The Powers That Blog

The Episcopalians are Revolting

2006-12-18T10:43:00.000-07:00

I know those who would say "You can say that again..." but I think the Anglicans may even mean it this time.

Political Art as Discourse Failure

2006-12-15T17:08:00.000-07:00

Interesting point.

Kuyperian conservatism?

2006-11-12T00:45:00.000-07:00

Joel Carter has a very interesting post on the basic liberalism of both Democrats and Republicans.

Fascinating. Since Terri Schiavo's brutal murder, I've been less and less comfortable with either political party and have started more and more questioning American democracy itself. I'm coming to the opinion that lawyers should never be allowed to become judges, legislators, or executives. I've also come to the conclusion that fiscal conservatism, while not incompatible with Christianity, is simply a commonsense measure that is not really a political or religious issue. It's sort of like not stabbing yourself in the eye with a knife - kind of obvious. But I'd been noticing more and more that even Republicans who are willing to listen to and fight for the things that moral conservatives want are not really on the same page with us. They want those things for the stability of society, and we want them for morality, whether they upset anybody or not.

I've been saying for about a year now that I can't agree with libertarianism because I agree with John Donne, that "no man is an island", while libertarians believe that every man is an island and you shouldn't be bothering yourself about what your neighbor is doing over on his island. It's none of your beeswax.

I'm increasingly convinced that the synthesis of moral conservatism and libertarian desire for fiscal conservatism is unstable; it allowed both of us to vote for the promisers of small government, but moral conservatives were hoping to regain the power to legislate moral behavior in areas now claimed by the Supreme Court, while libertarians wanted to make government small enough not to interfere with amoral behavior. The great divide is not between the "liberals" who want to force amorality on all and the "conservatives" who want to be able to make their own community choices, but between the vast majority who want freedom to act out whatever immoral fantasies don't seem to have directly destructive effect on society and the small minority of us who think that moral behavior is all that keeps the country from self-immolation.

I guess I'm leaning toward Kuyperian conservatism.

hilarious editorial line

2006-06-09T14:58:00.000-06:00

In a recent editorial in the National Catholic Reporter, (mostly) focusing on criticizing Denver's Bishop Chaput, there is a rhetorically hilarious line:

But it’s hard to fault the archbishop and his advisers (including a well-connected outside lobbying firm) for marshaling persuasive arguments in the public arena.

Doggone those people that keep bringing up persuasive arguments! In the public arena no less! Hard to fault them... but the National Catholic Reporter will certainly do its best.

Congressional Hearings

2006-05-25T23:29:00.000-06:00

The Volokh Conspiracy has this hilarious post/comments about Congress' most recent attempts to infuriate everyone in the country not already a member of the House or Senate.

via Instapundit.

My favorite:

CHECKS OR BALANCES: Either's fine, we also take Cash.

although

WARRANTS: Not good enough for us, too good for you.

is pretty funny too.

Interesting line in NatCath

2006-05-23T14:33:00.000-06:00

An interesting line in one of John Allen, Jr.'s National Catholic Reporter pieces:

Schindler seemed to have in mind the question of whether laity are adequately aware of the ways in which modern liberal culture may shape them in ways not always compatible with their Christian vocation.

"The tendency is to get involved with the world as it is, accepting most things, but drawing the line at abortion or something like that," Schindler said. "We think of the structures of liberal culture as given, and then we try to give them a religious intentionality."

While true, I always find it funny that theologians think that their own challenges to their cultures are based on a pure understanding of Christianity. The truth is that our challenges to our culture are also based on a subculture, our church's culture, which emphasizes some but not all aspects of Christianity.

Help Ban Partial Birth Abortion

2006-04-13T15:11:00.000-06:00

I just learned the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning partial birth abortion. The American Center for Law and Justice is preparing an amicus brief which includes a petition to sign in support of banning this barbaric practice. Please take a few minutes to sign it here.

There is absolutely no reason to allow partial birth abortion under any circumstances. It is cruel, barbaric, and not to get political or anything, would be too cruel a form of torture for any of our terrorists to endure. If you are against torture, please be consistent and extend your compassion to our most vulnerable citizens. Please sign the petition.

