Monday, December 14, 2009
Euthanasia: the pro-life response?
Friday, May 08, 2009
Patients starving in British hospitals
Briefing. This has been reported so many times it is becoming tedious. But it is also extremely worrying.
From SPUC: Patients are dying of malnutrition in British hospitals. A survey for the Health Service journal found that insufficient important and attention was given to feeding patients and to the quality of hospital food. Figures reveal that 242 died of malnutrition in NHS hospitals in 2007. [Daily Mail, 6 May] SPUC has warned that patients are at risk of euthanasia by omission under the Mental Capacity Act [SPUC director]
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Parents lose battle to stop hospital withdrawing treatment from child
Briefing.
The nine-month-old boy suffered from mitochondrial disease, a rare metabolic disorder which resulted in brain damage and respiratory failure.
Two Court of Appeal judges refused the couple permission to challenge a decision by Mrs. Justice Parker of the High Court, made after a 10-day hearing, which gave the hospital treating the boy the right to stop the medical treatment that was keeping him alive.
His parents reportedly were 'deeply distressed' by the court's decision to end their baby's treatment and thereby his life. In a statement, the parents said that only one other child with the same condition had been identified by modern medicine and everyone was in 'unknown territory.'
'We are and always will be convinced that, despite his desperate problems, his life is worthwhile and is worth preserving as long as it is possible to do so without causing him undue pain.
'That was the real argument between us and the doctors - they think his life is intolerable and that his disability is such that his life has little purpose; but we, along with some of the nurses, believed that he experiences pleasure and that he has long periods where he was relaxed and pain free.
'Our belief in his humanity and inherent worth justified us taking every step to support him.'
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association, which represents doctors involved in the case, said in a UKTelegraph report, 'Cases like this are very distressing and we have every empathy with the parents, but when the parents and the clinical team don't agree on the treatment for the child in question, the only way forward is to go to the courts and for the courts to decide on what is in the best interests of the child, which is paramount.'
Alex Schadenberg, chairman of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, commented on the court decision, saying, 'The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is shocked that a High Court ruling in the UK would determine that a child who is disabled from a rare metabolic disorder is better off dead. It is very sad when parents make decisions to give up on a child with a disability, but it is shocking when the courts Court imposes death on the child, against the wishes of the child's loving parents.
'How is it possible that a court could impose death upon a vulnerable child? It is simply unbelievable.'
The parents told the BBC, through spokesman Christopher Cuddihee of Kaim Todner: 'During his short time with us OT became the focus of our lives.
'We were present during his last moments, together with O's extended family.
'He died peacefully. We will miss him greatly and wish to say that we are proud to have known our beautiful son for his brief life.' [LSN]
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Card. O'Brien on assisted suicide
Briefing.
From SPUC: The Catholic church in Scotland has warned that legalisation of assisted
suicide there could lead to depressed people killing themselves. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, warned that vulnerable people could be manipulated. Ms Margo MacDonald MSP, who is proposing the bill, dismissed the concerns as nonsense. [Scotland on Sunday, 22 February] A case in the Indian supreme court would reportedly legalise euthanasia, and the country's Catholic bishops have expressed concern. [Catholic News Agency, 23 February]
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Faith and Euthanasia
Comment: 'Care not Killing' welcomes a letter in The Times pointing out that 'faith' is not the only or the main reason against legalised euthanasia. Lord Joffe claims that it is, perhaps with a view to the argument that opponents are trying to impose their religious commitments on everyone else, certainly in order to ignore the reasoned arguments against his position.
While it might seem ungracious for our non-religious allies against euthanasia to wish to repudiate our religious motivation, Catholics can understand this point better than many non-Catholic Christians. Euthanasia is an offense against Natural Law. It is not a matter of ritual obligations, revelation, faith, or the life of grace. It is a matter of the obligations we have to each other as human beings, obligations which can be grasped by all men of good will on the basis of natural reason alone. The fact that many non-Christians have been so corrupted by modern currents of thought that they shut their eyes to these obligations does not change the point. Catholics, and the Church, in arguing as they do, are defending not faith but reason.
