Rochester Area Right To Life
"Brave New World"??? Science fiction??? No. The USA. Now. It's in full strength in Holland - a warning of what's coming our way.
American College of Physicians Joins AMA in Opposing Assisted Suicide
England - warning of "intentional killing of the non-dying"
The slippery slope. What can happen when we don't put the patient's welfare first! updated 6/13/2001
The Dutch today updated 4/19/2001
Doctors reject Dutch euthanasia law updated 4/19/2001
Dutch legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia updated 4/19/2001
Chronology in Holland updated 4/19/2001
France wants to follow suit updated 4/19/2001
Assisted Suicide: A License to Kill by Nat Hentoff (updated 3/2/2001)
"I'm your doctor and I'm here to kill you" - you might want to rethink that "living will."
Involuntary euthanasia in Canada
Holland - the sick are not safe today. See specifics. (updated 3/2/2001)
Stealthy advance of euthanasia
American College of Physicians Joins AMA in Opposing Assisted Suicide
Philadelphia, PA -- The American College of Physicians, the nation's second-largest medical organization behind the American Medical Association, has joined the AMA in officially opposing assisted suicide. A paper published Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine says the 90,000-member American College of Physicians believes doctors should always look for ways to improve care for the dying.
"We must solve the problems of inadequate care at the end of life, not avoid them through practices such as assisted suicide,'' said Dr. Daniel Sulmasy of the American College of Physicians, an author of the paper.
Providing more and better care for pain and suffering, treating depression more aggressively and increasing access to hospice care are essential to help terminally ill patients die more comfortably, the paper said.
Assisted suicide would damage the patient-physician relationship, jeopardize the medical profession's role of healing, and lessen the value placed on life, according to the paper.
The paper emphasized the group's strong support for a patient's right to refuse or halt treatment.
Besides the AMA, the paper also puts the American College of Physicians in consensus with the American Nurses Association, The American Geriatrics Society and a host of other medical and religious groups. The AMA expressed its opposition to assisted suicide in 1993.
One needs only to "take a look at Dr. (Jack) Kevorkian's victims'' to see that assistant suicide should not be an option, said Dr. Richard Corlin, AMA president.
"You see not just people in the last stages of a terminal illness; you see people who are suffering from chronic depression, people with arthritis, multiple sclerosis,'' he said. "They're in pain (but) would clearly benefit from the better use of pain medications, the better use of psychological support and the involvement of family in their care.''
A spokeswoman for a pro-assisted suicide lobbying group said most people support assisted suicide but many are afraid to say so publicly.
"It's likely that as baby boomers get closer to the end of their lives - and watch as their parents are being kept alive by machines and suffering unbearable pain or indignity - they will seek a more positive outcome for the end of their own lives,'' said Jane Ruvelson of the Death with Dignity National Center.
Assisted suicide is outlawed in all U.S. states except Oregon, where the practice is allowed under a law that took effect in 1997, the same year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was no constitutional right to assisted suicide.
Studies suggest 11 percent of terminally ill patients seriously contemplate suicide and that about half of U.S. doctors who receive suicide requests have helped someone die.
Source: Associated Press, Reuters; August 6, 2001 as quoted in the Pro-Life Infonet 8/7/01 #2496 Courtesy of the Pro-Life Infonet email newsletter. For more information or to subscribe go to http://www.prolifeinfo.org or email firstname.lastname@example.org
Media-coverage continues of concerns about the General Medical Council's draft guidance on withdrawal of food and fluid. Yesterday's Daily Telegraph described the warnings from the group of doctors and lawyers [see our news of the 20th of last month] that the guidance comes close to endorsing murder. Mr James Bogle, the pro-life lawyer, is quoted as saying:
|"If the GMC guidance permits the withdrawing and withholding of tube fluids to non-dying patients so as to cause their death then it will have endorsed intentional killing of the non-dying."|
Mr Bogle described dehydration as a cruel death which painkillers could not always assuage. [Daily Telegraph, 6 August] On Friday we reported on SPUC's concerns that the Official Solicitor might have given some form of approval to the guidance, which is disputed and potentially controversial.
SPUC is the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Their news (centered in Britain, of course) can be read at http://www.spuc.org.uk/news/index.htm
The Slippery Slope
When we start thinking about convenience and economy, here's what happens with people who might possibly be at the end of their lives - or might not be. If you were a patient today, who would you trust?
