"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 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."
. 

From Life News:

Undaunted by their repeated failure to get the California legislature to approve a bill legalizing assisted suicide, the sponsors of the bill are moving forward with a new measure that promotes euthanasia in limited circumstances. Pro-life groups are asking for phone calls to defeat the bill.

Last Tuesday, on a straight party line vote, the Assembly Judiciary Committee sent AB 2747 to the Assembly floor.

Assemblymembers Patty Berg and Lloyd Levine, the authors of the pro-assisted suicide bill, are behind the bill.

Brian Johnston, the head of the California Pro-Life Council and the author of a seminal book on assisted suicide, talked with LifeNews.com about the measure's problems.

"On the surface, AB 2747 seems like a simple bill benefiting the hospice care industry," he said. "However, it contains a sneaky loophole that will permit doctors and health care providers to transform the rarely used practice of 'palliative sedation' into a vehicle permitting assisted suicide."

Palliative sedation, otherwise known as deep sedation, is the sedation of a suffering and imminently dying patient to the point of unconsciousness and the bill changes the standards surrounding its use.

Johnston says AB 2747 has a host of other problems -- including defining terminal illness as having one year or less to live.

"We believe this is very arbitrary and subjective because predicting a patient’s time from death is merely a lifespan forecast," he says.

He says the bill also would create situations where cost considerations could affect treatment options, as assisted suicide options are generally cheaper than treatment.

Ultimately, Johnston told LifeNews.com that "AB 2747 promotes practices which may hasten death, overlooking what should be the primary focus of counseling to a patient approaching the end of life, chiefly excellent palliative care and hospice referral."

Pro-life groups fear that deep sedation, once introduced and promoted in California, will become a frequent occurrence as it has been in the Netherlands, one of the few nations to approve assisted suicide and euthanasia.

An April study finds the number of patients killed via deep sedation is on the rise.

Researchers at the Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam found 1,800 people -- or 7.1 percent of all deaths in the Netherlands in 2005 -- involved deep sedation.

That percentage rose from 5.6 percent of all deaths involving deep sedation in 2001 while, during the same time period, euthanasia death fell from 2.6 percent of all deaths to 1.7 percent.

Judith Rietjens of Erasmus University told Reuters, “The increased use of continuous deep sedation for patients nearing death in the Netherlands and the limited use of palliative consultation suggests that this practice is increasingly considered as part of a regular medical practice.”

American author and attorney Wesley J. Smith commented on the recent research.

“Demonstrating the subversive nature of the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement on proper medical care, Dutch doctors are switching from lethally injecting patients to sedating them into a permanent coma so they die by dehydration over a period of days or weeks,” he said.

Smith said he thinks physicians are changing the way they kill patients so they don't have to be present during the actual death and can assuage their consciences.

ACTION: Please contact your member of the California Assembly immediately and urge strong opposition to AB 2747 because it promotes euthanasia. You can find contact information at http://www.assembly.ca.gov.  

From Houston Press:

Following surgery, Sabrina Martin's condition went south. And then, her family says, Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital set about arranging for her demise.

...The doctor told us that Sabrina'd had two strokes and because of them, she was in a coma that they didn't think she was going to come out of. And if she did, she would be a vegetable."

As shocking as the devastating news of their daughter's condition was, Lopez and Murray say it would not compare to what happened next.

Within about three days of the second surgery, Lopez says, doctors "started talking about our options. And we started getting scared, because the options were not good."

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.

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.

Terrified, Sabrina's parents called the nonprofit organization Texas Right to Life, which referred Lopez and Murray to an attorney. The parents were able to transfer Sabrina to Texas Children's Hospital, where Lopez says Martin received treatment that doctors at Memorial Hermann had refused to give, treatment that saved her life...

...When asked for comment about Sabrina's case, Memorial Hermann spokeswoman Beth Sartori issued a statement saying, "Sabrina Martin's story is a sad one, and everyone associated with her care at Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital is deeply sympathetic to her and her family. However, because of the lawsuit against the hospital and the physicians that cared for her, we are not at liberty to comment further."...

...Memorial Hermann was one of a host of hospitals across the state that along with doctors and right-to-life groups endorsed the Texas Advance Directives Act, which the Legislature passed in 1999 and which was signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush. (The right-to-life groups have now backed off their support of the Advance Directives Act and say the law is unfair and gives too much power to ­doctors.)

In essence, the law gives doctors the ability to either continue or withhold life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of the patient or the patient's legal guardian. To do so, the doctor presents his case before the family and an ethics committee, and if the committee agrees with the doctor's decision, the family is given ten days to find another facility that will comply with their wishes before treatment is either continued or withdrawn. Families are given a list of lawyers and organizations to help facilitate a transfer.

Texas and Virginia are the only two states in the country that have a time limit as part of such laws, Virginia's being 14 days for the family to find a transfer.