From Care not Killing: In a robust letter to the Times, Lord Carlile QC has taken issue with Lord Joffe’s recent accusations that religious leaders are largely responsible for the opposition to assisted suicide. Carlile asserted, This is not about religion or autonomy or medicine: it is about public safety, legal certainty and the protection by the law of the vulnerable.’ Lord Joffe has meanwhile threatened to bring his assisted dying bill back in to the House of Lords.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Don't get old
Briefing.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Is Mary Warnock the scariest nutcase on the streets?
Briefing. We think she is. John Smeaton reports
Monday, December 15, 2008
Archduke Henri of Luxembourg loses his veto
Briefing. What a contrast with our own Queen!
From The Independant, in part: The people of Luxembourg stripped their beloved monarch of his political powers today after he tried to veto a bill that allows for the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Grand Duke Henri, ceremonial ruler of Luxembourg's 470,000 inhabitants, provoked an unprecedented crisis in the sedate territory two weeks ago when he refused to sign the law, apparently for reasons of conscience.
Henri is a devout Catholic. The hereditary monarch's powers are largely nominal but, under the Grand Duchy's constitution, no new legislation can come into force without royal assent. Until a fortnight ago, no member of the dynasty had ever challenged the parliamentary process.
See the full story here.
A constitutional amendment approved by parliament yesterday limits the monarch to announcing decisions of parliament, in effect, muzzling the Grand Duke but the move has provoked a debate about the monarchy's future.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Elderly 'vegtables' should be killed off
Briefing: this statement from the Governments 'czar' for the elderly defies parody. What is the 'normal' lifespan? Dame Joan has already outlived her 'three score years and ten'. Her remarks about 'enormous machinery' of lifesupport indicates a completely irrational approach to the question. What difference does the size of the machines make? In any case, she is not advocating switching them off when they are no longer doing any good - something which is entirely reasonable - but giving a lethal injection to people who can no longer refuse.
From the Daily Telegraph, in part: Labour's czar for the elderly said she had made a living will that will mean she is 'not kept alive if I'm a vegetable'. She added that people should not be helped to go on living by machinery if they had outlived their normal lifespan.
The 75-year-old television presenter also called for laws that would allow terminally ill patients to be given fatal doses of drugs. The controversial call for assisted dying and allowing people with dementia to die came a week after Dame Joan's appointment as the 'voice of older people'.
Dame Joan told the Daily Telegraph: 'Everybody fears becoming unable to speak, unable to communicate. 'That's a really alarming prospect and I think it is quite a good idea to give thought to it now and to write a living will and to make provision, tell your nearest and dearest what you want.'
She added: 'I don't want people to be kept alive simply because there is a lot of enormous machinery that can keep them pumped up and with all the organs going, when in fact their identity has ceased to exist.'
She called for MPs and peers to 'revisit' the Bill put forward earlier this year by Lord Joffe that would have given doctors the right to give a fatal dose of drugs to a terminally sick patient.
Dame Joan said: 'The bill is very limited in scope and you have to have a terminal illness - you really have to be within sight of the pearly gates - before anything is possible. It is not a matter of saying "you are a bit old, can you pop off?".'
But Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: 'Dame Joan talks about enormous machinery keeping people alive, but there is a big difference between that and Lord Joffe's bill, that would mean people could be given injections to kill them off. Dame Joan ought to know the difference and it is disappointing that she doesn't. She runs the risk of giving the impression to people with dementia that they have a duty to die.'
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Hybrid embryos today, the old and sick tomorrow
The agenda of death goes on. Last week the Queen signed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: not for the first time, breaking her Coronation Oath.
She was asked
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
But hey, 1952 was a long time ago, maybe she's forgotten.
"If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care--especially the removal of food and fluids--they will see what a painful way this is to die and then, in the patient's best interests, they will accept the lethal injection".
Monday, October 13, 2008
Suicide book to go on-line?
Comment: it is worth noting the great success the British Government has had in reducing the number of suicides, with practical measures such as insisting that dangerous medicines be packaged in 'blister pack' form. This kind of mild inconvenience makes a difference to suicide numbers because they are so often acts of momentary despair or desperation, which the would-be suicide would think better of if given a chance. This policy now seems to be going into reverse: Government action seems designed to make suicide as easy as possible, especially for the elderly.
This book, the work of a private individual, should be stopped because it will give the means of death to people who might think better of it given even a few more minutes to think it over
From SPUC: Australian Right to Life is trying to get a suicide handbook taken off the internet. Dr Philip Nitschke was due to launch his publication in Britain today. Ms Margaret Tighe of Right to Life said he was a dangerous man. The authorities had to stop him. [ABC, 13 October]
Friday, October 03, 2008
Euthanasia case in the courts
Briefing.