CALIFORNIA: The fate of PVS patient Robert Wendland now rests with the California Supreme Court. Wendland was the victim of a car accident eight years ago that left him in a "minimally conscious state." His wife wishes to have his feeding tube disconnected, but his mother and sister have argued for the past six years that he is not "vegetative."
(Reading: "Robert's Wishes: Court Struggles with Right to Die," Sacramento Bee, 6/2/01, http://www.sacbee.com and search; for a copy of the Not Dead Yet brief in the case and daily alert updates, see http://www.notdeadyet.org ; further info at International Anti-euthanasia Task Force: http://www.iaetf.org/ff.htm )
FLORIDA: Euthanasia - motives can be very murky. How do you know?
Reports are posted on the Schiavo web site that indicate the opinion of several physicians that Terry Schiavo (see Communique, 5/2/01, http://www.all.org/communique/cq010502.htm ) is a good candidate for rehabilitation and may not be a PVS patient after all. For updates, see http://www.terrisfight.org.
Communique - a pro-life news update
From: Judie Brown
June 5, 2001 Vol. 11, No. 25
The Dutch have legalized euthanasia, but it's only for the terminally ill who are in terrible, unbearable pain that cannot be alleviated. In other words, only the exceptions, the rare cases. In a column from the National Right to Life, Dave Andrusko points out that the slippery slope is never far away, that a tentative step is immediately followed by a larger, surer one. In this case, the step from "people in unbearable pain" to "the elderly who are tired of living" only took four days. Yup. Four days from the time the euthanasia law was enacted, the Dutch health minister argued for having compassion on the elderly who were just tired of living. For them, one should have a pill so it wouldn't even need to involve a doctor.
And this is the country where the story of Anne Frank took place, where Jews were eliminated because Hitler thought they were a nuisance.
In Holland, one more nail has been put in the coffin of the sick elderly who are a "nuisance" to someone. Not true? Read what "Doctors for Life" have to say.
Doctors Reject Dutch Euthanasia Law.
Doctors for Life predicted in our press release of 13/08/99 [Aug. 13, 1999] that active euthanasia would be legalised in Holland, and yesterday the prediction was fulfilled. This proves that Holland is continuing to glide down the slippery slope. DFL is deeply concerned about the decision of the Dutch government to continue with this disastrous experiment at the cost of the citizens of its country.
Studies indicate that families, rather than patients, generally decide when the time has come for euthanasia. From among many examples we quote the example of a man who was hospitalised with terminal cancer and was in great pain. The son told the doctor they wanted to bury the old man before they went on holiday. The doctor agreed and overdosed the man with pain medicine. The next day, much to his shock, the old man was sitting up, feeling great. The intended overdose had not killed the man, but killed his pain. It illustrates that this doctor, in fact, did not know how to control his patient's symptoms - which events proved were entirely controllable.
Guidelines do not protect people from being killed by their doctors once euthanasia is legalised, as experience in the Netherlands already shows. One example is that of a doctor who killed a nun who had requested not to be killed on the basis of religious belief because he felt she was in too much pain. In fact, a Dutch study from 1996 showed that nearly a quarter of doctors had killed patients without having received an explicit request.
Experience has shown that doctors kill patients who they have abandoned, and not patients who they care for. Also, patients who opt for euthanasia have usually been offered one of only two options: the option of dying in excruciating suffering, or else euthanasia. They have not been offered the option of expert pain control (palliative care).
Doctors for Life calls upon all doctors everywhere to ensure that they have adequate training in pain and other symptom control, and that they have access to specialist advice in these areas. Patients have a right to expect this of their doctors.
Doctors for Life further calls on all governments to make such training a compulsory part of a doctor's education.
Doctors for Life calls on the South African Government not to legalise active euthanasia and to remove all vague terminology that would allow active euthanasia, from their proposed euthanasia legislation.
DFL is an organisation of about 700 doctors, specialists and professors of medicine from different medical faculties across South Africa.
For more information contact: Dr. A.B. Hyams at tel.: (033) 4441707 or (083) 5000705 or Dr Albu van Eeden Tel: (031) 764-0443 office hours.
Press release 4/12/2001 of Doctors for Life. Visit their homepage: www.dfl.org.za
Dutch Legalize Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
The Hague, Netherlands -- Despite protests outside parliament, the Netherlands legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide Tuesday, becoming the first nation to allow for both practices.
About 10,000 euthanasia opponents surrounded the building, praying, singing hymns and quoting the Bible, while the upper house of parliament, the Senate, considered the legislation. The Senate voted 46-28 in favor of the law, likely to take effect in the summer.