In Texas, the law has come under fire over the past several years. Families, their lawyers and right-to-life groups have battled doctors and health care facilities in the media and in court to try to prevent them from employing the act. In 2007, an attempt to lengthen the ten-day time period died in the Texas House of ­Representatives.

In general, opponents — ranging from rightwing, right-to-life groups all the way to the American Civil Liberties Union — say the law gives too much power to the hospitals and doctors and takes away individuals' civil rights to determine their own fate...

...Graham says another disturbing pattern she sees at Memorial Hermann is doctors entering orders not to resuscitate patients without first checking with or gaining consent from the families.

"It's a totally separate mechanism that accomplishes the same goal," says Graham, "but much quicker."

In Sabrina's case, doctors entered two orders not to resuscitate the teen, according to Sabrina's medical records...

...Three days after Sabrina's second surgery, one of her doctors entered an order not to resuscitate her, says Painter. Lopez and Murray had no idea he had done so. They say they did not want the order put in. According to hospital records, the same day that the instruction was entered, a social worker documented that it "appeared (Lopez and Murray) did not agree with the recommendations for DNR as of yet."

Then, two days later, a different doctor issued a second order not to resuscitate Sabrina, the very day that hospital records show Lopez had requested a second opinion from another neurologist.

"I felt so violated," says Lopez. "I couldn't believe they would do this. I mean, we're talking about a hospital; they're supposed to have the patient's best interest, and this was way too soon to be giving up."

Lopez was further dumbfounded when doctors refused to insert a feeding pipe, called a G-Tube, or perform a simple tracheotomy, placing a breathing tube into Sabrina's neck, allowing her to leave the hospital so that Lopez could care for her daughter at home.

"They never proposed the G-Tube and trach," says Lopez. "I researched the options and said we wanted that. But Memorial Hermann wouldn't do it, saying she wouldn't have a high quality of life. And I was very disappointed because I was like, 'How do you define quality of life?' She doesn't need to play basketball as long as she can understand what we're saying."...

...Shortly after transferring to Texas Children's Hospital, Sabrina began to improve so dramatically that doctors recommended she not go home but rather be moved to a rehabilitation facility in San Antonio. There, at Kindred Hospital, Sabrina emerged from her coma. Doctors were able to remove her breathing tube and Sabrina began getting better, even advancing to the point where she was able to help her younger sister do math homework by counting on her fingers. Doctors now say Sabrina should have a full life expectancy.

"The people at Memorial Hermann said this would never happen," says Lopez...

..."I'm so glad we did what we did," says Murray. "It's a lot of work. But it's better now than it was at first. Some days I just want to go up to those doctors and say, "See, look at her now."  

 

 

From the Chicago Tribune:

Disability rights advocates and medical ethicists praised a precedent-setting ruling Friday by the Illinois Appellate Court denying a bid to sterilize a mentally disabled woman against her will...

..."Tubal ligation is a particularly drastic means of preventing a mentally incompetent ward from becoming pregnant," Judge Joseph Gordon wrote in the 36-page opinion. There are "less intrusive and less psychologically harmful [birth-control] alternatives."...

..."It's extraordinarily significant" because it guarantees the disabled a court hearing, said Katie Watson, a Northwestern University professor who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of about two dozen medical ethicists.

"In the past, this was a decision that could be made between a guardian and a doctor," she said. "The decision must be moved into the light."

The ruling means a guardian must go through some "significant legal hoops" before a court will order sterilization, said the woman's attorney, John Whitcomb of Equip for Equality, a disability rights group.

Yes, it really happens.  People with developmental disabilities experience housing discrimination.

I've shared my experience here in an older post, "How Do I Feel About That?"  Here's what's happening in Cicero, New York.

From Central New York News at syracuse.com:

Cicero Town Councilor Jim Corl and Town Supervisor Chet Dudzinski are calling for the state legislature to repeal a mental hygiene law that requires people with developmental disabilities who want to move into a neighborhood to seek town board approval....

...At the required public hearing, several neighbors of the proposed site objected, saying that having such a group home in their neighborhood would increase traffic, decrease home values and force them to keep a closer eye on their children.

And News 10 Now:

CICERO, N.Y. - Is a thirty-year-old state law discriminating against people with developmental disabilities? The Cicero Town Board thinks so. Their actions come on the heels of strong neighborhood opposition to a brand new neighborhood group home.

It would be along Snowshoe Trail. A home, established by Community Options Incorporated, for three men with developmental disabilities. The deal is as good as done. But not without concern.

"With all the kids around, can we trust these people coming in and out? Nurses, aides, therapists. Everyone is just going to be coming in and out. Increased traffic. It's just, it's not a good placement for this," said Karen Florczykowski, a Showshoe Trail resident.

Some neighbors share her sentiment. And some don't.