From SPUC: SPUC is taking part in an English high court hearing of a case whichpresents a threat to vulnerable people and could undermine the law againstassisted suicide. Mrs Debbie Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis (MS), wantsto know whether her husband would be prosecuted if he took her abroad to commit suicide. Mrs Mary Corrigan, an SPUC supporter who has MS, said: "MSis a terrible disease, and major depression and suicide are more commonamong MS people than most other groups. It is important that the courtgets the full picture of what this case could lead to, which is why SPUCis intervening." Mrs Purdy is backed by Dignity in Dying, thepro-euthanasia group, and is considering going to Dignitas in Zurich,Switzerland, to kill herself if her condition worsens. [SPUC and Guardian,2 October] Dignitas claims that more than 100 British people have committedsuicide there since it opened 10 years ago. Our source says that 650British people are registered with the organisation and that its totaldeath toll is 870. Switzerland legalised assisted suicide in 1941. [Times,2 October]
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Voluntary Euthanasia Society stopped from monopolising 'dignity in dying'
Briefing.
From the Christian Legal Centre: In 2006 the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) changed its name to Dignity in Dying. The group were seeking to monopolise the phrase to advance their ideology, particularly in the educational sphere. Many people felt that a monopoly of the words “dignity in dying” were misleading for an organisation which advocated euthanasia. In August 2007, the Christian Medical Fellowship, Alert and the United Kingdom’s Disabled People’s Council sought to stop the monopoly by challenging the phrase under the Trademarks Act 1998. We thank God that a victory has been achieved, because the VES withdrew its trademark applications for the words ‘dignity in dying’. This is a great step forward for pro-life groups, because it means that they are free to use the phrase ‘dignity in dying’ in a way that expresses the love and care people deserve at the end of life. The VES has kept its own stylised trademark - ‘dignity in dying - your life your choice’. VES had sought to set the tone of the debate surrounding end of life issues, but pro life groups have claimed back the language. We give thanks to God for this victory.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Alzheimer's sufferers 'ought to die'
Briefing.
From SPUC: The medical ethicist who helped lay the foundation for the UK's embryology
law has suggested that dementia sufferers have a duty to die. Baroness Warnock, described as the country's leading moral philosopher, says patients are a drain on national resources. She appears to want assisted suicide and/or euthanasia, including for patients who are not in pain but feel they are burden on others. The Alzheimer's Society was shocked by Lady Warnock's remarks. [Daily Telegraph, 19 September] SPUC has described Baroness Warnock's views as "a regression to the brutal ancient world, when enforced suicide as a punishment was commonplace." [John Smeaton, 19 September] Lady Warnock chaired a committee on human fertilisation and
embryology in the 1980s.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Brain death is not real death
Action: do NOT sign up for organ donation 'after death': they will probably take your organs BEFORE you die. Brain death is obviously not death: there are numerous cases of people recovering from it.
From Lifesitenews: Only a few weeks after a prominent article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine noting that 'brain death' does not constitute true death, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has carried a front-page article noting that a declaration of 'brain death' cannot be considered the end of life in light of new scientific research.
Such a determination would prohibit single vital organ donation, such as heart transplants, for Catholics or Catholic institutions, since Catholic teaching requires such organ donors to be truly dead. If potential donors cannot be said with certainty to be dead, vital organ removal would in effect constitute killing the donor.
The L'Osservatore Romano editorial, published September 2, was written by Professor Lucetta Scaraffia, vice-president of the Italian Association for Science and Life and a member of the Italian National Committee on Bio-Ethics. She notes that the Vatican accepted the 'brain death' criteria 40 years ago when it was put forward by the Harvard Medical School. She notes that in 1985, 1989, and 2006, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences still maintained that brain death was 'the true criterion for death.'
However, Scaraffia added that the Church accepted the new definition of death 'with many reservations,' noting that 'in Vatican City State the certification of brain death is not used.'
Commenting on the L'Osservatore Romano article, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that it was 'interesting and authoritative' but 'cannot be considered a position of the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the church.'