Before the vote, Health Minister Els Borst reassured legislators the bill could not be abused by doctors because of careful supervisory provisions. The law presupposes a long doctor-patient relationship and requires patients be legal residents of the Netherlands.
"There are sufficient measures to eliminate those concerns,'' Borst told the senators. Assisted suicide, she said, will remain a last resort for those who have no other choice but endless suffering.
The law formalizes a practice discreetly used in Dutch hospitals and homes for decades, turning guidelines adopted by Parliament in 1993 into legally binding requirements. Doctors can still be punished if they fail to meet the law's strict codes.
Outside parliament, some protesters were masked in black balaclavas and carried oversized syringes dripping with fake blood. Others gathered signatures for a petition that already had 25,000 names before the debate opened Monday evening. Several Christian schools canceled classes to allow students from across the country to participate in the demonstrations.
"We don't have the right to decide about matters of life and death, but God does,'' said 19-year-old Henrico van der Hoek as he walked passed Parliament. ``As Christians, we simply cannot support this law.''
After the vote, they said they were disappointed but not surprised. The Senate vote was considered a formality for the bill, already passed by the lower house.
"The tide will turn back someday,'' said 69-year-old Piet Huurman of the Cry for Life protest group. "They will realize they have made a terrible mistake.''
Despite the strong showing of opponents on Tuesday, van der Hoek, who belongs to the Dutch Reformed Church, admitted he is one of a small minority in the Netherlands, once a stronghold of Christian politics.
In the debate, Borst said a broad consensus had coalesced after 30 years of discussion, claiming some 90 percent of the population backing the changes.
Under the law, a patient would have to be undergoing irremediable and unbearable suffering, be aware of all other medical options and have sought a second professional opinion. The request would have to be made voluntarily, persistently and independently while the patient is of sound mind. Doctors are not supposed to suggest it as an option.
The new law also would allow patients to leave a written request for euthanasia, giving doctors the right to use their own discretion when patients become too physically or mentally ill to decide for themselves. An independent commission would review cases to ensure the guidelines were followed.
If a doctor is suspected of wrongdoing, the case will be referred to public prosecutors for review and possible punishment.
Several countries - Switzerland, Colombia and Belgium - tolerate euthanasia. Belgium is the only other country currently considering making assisted suicide legal. In the United States, Oregon has allowed assisted suicide since 1996, but its law is more restrictive than the Dutch bill. In Australia, the Northern Territories enacted a law in 1996, but it was revoked in 1997 by the federal parliament.
Early reaction from abroad, however, was negative.
Russian Health Minister, Yuri Shevchenko, interviewed by RTR state television, said the law would be wide open to abuse. "Imagine an ill, old man induced to die with his belongings and small apartment taken from him. This is a great sin and we must not allow it," he said.
The Illinois-based "Not Dead Yet," organisation, a U.S. disability rights group, also condemned the action. "The Dutch experience with euthanasia is best described as one of increasing carelessness and callousness over the years," it said in a statement.
An influential Roman Catholic bishop in Poland also spoke against the new law. "Euthanasia allowed in one sphere.., can slip out of control and embrace other groups of people -- those unwanted and disabled," said Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek, former secretary general of Poland's episcopate.
In contrast, Australian anti-euthanasia campaigners do not expect any "ripple effect" from the Netherlands becoming the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia.
"I can't understand the Dutch, I really can't," said Right to Life chairwoman Margaret Tighe, pointing to the rejection of euthanasia elsewhere in Europe, Australia and the United States. "I believe that when the history books are written in years to come, people will look back in sorrow and in anger at what the Dutch have allowed to happen because (voluntary euthanasia) is a very, very slippery slope," Tighe told Reuters.
The drafters of the Dutch bill denounced a plan from Australia's leading euthanasia campaigner to set up a floating clinic in a ship flying the Dutch flag off the coast. Philip Nitschke had said if the Dutch legalize euthanasia he would offer clients lethal injections in international waters off the Australian coast.
Borst said the Dutch government would do "whatever it could'' to counter any such effort and stressed that the scheme "could by no means'' fit into the Dutch rules.
Source: Associated Press, Reuters; April 10, 2001 as quoted in the Pro-Life Infonet. The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: email@example.com. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.prolifeinfo.org/wcf). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email firstname.lastname@example.org
Chronology: Netherlands' growing tolerance of euthanasia
Here is a chronology of key events leading to Tuesday's vote by the Dutch upper house of parliament to legalise euthanasia.
The Netherlands now becomes the only country to make assisted suicide and euthanasia legal, after tolerating the practice for more than two decades.
