From Daily News Brooklyn

A shocking video shows a woman dying on the floor in the psych ward at Kings County Hospital, while people around her, including a security guard, did nothing to help.

After an hour, another mental patient finally got the attention of the indifferent hospital workers, according to the tape, obtained by the Daily News.

Worse still, the surveillance tape suggests hospital staff may have falsified medical charts to cover the utter lack of treatment provided Esmin Green before she died.

"Thank God for the videotape because no one would have believed this could have happened," saidDonna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

I debated putting the video on here, but this is for real.  This is what is happening in our hospitals and institutions for those with mental illnesses, developmental and other disabilities, and the elderly.  This is not an isolated case. 

This kind of mistreatment and abuse did not start with our generation or with the one before ours.  It has been so since, I imagine, the beginning of the existence of such disabilites.  Since the beginning of human weakness and false human strength.

I have lots of ideas about solutions, but I am no expert and really haven't the energy right now to cover them.   

Some day I'll share my experience as a patient in various psych hospitals.  The one thing I will say now, is that sometimes people in attempt to be sympathetic will show horror that I had to be in there with 'those' kinds of people, meaning of course my fellow patients.  And I try as best as I can, without getting into much detail with them, to explain that the patients were a the source of fear or terror.  It was the staff, well, to be fair some of the the staff, not all of them.  More than them personally, though, it was the 'system'.

Years later, I became a 'staff' working in care facilities and group homes for those with developmental disabilities.  Their stories and long term experiences in care facilities and institutions were mild compared to my short time spent in psych hospitals.  The first facility I worked in was so bad and my experience in the psych hosptitals was still so fresh in my mind that I quit working there only a couple of weeks after I started and steered clear of that kind of work for many years.  But I went back because something in my heart pulled me back there.

Thankfully, all of my other jobs, working with those with developmental disabilities have been in small care failities and group homes.  Those places weren't perfect by far, believe me, they had their share of problems, but even a small care facility of three to sixteen beds makes all the difference in comparrison to large institutions and nursing home sized facilities.

While working for a six bed care facility, a nursing home sized facility in a town nearby us for men and women with developmental disabilities was shut down.  After two deaths and untold amount of abuses.

Several of the former residents came to our facility with such emotional scars that my heart won't let me write anymore.

But here's an old news article about the facility: Choctaw Had Legacy of Abuse 

This says much.  From the above article, "The things that go on out there, while they are not excusable, they are somewhat tolerable because of the alternative," then-Deputy Health Commissioner Brent VanMeter said after the body of the resident who had been dead for six days was discovered. "What are you going to do with these people if you don't keep them there and hope that that facility is doing the best that it can?"

Here's a related news article: Care Center Bear History of Abuse 

It's hard to blog through tears.

The Audacity of Death from the Wall Street Journal

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions... Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment....

...Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion."

Then there's Mr. Obama's...opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his "biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?

...He recently compared his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn...

...In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.

(Thank you, Ron.)

Redeem:  to buy or pay off; clear by payment
               to buy back
               to recover (something pledged or mortgaged) by payment or other satisfaction
               to discharge or fulfill (a pledge, promise, etc.)
               to obtain the release or restoration of, as from captivity, by paying a ransom. 
               Theology. to deliver from sin and its consequences by means of a sacrifice offered for the sinner
               to set free; rescue or ransom
               to save from a state of sinfulness and its consequences
               to restore the honor, worth, or reputation of 
               to repurchase by right 
               to receive or adopt
               excepted from the operation or burden of some law; released; free; clear; privileged
 

Meditating on the idea of redemption, I am having a hard time with the thought that it is because I am so valuable that God would seek me out and then save me.  I knew what a wretched state I was in before He redeemed me, even in very midst of that state.  I wasn't worthy of love- I wasn't.  But God loved me anyway, right back into Himself.  Still, I find no comfort in my own value, for I know that apart from God, I have no value. 

I am much more comforted by the sovereignty of the One Who sought me out in my state of wretchedness, to redeem, to buy back what was always supposed to be His.  That the fact that God loves me and redeemed me has nothing to do with how great I am but, rather, how Great He is.

