and friends against Lopez and Murray by encouraging them to persuade the parents to withhold treatment, all the while violating federal privacy laws by discussing Sabrina's healthcare information,

• Entering two separate do-not-­resuscitate orders against her parents' wishes, and

• Threatening the family with convening the hospital's ethics committee, which under Texas law can overrule the family's wishes and withhold life-support treatment from a patient.

"It was like we were caught in a bad dream," says Murray. "We couldn't believe this was happening."

Lopez and Murray allege that the hospital staff did not properly monitor Sabrina's sodium levels after the first surgery and did not give her the fluids she needed that they say would have prevented the strokes. Instead, doctors and nurses kept giving Sabrina morphine, a drug known to deplete sodium.

As Lopez and Murray saw it, the hospital and physicians that caused their daughter's condition were now trying to end her life. And it seemed like there was nothing they could do to stop it.

Bioethicist Wes Smith comments, in a recent blog post:

This is a long story but very important to read. Sabrina awakened and is now living with her disability and cared for by her parents. And while I can't take a position about this particular case, I can say I hear from such desperate families on a continuing basis from all over the country. Futile care needs to be stopped.

"Texas is ground zero for Futile Care Theory because of its pernicious law that permits ethics committees to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment over patient/family objections. Readers of SHS will recall that when such a decision is rendered, families have a mere 10 days to find alternative care, which can lead to desperate situations, as I have reported on several occasions."

Death-mobiles - Swiss Right-To-Die Group Offers Suicide In A Parked Car

From "Death-mobiles - Swiss Right-To-Die Group Offers Suicide In A Parked Car" by Thaddeus M. Baklinski, posted 11/09/07 at lifesite.org

The Swiss suicide charity Dignitas has been forced to reinvent its assisted death operation after losing its lease on the apartment in a Zurich suburb where hundreds of people had gone to die.

Other residents in the building had complained about having to use the same elevator as "customers" going up to the third floor flat, and dead bodies being taken down to ambulances or hearses parked below.

Dignitas had hoped to book a suite of hotel rooms to carry out the assisted deaths but withdrew when the Association of Zurich Hoteliers threatened legal action if clients checked in to die. Use of their former premises in an industrial area was also denied them by local authorities.

With nowhere to turn, the group has been reduced to offering its killing service in rental vans where clients are given a concoction of chemicals which they voluntarily drank - which means there is no possibility of prosecution under Swiss law.

Assisted suicide, where the patient carries out the final act himself, is legal in Switzerland while active euthanasia, or deliberate killing to end suffering, is not.

The organization intends to continue offering mobile suicide services until it finds a permanent base.

Read the whole article.

Comatose Man Walks Out of Hospital

Wife had his feeding tube pulled after only a week

From "Comatose Mesa man walks out of hospital" by Rich Dubek, posted 10/19/07 at azcentral.com

Doctors said he had only a small chance of recovery. His own wife pulled his feeding tube after a week. But Friday, Jesse Ramirez walked out of the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, alive and recovering.

It has been an amazing five months for the US postal employee and father of three who was literally at death's door when he was critically injured in a horrific accident. Jesse and his wife Rebecca were in their SUV when Jesse lost control and crashed into a Chandler pottery store. Rebecca suffered only minor injuries, but Jesse was airlifted to a hospital with a fractured skull and face, punctured lungs and broken ribs. One week after the accident, and following a couple of surgeries, Rebecca Ramirez pulled Jesse out of the hospital and moved him to a Mesa hospice. Rebecca then made the decision to pull his feeding tube and Jesse went six days without food or water.

...But one day after our story aired, the family called to tell us Mesa hospice officials put Jesse's tube back in and the courts were now involved. A judge later ruled that the tube must stay in, until they work through the legal issues of the case. While those things transpired, family members reported that Jesse was now opening his eyes, and making hand gestures. Clearly no longer in a vegetative state, he was communicating with family. In court, it became official when a court appointed guardian announced that Jesse was indeed alert and awake. He was then transferred to a rehab center to begin the long road to recovery.

Read the rest of this story.

Rationalizing the Murder of Terri Schiavo

Bobby Schindler has noted that whenever a supposedly vegetative patient, who doctors were sure would never react consciously again, suddenly regains understanding or "miraculously" awakens the reporters seem never to make the connection to his sister Terri Schiavo...

From "Subliminal Understanding That What Happened to Terri Schiavo Was Wrong?" by Wesley J. Smith, posted 10/15/07 at Secondhand Smoke

...It is as if these reports, to quote Shakespeare, "doth protest too much," as if there is a subliminal realization that a terrible injustice was done to her.

The latest almost unbelievable example is in an otherwise interesting and important (and long) piece in the New Yorker, byline Jerome Groopman. After describing how supposedly unconscious people have been misdiagnosed, the author quotes an unnamed neuroscientist about Terri. From the story:

A neuroscientist showed me a video on the Internet of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman who spent fifteen years in what most doctors agree was a vegetative state--tests revealed almost no activity in her cortex--and whose death, in 2005, provoked fierce debate over the rights of severely brain-damaged patients. (Schiavo died after the Supreme Court rejected her parents' appeal of a judge's decision approving her husband's request that her feeding tube be removed. An autopsy showed extensive brain damage.) In the video, a man's voice can be heard praising Schiavo for opening her eyes in response to his instructions, and the neuroscientist told me that he was impressed until he muted the sound. "With the sound off, it is clear that her movements are random," the neuroscientist said. "But, with the voice-over, it is easy to make a misdiagnosis. (My emphasis.)