1973 Dutch court outlines conditions which can override doctors' vow to prolong life. It imposes a one-week suspended sentence and one year of probation on a doctor who injected her mother with a lethal dose of morphine.
1984 Dutch Supreme Court overturns conviction of doctor who terminated the life of an aged woman who revealed in her will that she had requested euthanasia. The court ruled that the doctor had properly resolved a conflict between preserving a patient's life and alleviating suffering.
1993 Dutch parliament passes law to regulate mercy killing with a 28-point checklist for doctors to follow in euthanasia cases. Doctors should find patients are terminally ill, in unbearable pain and have repeatedly asked to die. Euthanasia remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum 12-year jail sentence, but doctors who follow guidelines told they should not expect to be punished. Public prosecutor to decide on case-by-case basis whether to prosecute.
1994 Dutch Supreme Court upholds a conviction, but declines to impose a penalty, for a doctor who helped a woman commit suicide at her request. The woman was not terminally ill, but had a long history of depression. The court ruled that the doctor should have consulted an independent medical expert before acting.
1995 Dutch court rules in two cases that doctors who ended the lives of two severely handicapped babies at the request of their parents were justified. The doctors should not be punished even though a charge of murder was formally proven. The doctors were the first to be prosecuted for ending the lives of patients unable to express their own will.
1997 Government unveils euthanasia reform after official inquiry reveals about 60 percent of mercy killings go unreported by doctors who fear prosecution. Under new measures, reported euthanasia cases are no longer automatically referred to prosecutors, but to an independent panel of medical, legal and ethical experts.
1999 Government delivers bill to parliament to legalise euthanasia.
November 28, 2000 Lower house votes to legalise euthanasia under strict conditions.
March 2001 An Amsterdam doctor is convicted of murder, but given no prison sentence, after a court ruled he failed to follow euthanasia principles.
April 10, 2001 Upper house of parliament, the Senate, votes 46 to 28 in favour of legalising euthanasia under strict conditions.
Source: Associated Press; April 10, 2001 as quoted in the Special Pro-Life Infonet on Dutch Euthanasia Vote The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: email@example.com. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.prolifeinfo.org/wcf). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email firstname.lastname@example.org
Follow the Leader: French Health Minister Wants France to Legalize Euthanasia Next
Paris, France -- France's health minister plans to press for the legalization of euthanasia after favourable opinion polls in France and a vote last week made the Netherlands the first country to openly endorse the dangerous policy.
Bernard Kouchner, health minister and a doctor, said in comments published on Monday that he would open a debate and visit the Netherlands to glean information on the controversial Dutch response policy that allows both assisted suicide and active euthanasia.
"There's an unquestionable change in French public opinion. We have to adapt and try to behave in a more humane manner in cases of such difficulty," he was quoted as telling Le Monde. "It's time to debate the issue openly, without arrogance, preconceived ideas or ideological rhetoric," he said.
Source: Reuters; April 16, 2001 as quoted in the Pro-Life Infonet 4/16/01 #2408 The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: email@example.com. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.prolifeinfo.org/wcf). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email firstname.lastname@example.org
License to Kill
by Nat Henthoff
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Nat Hentoff is a noted pro-life liberal Democrat and a columnist for The Washington Times and the Village Voice.]
Among the defendants at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial were German doctors who before the Holocaust had euthanized mentally defective, purebred Germans. Dr. Leo Alexander, who worked for the chief counsel for war crimes, had interviewed those physicians before the trial.
In a prophetic article in the July 14, 1949 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Alexander examined the initial causes of the Holocaust. The beginnings, he wrote, were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as "life not worthy to be lived."
The Nazis described the patients they killed as "useless eaters." Not long before Alexander's death in 1984, he warned that the same lethal attitudes were taking root in this country. He cited the rise of the death with dignity movement, which advocated what later became more widely known as assisted suicide doctors providing the means for patients to kill themselves, which is now legal in Oregon.
Recalling his research for the Nuremberg trials, Alexander said of what was happening here: "The barriers against killing are coming down." A new book by Wesley Smith, "The Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" (Encounter Books, 2001), documents Alexander's concerns more fully and lucidly than any volume yet published on whether humanity will be able to remain humane.
Writing about "The Culture of Death," Dr. N. Gregory Hamilton, president of Physicians for Compassionate Care, points out that prominent bioethicists now claim "the value of each human life can be traded-off in complex cost-benefit ratios. Members of the bioethics elite have quietly convinced many of our judges, hospital administrators and doctors that some human lives have relatively less value, and therefore less right to equal protection."