I have been so focused these past few years on finding out who I am, and gratefully have found security in who I am in Christ.

But I now want to know more of Who He is.  Who is He as Redeemer?

What are your first thoughts upon waking?
Submitted by Cher Cabula.

it was just a dream, it was just a dream

"Human suffering is a reminder of our need of the Savior Jesus Christ and the eternal life that comes through His atoning death and resurrection."  Gary Knapp from his pastoral statement on euthanasia from his site The Undershepherd. 

The statement (full post here):

A Pastoral Statement on Euthanasia and Imposing Death by Starvation and Dehydration

Believing that human life at all stages from conception until natural death and in every condition regardless of disability or cognitive ability bears the image of God, we, the undersigned offer our voice in support of life and in opposition to imposing death on the ill and disabled, in particular through starvation and dehydration.

Those of us who minister in Delaware have a special concern at the potential imposed death by starvation of one of our citizens, Lauren Richardson. We urge those who have influence over Lauren’s life, her guardian and the Delaware court system, to act on the basis of hope which comes from faith and reverence for human life, of which God is the author and finisher (Deuteronomy 32:39).

Acknowledging the tragedy and difficulty of human suffering we ask our fellow citizens to consider the following:

1. Euthanasia is an act of hopelessness. Human suffering humbles us as we see our inability to heal suffering despite our many medical advancements. But by imposing death on the ill and disabled, society is declaring that there is no purpose in suffering. This is contrary to the message of Scripture as seen in the lives of many people, most notably Job, and ultimately our Lord Jesus Christ.

2. God has told us clearly that He is the author and finisher of our existence. Fear of God should prevent us from ever seeking to end our own life or the life of another prematurely, especially by depriving them of the sustenance that is essential to human existence.

3. We express our concern that nutrition and hydration have been classified as medical treatment by many medical authorities and in the legal system. Food and water are now referred to in some legal documents as “life support”. This classification then becomes the basis for interpreting unguarded or uninformed comments from individuals about life support as an expressed declaration of their intent. The result is a deceptive vehicle by which many people are starved to death.

4. We urge our citizens to reject the claim that euthanasia is a private act. Even if one’s wishes to have his life ended prematurely were documented (Lauren Richardson left no such written documentation), society must give its approval to euthanize, which it has not done. Euthanasia advocates demand that society validate the so called private decision and make provision for the practice of imposing death. By depicting euthanasia as a purely private act, euthanasia advocates hide the reality that if Lauren is starved to death, we will all share in the decision to do this to her.

5. New Jersey recently ceased capital punishment calling death by injection “cruel and unusual punishment”. If imposing death by injection is cruel, how much more so death by starvation, which can be a two week process!

6. Faith leads to hope. We readily acknowledge that suffering is tragic and painful, both for the one suffering and for their loved ones. But because God is real and active, the end of our life is not certain until He makes it so. Often doctors using their best judgment declare that there is no hope; often they are wrong. Faith believes that God can heal, and that if He doesn’t, He is with us and has a purpose for our suffering.

7. Human suffering is ultimately a result of the fall by which our first parents Adam and Eve turned away from God and brought death (physical and spiritual) upon themselves and their offspring. Human suffering is a reminder of our need of the Savior Jesus Christ and the eternal life that comes through His atoning death and resurrection.

• We call our fellow citizens to acknowledge God’s prerogative in beginning and ending life.
• We encourage prayer to God in Jesus’ name on behalf of those who suffer.
• We call on the medical profession and government to turn from their irreverence for God demonstrated in the sinful act of starving and dehydrating the ill and disabled.
• We remind us all that because mankind bears God’s image our treatment of life is taken as our attitude toward God Himself (Genesis 9:6).
• Finally, we remind us that God sees our actions and will render to each one of us according to our deeds (Jeremiah 17:10

From West Palm Beach Florida:

Family's Fight Over Feeding Tube Reminiscent Of Schiavo Case

Husband, Mom At Odds Over Tube

A Florida woman put on a feeding tube after she had a stroke is at the center of a court case similar to the dispute over whether Terri Schiavo should be kept alive.