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says on the subject of organ donation: 'Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity.' The statement hinges on the establishment of true death of the donors. If not, complete removal of any vital organ would kill the 'donor.' Or, as Pope John Paul II put it in 2000, 'Vital organs which occur singly in the body can be removed only after death, that is from the body of someone who is certainly dead . . . This requirement is self-evident, since to act otherwise would mean intentionally to cause the death of the donor in disposing of his organs.'
For the general public, organ donation is becoming ever more controversial as accounts of patients declared 'brain dead' and living to tell about it are reported more and more frequently. Scaraffia points, however, to new scientific findings as raising questions for scientists. One of the new findings she points out is the case of a woman declared brain dead who could still bring an unborn child to birth while on life support.
The issue is sure to come to a head in the Vatican in the coming weeks as a Vatican conference promoting organ donation is set to take place in Rome in November. [LifeSiteNews]
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Organ donation kills the donor
Action: do NOT allow your organs to be removed 'after death': they may well take them before death.
From LifeSiteNews, via SPUC: Some organ donors are not dead when their body parts are taken from them, according to bioethicists writing in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr Robert Truog of Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, and Dr Franklin
Miller of the National Institutes of Health, Maryland, say that criteria for brain death and cardiac death are not supported by scientific literature. They write: "... although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason it is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead." They write something similar
about cardiac death. Our source suggests the acknowledgement of the inadequacy of such criteria significantly undermines the ethics of organ donation. [LifeSiteNews, 14 August]
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Harris booted off Ethics committee
Briefing: very good news.
From CFNews: Abortionist MP, Evan Harris, responsible for most of the 'anti-life' and liberalising amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was voted off the British Medical Association's Ethics Committee this week. This was a strategic and influential position for Evan Harris which he has now lost.
And from LifeNews: A new survey finds British doctors oppose legalizing assisted suicide by a two-to-one margin but pro-life groups are concerned that about one-third support the idea. The study, carried out by Doctors.net.uk, an online discussion forum and professional network for medics, which represents 95 percent of doctors in the UK, has found 35 percent in favor of assisted suicide compared to 60 percent against the controversial move. The remainder said they were unsure.
The results of the survey suggest increasing support among doctors in favour of assisted suicide, a move many would inevitably become involved in if it were to be legalized, compared to just two years ago when the British Medical Association voted overwhelmingly against it. Tim Ringrose of Doctors.net.uk said the results of the poll suggested many doctors felt there was a need to change the law. 'This is an interesting result because although the majority of doctors do not think the law should change, those who do form a significant minority,' the Scotsman quoted him, as saying. 'A lot of doctors, particularly GPs, feel they are in a catch-22 situation because if euthanasia were legalized they would be accused of influencing patients to do it. 'However some see the demand from patients to be given this choice,' he added. [LifeNews]
Monday, July 07, 2008
Involuntary euthanasia standard on the NHS
Vigilance is essential for anyone with loved ones under the care of the NHS.
From LifeSite, via CFNews: A British 'end of life' care protocol approved for use by the National Health Service (NHS), has created a systematic, and legal, method of euthanising elderly and disabled patients, even while 'mercy killing' remains officially illegal, says a prominent expert in elder care. The 'Liverpool Care Pathway' will be used to eliminate patients deemed to be 'blocking beds' in the increasingly financially strapped public health system.
For years, NACF member Dr. Adrian Treloar, a psycho-geriatrician and senior lecturer at the Greenwich Hospital and Guys', King's and St. Thomas's Hospitals in London, has been sounding the warning that the NHS has an unofficial system in place to authorise the killing of vulnerable disabled patients with an unwritten policy of 'involuntary euthanasia' by deep sedation and dehydration.
On April 26, 2008, Dr. Treloar wrote a letter to the British Medical Journal, saying that the protocol known as the 'Liverpool Care Pathway' for dying patients, is a blueprint for systematic euthanasia of disabled patients. The Liverpool Care Pathway, which allows for 'continuous deep sedation' for patients judged to be incurable, was developed between the Royal Liverpool hospital and Marie Curie cancer hospices in order to standardise the medical approach to dying that could then be used as a template nationally. Combined with withdrawal of fluids, deep sedation leads quickly to death.