I have known and read Mr. Smith for a long time, and I have often cited him in this column because of the range, depth and accuracy of his research. His new book names a number of these bioethicists whom I called, years ago, the new priesthood of death. He shows how their influence began and grew, and tells of patients who have been subject to final decisions by doctors often against the patients' wishes and the wishes of their relatives because it was thought that their lives were no longer worth living. It's called involuntary euthanasia.
As Mr. Smith says in his book: "With the exception of assisted suicide due mostly to the widespread media coverage of Jack Kevorkian most people are but dimly aware of what is happening."
Popular culture, he adds, promotes many of these practices as a compassionate response to the trials and tribulations of illness. Like Alexander in 1949, Mr. Smith is trying to alert all of us to the falling barriers against killing. Moreover, he warns that a consequence of this devaluing of disabled and otherwise fragile lives is the creation of a duty to die. "I have debated academics who seriously believe that people who are no longer productive should die rather than expect their families and the rest of society to pay what it costs to keep them alive."
In the Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics last fall, there was this medical advice by Drs. Lawrence J. Schneiderman and Alexander Morgan Capron: "A judge who orders that a severely disabled child be kept alive rarely sees firsthand the long-term consequences of that decision, which remain a continuing vivid experience for the health professionals who must provide care for the child."
Therefore, so that these professionals can be relieved of such a vivid experience, a compassionate judge should order that the child not be kept alive. That is the culture of death.
Mr. Smith ends "The Culture of Death" with the following words: "We all age. We fall ill. We grow weak. We become disabled. A day comes when our need to receive from our fellows adds to far more than our ability to give in return. When we reach that stage of life . . . will we still be deemed persons entitled to equal protection under the law?"
If only in self-defense, you ought to read "The Culture of Death" and discuss it with your doctors and your family. And put your wishes in writing.
Source: Washington Times; February 26, 2001 as quoted in the Pro-Life Infonet; February 26, 2001The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: email@example.com. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email firstname.lastname@example.org
"I'm Your Doctor and I'm Here to Kill You" by Barbara Simpson
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker" as she's known to her KSFO 560 radio talk-show audience in San Francisco, has a 20-year radio, television and newspaper career in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.]
It's a strange business I'm in. I do talk radio and I write. I know about a lot of things and read everything I can get my hands on. I talk to reporters and scientists and experts and citizens with stories to tell.
Most of the time, the subjects we discuss on my programs deal with problems and situations that affect other people. It isn't often that the subject applies to me or my family. That was the case. Not now.
A little over two weeks ago, I interviewed a man on my program whom I'd interviewed before. He had written "Forced Exit," a book about euthanasia, what we used to call "mercy killing."
Wesley Smith has a new book out now. It's called "The Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America," published by Encounter Books. (To order, go to: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893554066/roevwade26yearof )
It's a chilling account of the hidden changes in medical care in this country and more importantly, the deliberate changes in the training of doctors, nurses, ethics personnel and other health-care workers.
Remember how most of us were concerned about the wonders of medical technology keeping us alive artificially, making us slaves to tubes and machines? Remember how we all were advised to have living wills which would designate what we didn't want done to us if we were in final and desperate straits? Remember all the money we paid to lawyers to draw up such documents and how when it was done, we felt safe.
Forget it. You are not safe.
You are more at risk than ever. Not from being kept alive longer than you desire but from having your life ended sooner than nature might dictate and in fact, sooner than you or your family want.
I won't mince words. What I'm saying is that you and your loved ones are now more in danger of having your life ended by doctors refusing medical care than in having it extended artificially.
In his book, Smith describes what is called the "Futile Care Theory." What it means in simple language is that doctors will refuse treatment, any treatment, if they decide that it's your time to die. It won't matter if the patient wants help. It won't matter if the family wants help. The answer will be "no."
When I interviewed Smith, I never dreamed that within days, I would experience exactly that situation. But I did. It is the most devastating experience you can imagine. It left me filled with raging emotions, unbelievable anger and frustration.
It left me with my father dead. He died just a few nights ago.
He was in the late stages of prostate cancer. We knew he would not survive that battle. He had decided long ago that he did not want radiation, chemotherapy or surgery. That was his decision. We treated the illness with hormones and herbs and it was controlled for several years. But it finally did spread, and we knew the end was coming.