Karen Weber's husband wants to have her feeding tube removed and have her transferred to a hospital ward, where she would likely die. He claims that his 57-year-old wife is in a vegetative state, but Weber's family is fighting to keep her alive, arguing she's alert and responsive...

...A judge in Weber's case has issued an injunction prohibiting the feeding tube's removal while a committee determines the woman's competency. She does not have a living will and can not talk.

Her husband, Raymond Weber, said he doesn't want this to become a media event, but her mother, Martha Tatro, said she refuses to let her daughter die.

Read complete story here.

Now, I have some questions.  For one, is this woman alert and responsive or not?  If so then she is not in a so-called 'vegetative state'.  I understand that due to privacy laws, Mrs. Weber's doctors may not explain her condition to the media.  But either she is or she isn't.

(I use the word 'so-called' because the terminology of vegetative state is ridiculous and undignified.  An individual in such a state is not a plant in the corner being kept watered occasionally.  He or she is someone who has lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retains noncognitive function and a preserved sleep-wake cycle.  In other words, he or she is still a person, one with profound cognitive disabilities.) 

Second question, since there many cases of misdiagnosis of and treatment for this state, such as the sleeping pill Zolpidem which can temporarily revive people in a so-called permanent vegetative state, or one similar, to the point where they can have conversations, have these treatments been attempted?

Thirdly, why is removing her feeding tube even an option.  Mrs. Weber is alive, with brain function and breathing on her own.  A feeding tube has technically legally been deemed life support lately, but unlike removing a breathing tube of someone with absolutely no brain activity who will instantly die when that breathing tube is removed because he or she is already dead, pulling out the feeding tube of Mrs. Weber is not 'letting her die'.  It is refusing to feed a woman who needs help eating; it is willful neglect.  It is death by neglect.  It is murder.

Lastly, what difference does it make whether she is in a 'vegetative state' or not?  What if Mrs. Weber never regains awareness of her surroundings or even of her very existence? What if she remains totally and completely dependent on others the rest of her life for every aspect of her life? 

I wonder if a life like hers is testimony that a person's worth to us and to God is not at all dependent on abilities, but on simply the fact that she is a fellow human being.  Now is our chance to show we believe that idea when we tell our children, "God loves you for who you are, not for what you can do" by protesting this woman's murder, caring for those most in need of caring around us, and caring for their families.

Some say that it would be undignified to 'allow' Mrs. Weber to remain alive in such an event.  However, is it not more undignified to refer to her as a vegetable, rescind her status of personhood, and starve her to death?

From their website, "In Washington, the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide has formed to combat I-1000, the assisted suicide initiative that is being promoted for the 2008 ballot."

With the passing of this law assisted suicide would be legal in Washington State, allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients with terminal illnesses to kill themselves.  This law would be modeled after Oregon's Law.

In the Netherlands, where assisted suicide and euthanasia have been practiced for the last 20 years, since both have become less of a rare occurance and more of a standard practive, improvements in pain management and palliative care have slown down.  "Pressure for improved pallitive care seems to have evaporated," according to Herbert Hendin, M.D., a Director of Suicide Prevention International.

From the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide website, we see what a slippery slope the acceptance of assisted suicide is:

"Once the Dutch accepted assisted suicide it was not possible legally or morally to deny more active medical (assistance to die), i.e. euthanasia, to those who could not effect their own deaths. Nor could they deny assisted suicide or euthanasia to the chronically ill who have longer to suffer than the terminally ill or to those who have psychological pain not associated with physical disease. To do so would be a form of discrimination.

Involuntary euthanasia has been justified as necessitated by the need to make decisions for patients not [medically] competent to choose for themselves."  

Research shows that, for one thousand people a year in the Netherlands, physicians have ended their patients' lives without any request from or consultation with the patients.

This would be our future.  Go to the website and offer support now.

From Christian Examiner Online (emphasis mine):

California Assembly approves legislation promoting euthanasia of terminally ill patients
Christian Examiner staff report

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — An end-of-life bill that would require doctors to tell their terminal patients about options to hasten their deaths, including starving themselves, passed the Assembly May 28 and will be heard on the Senate floor.