And please do not give me the song and dance about "suppose the life of the mother is threatened." Yes, that does rarely happen in pregnancy. Partial birth abortion is a late term abortion, which means that the baby could survive outside the womb if he were to be born earlier than normal. We have ways of saving the mother's life without also killing the baby. It's called an emergency C-section (and in some cases emergency labor induction where the mother can still birth vaginally). The baby can then be taken to a neonatal nursery for care while the mother is also being cared for. Should the mother decide having a baby of her own is too much for her, the next step for the baby would be adoption into a loving home where the baby will be raised and cared for. I have friends who have had two of their babies at around 7 months due to serious complications that did indeed threaten the mother's life. Both babies spent a month in the hospital and both are healthy and normal today. The birth process for a live baby is not more dangerous for the mother than it would be for the baby to be forcibly born breach and then have his skull smashed while still inside his mother. In fact, I would bet the latter is far more dangerous to the mother, not to mention absolute murder for the infant. So I really do not want to hear about the poor mother who can't survive being pregnant any longer. No mothers are going to die if partial birth abortion gets banned.

Please do the right thing and sign the petition.

What's in a Diagnosis?

2006-04-04T22:08:00.000-06:00

Bobby Schindler, Terri's brother, has some interesting thoughts on the diagnosis of Permanent Vegetative State (PVS). His basic premise is that the PVS diagnosis was deliberately invented so that society in general will grow more accepting of euthanising (read: killing) people suffering from brain damage at various levels. He points out that even people opposed to Terri's murder tended to argue the point of whether or not she was PVS as if we'd already bought the assumption that it's somehow OK to starve and dehydrate people who have been given that label.

Two questions come to my mind that Bobby doesn't raise, at least not in a direct sense. 1. If the PVS diagnosis was indeed invented by the pro-euthanasia movement as he claims, how is it that so many doctors have come to accept it as a legitimate diagnosis? 2. Just because doctors have accepted PVS as a legitimate diagnosis, why has society at large also accepted it?

It would take some fact checking to determine if indeed there was a conspiracy concerning the PVS diagnosis as Bobby claims, which I'm not going to do now because it really doesn't matter. What we do have now is a large number of doctors who regularly diagnose patients as being PVS. This somehow has given people charged with those patients' care permission to withhold food and water so as to bring about their deaths. It doesn't seem to matter that half the time a PVS diagnosis is handed down, it turns out to be wrong by the way PVS is defined. Patients who go for a time without responding at all to any stimulus have been known to one day wake up and begin responding to their surroundings in various ways, causing any honest physician to update the diagnosis of PVS. This calls into question the validity of the diagnosis in the first place. Maybe it wasn't exactly invented (as in a bunch of people held a meeting and came up with it), but it's not what you'd call scientifically or medically sound either. So why do doctors accept and use it?

To answer this question, we need to first consider the assumption that doctors only accept what has been scientifically and medically validated. A quick survey of medical history shows that doctors accept ideas and procedures for a variety of reasons besides rigorous scientific inquiry. The most recent example I learned about came from a childbirth class my husband and I are currently attending. As most of you know, the standard position for giving birth in an American hospital is the supine position, or flat on the back with feet up in stirrups. Yet anyone who knows about the mechanics of childbirth will say that is the absolute worst position for a woman to be in. It constricts important blood vessels which feed the uterus and the baby, and it compresses the pelvis making it very difficult for the baby to pass through the birth canal. This can lead to all sorts of birthing complications. The appropriate birthing position which women in all cultures throughout the centuries use most often is a squatting or standing position. The only position that could possibly be worse on a mother-to-be than the supine position would be to have the mother tied by her ankles and hanging upside down. Yet obstetricians in hospitals all across this great country continue to have their clients in that position.

And where did such a ridiculous way of handling birth come from? Well, there was this one French King, Louis XIV, the most self-absorbed and pompous king I've ever heard about. He had something like 14 palaces and spent most of his time lounging around in the lap of luxury. I have no doubt he was the stereotype of worthless nobility that the French revolutionaries had in mind as they brutally beheaded many subsequent French nobles. Louis XIV had a number of mistresses who bore him children. He wanted to watch them giving birth from behind a curtain and he wanted the best view possible, so he commanded them to lie on their backs while giving birth and made sure their caretakers enforced his wishes. Because noblewomen were birthing in the supine position, other women got the impression that was the way to do it and the supine position spread in popularity and remains so to this day. The reasons obstetricians like this position are not too dissimilar from Louis XIV's reasons: they want a good view of the proceedings. The main difference is they do not hide behind a curtain.