One week ago, he was transferred to a larger hospital to have blood drained from his chest. He was conscious, rational, could eat and drink on his own and had minimal pain. His only medication was a blood pressure pill, a baby aspirin, a Tylenol if he had pain, and an IV drip with potassium. Hardly what you would expect of a "terminal" case. He was to be transferred back to his original hospital/convalescent care. That's when it all happened, so fast it made our heads spin.
The doctors decided on their own that we wanted only pain assistance so they discontinued all the medicines he was getting, including the IV drip. They never asked the family; it was an arbitrary decision. My poor mother, who was alone with Daddy, believed them when they said it was the "best" thing for him. They were doctors after all! Besides, she told me, she was afraid to question them for fear they might do something to hurt Daddy.
It was a weekend. When I found out what they had done, I demanded to have a doctor, only to be told he was not on call. They could only take Daddy to the emergency room if it were an emergency and it wasn't and they could not re-insert the IV without doctors' orders. (Catch 22!)
I implored the head nurse and was told that Daddy was going "through a process"! (A process?) Yes, I was told in all seriousness, my dad was "processing." That's the new way of saying that Daddy was dying.
The nurse also said that dehydrating Daddy would be good because it would force his body to produce endorphins to kill pain. I could not believe my ears!
After much discussion, I finally got him to have the doctor call me. He did but refused to reinsert the IV. They coerced my mother to agree to wait until Monday to see how Daddy was. They even told her the IV would do more harm.
Daddy ate and talked, right up to the end. He even ate two desserts with gusto. I talked to him a few hours earlier and he was his old self. Two days before, I'd asked him if he wanted to die and he said no.
You can live a couple of weeks without food but only about two days without water. The doctor removed the IV Friday night. Daddy was dead Sunday night. Two days.
The doctor expressed his regrets to my Mom and said he was sorry I was so upset. He said "that often happens with family members who just don't understand and get very emotional."
I don't know how he sleeps at night. I just can't wait to get his bill. I got more consolation from the vet when my dog died.
Be warned. This is not just my tragedy, this same fate awaits your family because that is what the medical system is teaching their people to do -- to us, their patients, under the guise of medicine. God help us.
World Net Daily; February 20, 2001 as quoted in the Pro-Life Infonet 2/21/01
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: email@example.com. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email firstname.lastname@example.org
Canada's Supreme Court to Rule on Involuntary Euthanasia
Ottawa, Canada -- The Supreme Court of Canada said on Friday it would announce next week its decision on whether a father convicted of murdering his disabled daughter should have a shorter jail sentence because she suffered from severe cerebral palsy.
In 1993 Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer killed his 12-year-old daughter Tracy, who had suffered the severe physical and mental disorder since birth, by piping exhaust fumes into his pick-up truck.
The high-profile case goes to the heart of whether involuntary euthanasia should be allowed, and has many advocates of the disabled angry that a lower standard of justice could apply to people with handicaps.
Latimer said he had no choice but to end his daughter's suffering. His lawyers say it would be cruel and unusual punishment to give him the minimum sentence of at least 10 years, with no parole, that second-degree murder requires.
The Supreme Court said its decision on the case would be released at 9.45 a.m. next Thursday.
This is the second time the Latimer case has reached the Canadian Supreme Court. Latimer killed Tracy in 1993 but the Supreme Court ordered a new trial in 1997 because police had asked potential jurors about their attitude toward euthanasia, abortion and religion.
In the subsequent trial Latimer was convicted of second-degree murder but the judge described his crime as a "compassionate homicide," exempted him from the mandatory minimum penalty and sentenced him to two years instead.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned that decision in 1998, imposing the mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole for 10 years. The Supreme Court is now due to rule on Latimer's appeal of that Saskatchewan appeal court verdict.
Source: Reuters; January 12, 2001 as quoted in the Pro-Life Infonet 1/15/01 #2329 The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: email@example.com. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.prolifeinfo.org/wcf). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email firstname.lastname@example.org
The sick are really not safe in Holland.
Read about specific abuses of even the lethally liberal laws that are in place and will be in place. A man, who could speak for himself, but his wife does all the talking. He is killed. Did he want to be? He should have been specifically asked, wouldn't you think? Not an isolated instance. See for yourself. (updated 3/2/2001)http://cwfa.org/library/_familyvoice/2001-01/14-20.shtml
|Annotated Pro-Life Links||Statistics||Find Your Lawmaker||Legislative
Status in NY
|Fed Voting Recs||NYS Voting Recs||Thoughts||Pamphlets, Books,Gifts||Archive|
Right to Life Website - Main Headings
|Home||What's New||Local Events||Life Stage