The above stills are from the video in question. It deeply touched my heart and it is seared forever in my memory. In that video, Terri is asked by the examiner to open her eyes. At first, nothing. Then, within ten or so seconds, her eyes flicker, she opens them, and then opens them so wide her forehead wrinkles. It is clearly an intentional response to the question.

But if you turn the sound off, there is no question to hear--and voila, her opening her eyes with clear intention can now be dismissed as merely "random movement." But a random movement under those circumstances would be to move her head from side to side or lick or lips. But when she opened her eyes, and so intently, precisely as requested, you have to work hard to make it "random." So, to make sure we don't see the terrible wrong that was done to her, we just turn off the sound.

Read the whole commentary.

Organ Harvesting Before "Brain-Death" Increasingly Common, Concerned Doctors Warn

Warning that changing definition of death will eventually lead to organ harvesting from disabled

From "Organ Harvesting Before "Brain-Death" Increasingly Common, Concerned Doctors Warn" by Gudrun Schultz, posted 3/21/07 at LifeSite.org

Organ harvesting from patients before brain-death has been declared as a rapidly increasing trend in U. S. hospitals, the Washington Post reported March 18, alarming doctors and ethicists about the dubious ethics behind the practice.

Instead of waiting until brain function ceases and the patient is declared "brain-dead" by medical officials (itself a questionable practice since there is no universally-accepted definition of brain-death) surgeons have begun following an approach known as "donation after cardiac death." Organs are harvested once the heart has stopped beating and several minutes have passed without the heart spontaneously re-starting.

"The person is not dead yet," said Jerry A. Menikoff, an associate professor
of law, ethics and medicine at the University of Kansas. "They are going to
be dead, but we should be honest and say that we're starting to remove the
organs a few minutes before they meet the legal definition of death."

"Non-beating heart" organ donations have more than doubled since 2003, from 268 to more than 605 in 2006, and the numbers are continuing to rise. The United Network for Organ Sharing and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations now require all hospitals to evaluate the practice and decide whether or not to adopt it.

The Alliance for Human Research Protection issued an alert Sunday warning that the policy is under consideration by hospitals without allowing for public input.

"The race to catch-up to China's policy of live vivisection organ removal from prisoners is underway right here in the US where, the Post reports, the trend is expected to accelerate this year," the AHRP stated.

"So far as we know, our right to informed consent--which means the right to
say, NO--has been abrogated without so much as a public hearing!"

While doctors normally wait five minutes after the heart has stopped before pronouncing death, more and more doctors are shortening the wait period to maximize the quality of the organs. Surgeons at the Children's Hospital in Denver, Colorado wait only 75 seconds after infants' hearts stop beating before removing the heart for transplant, according to the Post. The demand for usable organs is a powerful incentive to push back the ethical boundaries of harvesting policies, say alarmed physicians.

"A lot of us are not particularly happy about cutting that line particularly
close," said Gail A. Van Norman, an anesthesiologist and bioethicist at the
University of Washington in Seattle.

"It's worrisome when you stop thinking of the person who is dying as a patient but rather as a set of organs, and start thinking more about what's best for the patient in the next room waiting for the organs."

While the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine approved the practice as ethical so long as strict guidelines are followed, opponents say it is difficult to ensure patients are not being killed by over-eager harvesting, particularly in pediatric situations. Van Norman and others said the practice could put pressure on families to stop care prematurely, especially when doctors and nurses are caring for both the potential donor and potential recipient.

David Crippen, a University of Pittsburgh critical-care specialist, told the Post he is concerned the changing definition of death will eventually lead to organ harvesting from the disabled.

"Now that we've established that we're going to take organs from patients
who have a prognosis of death but who do not meet the strict definition of
death, might we become more interested in taking organs from patients who
are not dead at all but who are incapacitated or disabled?"

Switzerland: Suicide Clinic Being Evicted from Building

Neighbor says "We call it the house of horrors. This is meant to be a residential flat but some days you'd think it was a morgue."

From "Neighbor's Complaints Succeed in Evicting Dignitas from Residence" by Elizabeth O'Brien, posted 7/17/07 at Lifesite.org

The Swiss assisted-suicide group Dignitas has been evicted from its operation site in a suburban area due to growing complaints from neighbors.

For nine years the assisted-suicide clinic at Gertrudstrasse 84 received people who wanted to kill themselves, Spiegel News reports. The organization took up two apartments of the apartment block; but recently the owner cancelled their lease because residents were horrified by the stream of body bags that were carried out on the elevator and are frustrated by the police and ambulances that constantly come to the door.

The landlady has given Dignitas until September to find a new residence. The eviction is especially significant, reports Spiegel, because the landlady is a cousin of Ludwig Minelli, the head and primary launcher of Dignitas.

55-year old resident Gloria Sonny started the eviction movement, gathering signatures to petition against Dignitas. She told Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung that the place had become a "house of death." Last year Sonny was also quoted in UK's Telegraph, "We call it the 'House of Horrors'. This is meant to be a residential flat but some days you'd think it was a morgue."

She also noted that not all of the people who came with a one-way ticket were old. She said, "The look in their eyes haunts me, particularly if they are young."

Other residents complained that their children were constantly exposed to the dying and dead bodies. One woman was quoted in the Guardian Unlimited, saying that she changed her household chores in order not to "bump into a corpse while I'm taking out the rubbish."

Read the rest of this article.