If doctors can accept and enforce an insane birthing position that started not from scientific research but from the voyeurism of a pompous French king, they are also vulnerable to accept ridiculous ideas on the other end of life as well. What I am saying is that their acceptance of PVS has nothing to do with the legitimacy of that diagnosis. It may be a brilliant diagnosis or a figment of some Kevorkian-wanna-be's demented imagination and it can be accepted by doctors either way. In other words, acceptance of a procedure or diagnosis or theory by the medical community means nothing.

So why is it that we as a society place so much trust in doctors? Why are we so ready to accept their word as law on so many things that affect our health? Why are we so willing to overlook atrocities committed by doctors in the past and assume that what they are doing now is right?Why is it that pro-lifers who firmly believe it is morally reprehensible for physicians to have anything to do with abortion or euthanasia are so willing to trust them on other issues? Why is it that when a doctor tells us to jump our only question is how high?

I honestly do not know how it is we came to place so much trust in the medical community. I do find that blind trust to be highly disturbing. If we hope to make any headway in reversing the culture of death as it is propagated by the medical community, we need to take a good hard look at this trust and ask ourselves whether or not it may be misplaced. We need to be willing to hold medical professionals accountable for how they treat our loved ones in all areas of healthcare. We can not cherry pick a few especially controversial issues to take the medical community to task on and assume innocence on everything else. If doctors can be so horribly wrong about a few medical aspects, we can't assume they are going to be right about everything else medical.

Why I Don't Trust Vaccines

2006-03-31T22:06:00.000-07:00

I imagine many may find our decision to not vaccinate our children and our reasons for it rather extreme. After all, why wouldn't we want to protect our children from all those diseases out there, especially the truly fatal ones like chicken pox?

There are many reasons, but in the end it comes down to this: quite frankly, I do not trust our government, which mandates all children get vaccinated in order to attend school, to also regulate these same vaccines for safety.

When the polio vaccine (both Salk's and Sabin's versions) were found early on to be contaminated by simian virus 40 (SV40), one of the few known complete carcinogens which causes the aggressive and deadly mesothelial cancer, the government officials at the federal agencies corresponding to today's CDC and FDA denied the problem and sidelined the scientist who pointed out that the monkey kidney substrate used to grow the vaccine caused tumors in mice every time she injected it. When SV40 was identified in a large percentage of mesothelial tumors, the government continued to deny it. It was not until 2000 that polio vaccines offered in the US were cleaned up of SV40. If you vaccinated your child with a polio vaccine prior to 2000, your child very likely got a special bonus in the shot. Source: The Virus and the Vaccine.

When the numbers of children coming down with Autism exploded, many concerned parents found their affected children to be loaded with mercury, which they managed to trace back to the vaccines they received which contained the mercury-derived preservative thimerosal. In 1992 the government dramatically increased the number of required childhood vaccinations without taking into account the corresponding increased dose of mercury those children would receive--a gross and costly error on the part of the agencies that are supposed to ensure the safe use of pharmaceutical products. Despite the fact that many autistic children have improved following mercury chelation treatment and that the amount of mercury being expelled from their bodies has been measured, the CDC and FDA continue to deny any causative link between autism and thimerosal. At the same time, these agencies have quietly asked vaccine manufacturers to phase out thimerosal use, and since fewer vaccines currently contain thimerosal (surprise, surprise) the number of cases of autism has started to decrease. Source: Evidence of Harm.

There was a similar government cover-up involving our troops who were deployed (and in some cases not deployed) in the first Gulf War. They were given the anthrax vaccine, which contained the organic adjuvant squalene. This adjuvant has been largely documented as being responsible for the mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome." The government steadfastly denied the antrax shots contained squalene. Not only did every lot tested show up positive for squalene, but the amount of squalene found in various lots indicated a serial dilution, suggesting the government was performing an experiment using our soldiers as guinea pigs! Source: Vaccine A.