In 1999, the NHS dismissed Dr. Treloar's warnings as 'ludicrous.' But media coverage of families resorting to lawyers to stop the killing of their relatives has made it increasingly difficult for health officials to deny that there is an accepted euthanasia procedure in place. Dr. Treloar maintains that the motivation for killing patients judged to be incurable is not the relief of extreme suffering but the enormous pressure on the socialised health care system to make hospital beds available and the 'triaging' of costly tax-sponsored medical care.
Since that time, the government passed legislation in 2005 - the Mental Capacity Act - that, following existing guidelines from the British Medical Association, allows doctors to withhold all 'treatment,' including food and water, from patients who are judged to be incapable of making decisions for themselves. Under this law, doctors, and not the family and not the patient, have the last say in whether a patient is judged mentally capable. Once this judgement has been made, withdrawal of fluids can be ordered on the grounds that it is in the patient's 'best interests' to die. If families try to intervene to save their loved ones lives, social services and police can be, and have been, called to intervene.
Since 2000, the instances of helpless patients being denied the basic necessities needed to sustain life are becoming more prominent in the news. Only this week, the BBC reported on the case of Mrs. Ellen Westwood, an 88 year-old woman whom doctors had decreed was 'due to die' in February, and whose life was saved only after the determined efforts of her family and clergy resulted in her being removed from the hospital.
Dr. Treloar wrote that the Liverpool Care Pathway threatens patients because its 'eligibility criteria do not ensure that only people who are about to die are allowed on the pathway.'
'They allow people who are thought to be dying, are bed-bound, and are unable to take tablets onto the pathway. In chronic diseases such as dementia, dying may take years, but
such patients may be eligible.'
Elspeth Chowdharay Best, from the anti-euthanasia group ALERT, wrote recently, 'Death by dehydration has been occurring for some years in Britain without the new official blessing [of the Liverpool Care Pathway protocol] and sometimes challenged by relatives.'
The Sunday Times reported on May 18 this year that many families are 'dismayed' that their cases are not being included in a long-term investigation into ten suspicious deaths of elderly patients in a convalescent home in Hampshire between 1996 and 1999. Mike Wilson told the Times that his 91 year-old mother, Edna Purnell, had been out of bed and using a walking frame when she was transferred to the Hampshire unit for what was supposed to have been a brief period of rehabilitation.
Records show that Mrs. Purnell was put to bed and given morphine. The hospital threatened Mr. Wilson with arrest when he was caught feeding his mother. She was judged to be 'demented' and thus falling under the auspices of the Mental Capacity Act. Mr. Wilson told the times that his mother was not 'demented' before she was given morphine: 'We are in no doubt that this is what killed her.' [LifeSiteNews] 1462.8
Friday, June 13, 2008
Taking vital organs from living donors
Briefing. This sort of thing happens all the time. If you agree to allow your organs to be taken 'after death' they won't actually wait for you to die, even in the UK, since people can recover from 'brain death'.
From SPUC: A patient, presumed dead, revived as transplant-surgeons in Paris began
the process of removing his organs. The city's university hospital's
ethics committee has reportedly been told that doctors massaged his heart
for 90 minutes before surgeons arrived. He began breathing and now can
talk and walk. France recently changed its law to allow the harvesting of
organs without a declaration of brain-death. [Telegraph, 10 June]
Friday, May 16, 2008
Euthanasia encouraged by NHS leaflet
Briefing. Since the Mental Capacity Act describes food and water as 'medical treatment' this leaflet is encouraging people to ask to starved to death on the false promise of 'basic care, support and comfort.' How comfortable is it to starve to death? See Salford document here.
From SPUC: Local government in north-west England is distributing a leaflet on making advance treatment directives under the Mental Capacity Act. Salford City Council's publication gives refusal of mechanical life support and cancer treatment as example-decisions. An associated webpage lets people refuse cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, assisted breathing and artificial feeding. Below the declaration is written: "I am aware that I will be provided basic care, support and comfort." [SPUC, 15 May] Antonia Tully of Patients First Network said: "This is a dangerous and confusing leaflet, which could to used to place vulnerable people at risk of a painful and premature death. It is ludicrous to suggest that 'basic care, support and comfort' can be given to someone while they are being dehydrated and starved to death. There seems to be a 'death at all costs' mentality behind this scheme which also suggests that people fax or post a copy of their advance decision to the local ambulance service. Perhaps this is to avoid the risk of the ambulance crew doing anything to preserve life."