According to an analysis by Concerned Women for America, the bill undercuts established medical advances to ease dying for terminal patients and, in some cases, would allow end-of-life medical care to be passed on to less qualified health-care providers such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

“While careful pain management and palliative care at the end of a truly terminal illness are extremely important and support must be given to dying patients and their families, this bill, as written, is a step down a very slippery slope toward the assisted suicide bill we fought in last year’s session,” the CWA analysis reads.

Opponents of the bill say that it paves the way for a shift in pallative care that goes beyond pain relief to unconscious dehydration and starvation through the use of strong sedatives.

Further, they argue that the one-year-left-to-live diagnosis is arbitrary and often wrong, and requiring doctors to offer end-of-life options hits patients when they are most vulnerable. Some medical experts also believe that forcing doctors to even discuss those issues constitutes endorsement of the practices.

Finally, opponents are concerned those without health insurance and who are poor, might feel pressured into end-of-life decisions because of burdensome financial legacies for their families.

But Patty Berg, a Santa Rosa Democrat, who sponsored the bill with Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, said the legislation is merely promoting “honest talk” about medical options. Berg, who was unsuccessful in three previous attempts to legislate physician-assisted suicide, decided this year to try a different approach.

Her latest bill is supported by Compassion and Choices, a pro-euthanasia group that was formerly called the Hemlock Society.

“Unlike my previous end-of-life bill, which was rejected and which I no longer am pursuing, my new bill doesn’t give anyone any new options,” Berg wrote in a May 15 opinion piece for Capitol Weekly. Everything that is illegal now—and that most notably includes physician-aided dying—would remain illegal. AB 2747 changes none of that. Instead, it provides a precious commodity— information.

“Most people in the Capitol understand the difference. Some, however, are still fighting last year’s battle and are trying to convince the gullible that my new bill is a Trojan horse, designed somehow to legalize aid-in-dying. That is simply not the case.”

But Marilyn Golden, a policy analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, disagrees and in a May 22 rebuttal in Capitol Weekly.

“The real ‘honest talk’ about AB 2747 is that it has very little to do with improving care,” Golden wrote. “For this bill, the devil is really in the details. Close inspection reveals it to be a vehicle for Compassion and Choices’ long-term agenda: facilitating assisted suicide. Let’s not forget that this is the organization formerly known as the Hemlock Society and one of the primary sponsors of this legislation. The bill includes many elements that would significantly undermine end-of-life care in service of this goal.”

The Assembly vote was 42-34. The bill will now be heard in the Senate Judiciary committee.

For more information on AB 2747, the end-of-life bill visit these links:

• Assembly bill text and history
• Concerned Women for America
• California ProLife Council
• Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

Click here to see-  How the Calif. assembly members voted on the end-of-life bill

 

From the article "European Court agrees to hear chimp's plea for human rights":

His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf  -  since he is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close...

...Miss Stibbe, who is from Brighton but has lived in Vienna for several years, says she is not trying to get the chimp declared a human, just a person.

A seemingly good idea, if not rather comical, for a seemingly good cause.  I hate to see animals used and abused.  But the attempt to declare an animal a person- not a good idea, not comical, and, in fact, it's quite ominous. 

It is becoming an accepted idea, as evidenced by those who believe that even animals can be people, that there is a difference between a person and a human.  So, with this reasoning, 'human being' doesn't automatically mean 'person', and, therefore, not every human being is afforded automatic human rights for simply being human, unlike 'persons', including the right to life. 

This is what some animal rights activist such as Peter Singer want, for animals to be acknowledged as persons, while at the same time denying the existence of personhood for some people, such as the fetus, infants, and children and adults with profound cognitive disabilities.

Here's an example of his thinking from the story "An Ethical Man":

"'HIV research using chimps has not been very helpful as they don't seem to get the disease in the same way humans do,' Singer explains. 'So I don't think it's right and it's causing a lot of suffering and distress to beings who are sensitive animals--social animals who should be living in social groups and who suffer being in isolation and confined and that's wrong. If we need beings very like us to do this on, we should perhaps [turn to] the families of people who tragically have been brain-damaged and have no hope of recovery from persistent vegetative state who are totally beyond suffering because they are beyond consciousness."
.