Given all this denial and cover-up by the government in the case of vaccines, I have no reason to trust that there isn't some safety issue going on right now with any of the vaccines my children might be given that the CDC and FDA know about but are denying. I do not wish to learn about this issue the hard way through one of my children becoming irreparably injured from said vaccine. I would honestly rather take my chances with the diseases than with the vaccines.

And why is it that the government seems to be asleep at the wheel when it comes to vaccines? It has been pointed out by many people that there are numerous unethical ties between the government and the pharmaceutical industy, but this excerpt from an article on the Catholic Exchange website sums it up rather nicely:

Why is the federal government pushing unnecessary vaccines on America’s children? After an eight month investigation by the House Committee on Government Reform, the answer is clear: pharmaceutical companies essentially control the FDA and CDC advisory committees that determine what vaccines American schoolchildren are required to receive. Concluded Dan Burton (R-IN), chair of the Committee on Government Reform, “We’ve taken a good hard look at whether the pharmaceutical industry has too much influence over these committees. From the evidence we found, I think they do… [possibly] the entire process has been polluted and the public trust has been violated.”

Pointing out the incestuous collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and the government agencies charged with regulating it is indeed relevant to Terri Schiavo's death because it was similar collusion between those who wanted to kill her and the people representing the law that was meant to protect her which ultimately killed her. Clearly this collusion is not unique to her case. It is everywhere and impacts all of us, and it must be exposed and fought wherever it occurs.

As a final note, which is worth a post in and of itself (stay tuned), the author of the above-quoted article, Jameson Taylor, is actually primarily concerned not so much with the safety vaccines may or may not have to the individual child receiving them, but with the fact that quite a few of the vaccines are developed in substrate derived from aborted fetal tissue. See his article on the subject here (as a disclaimer I disagree with the first line).

Terri Schiavo anniversary

2006-03-31T12:38:00.000-07:00

It's been a year since Terri Schiavo was ruthlessly starved and dehydrated. She didn't give up hope until the very end, when all legal avenues had clearly been exhausted, and extra-legal had clearly been rejected.

The loss devastated my faith in the people carrying out our system of law, as well as that system of law itself, and I have not really blogged here since. The minor year-by-year political maneuverings, the curious and interesting events in Colorado, philosophical musings... it all paled in comparison to wondering what to do when the foundation I live(d) on has heaved and cracked right across.

I've been thinking a lot this last year about political systems, legal systems, and the whole notion of culture and nationhood. I had promised essays to some commenters who thought I was wigging out and have never written them, largely because every time I thought I'd heaved off the broken foundation to get at a deeper, more solid foundation, I found that one to be cracked as well. I'll be blogging more about those thoughts later.

Meanwhile, RIP Terri.

Your brother and parents alerted a lot of us to brutal legal and political ambushes we had never even realized were taking place right on our front porches. Our blindness and lethargy cost your life. It will cost even more lives, undoubtedly, before the euthanasia movement murderers can be stopped in this century as well. But we will fight them to the end.

What's my philosophy?

2006-02-17T16:41:00.000-07:00

The authors of this blog spent a very intense several months before Terri Schindler's execution in trying to save her life. We were involved in the Blogs For Terri effort. First, we wrote about Terri and about pro-life issues for all we were worth. We kept up to date on her case and spread any relevant news we could. Then we got involved politically. We called and emailed all those politicians in Florida and Washington, DC who at various times were deciding her fate, and we encouraged our friends and family to do the same. Some people involved in the effort even went down to Florida to protest what was going on at the hospice center where Terri was being "cared" for. We discovered through the process of trying to save one disabled woman's life that it really didn't matter what our elected officials thought about her situation. In the end, it was going to be courts and judges who decided Terri's fate and who pulled the proverbial trigger (and a real gun would have been much kinder than 14 days of dehydrating to death--no I'm not advocating we shoot people we no longer want around, just emphasizing once again how inhumane Terri's death was). Even President Bush wasn't going to cross that little probate court judge.

About that point we backed out of the action considerably. I think we were blogged out and incredibly discouraged. We needed a break and took one. During that time I had a chance to think deeply about where my interests lie and how I want to be involved in the battle for life in a more long term way, and this is what I want to expound on today.

My place in life undoubtedly has a lot to do with where my interests and beliefs lie. I am a mother of one toddler and a baby on the way. Though I work part time from home, my days revolve around creating a life for my growing family. My daughter is with me always--it is quite rare that anyone other than my husband or I care for her, though we have found a very nice family who will occasionally watch her while we go off on a date or something. Our choice of parenting style is the attachment parenting style, and I am against any form of deliberate punishment as a way to raise our children. I'm also keenly interested in taking a more earthy, natural approach to life. For example, we are planning a home birth for our second baby instead of the hospital birth we had for our first baby. I'm very much in favor of natural, noninvasive remedies for common physical problems either I or my daughter encounter. A few months ago, we treated the MunchK for a breathing problem by taking her to a chiropracter and it worked. While she has had a few colds and infections, she has never taken antibiotics. And we have chosen not to vaccinate based on the information that we learned when we began to research the topic. Last, but not least, I am Roman Catholic and adhere strongly to my Church's injunction against any form of artificial contraceptives. Even our use of Natural Family Planning has been more geared towards trying to conceive than trying to avoid it. We believe strongly that children are a blessing from God and we want as many of them as He will give us. We do not wish to limit God in his ability and desire to bless us in that way.

In my more than two years of being a mother I have come into contact with lots of people who live a more natural lifestyle and have learned much. And this has become key to my position on pro-life issues. Mainly, I do not believe the mess we're in now began with abortion. I believe the seeds were sown long before Roe vs. Wade, and it is only going to be in rethinking the way we as a society approach the way we live our lives that we will have any real chance of turning the tide. While I will be overjoyed if Roe vs. Wade gets reversed, I know that will not be enough to make any real difference.

Here are some of the seeds that were sown to open the floodgates to abortion, euthanasia and all manner of atrocities that currently surround us:

1. Contraception. Its use became widespread in our country in the 1960s sexual revolution. When the country was first contemplating making the stuff legal, many Christians and secular people protested on the grounds that it would open the doors to fornication, adultery, and all sorts of other unimaginable sexual perversions. All Christians were adamantly against contraceptives until 1930, when the Episcopal church in their Lambeth convention decided it was OK for married people to use contraceptives. In 1968, Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the Catholic Church's position with his Humanae Vitae encyclical. Once contraception became not only legal, but widely used and accepted, it was only a matter of time before abortion followed. In fact, every society that has legalized contraception has also legalized abortion. The two are inextricably linked and to deny that is the same as denying that ice and steam consist of the same molecule. It is my firm belief that until we pro-lifers are willing to abandon our own personal use of contraceptives, we can forget about ending abortion. So if you use contraceptives, stop reading this and immediately throw them all in the trash. Right now. Just do it. If you must postpone having another child, learn how to practice Natural Family Planning. You can find information by visiting the Couple to Couple League website. Trust me, you will not be effective in ending abortion until you give up your contraceptives.

2. The medicalization of birth. This may seem odd to some people that having babies in hospitals rather than at home could be more than just a personal choice. While I'm not as strong on this one as I am about contraception, I do believe our society's attitude towards birth does have a profound impact on the way society views the value of life as well. Giving birth is a normal, natural, and God-ordained process that women are priviledged to participate in. That view is not supported in today's medicalized method of childbirth. Instead, childbirth is viewed as a medical event, not unlike getting your appendix removed, that's frought with risk and where something could go wrong at any time. When a woman enters a hospital to give birth, the function that rightly belongs to her body is taken over by the medical staff and rather than the mother-to-be being the one doing the great work of bringing a child into the world, birth becomes something that's done to her as control over her body and the powerful forces at work within her body are taken over by the doctors, nurses and machines. Nearly one out of three mothers who give birth in a hospital will have a C-section--surgical birth, which is the ultimate in giving her the clear message that her body is not capable of a normal birth. Some women have actually been forced to undergo C-sections against their will.

The result of the medicalization of birth is a profound loss of self-respect and confidence of the woman in herself and in her ability to parent and raise the new life that she has brought forth. In addition, the many drugs and interventions used on her by the hospital can cause her baby to have profoundly different responses to her than normal, which can lead to sometimes insurmountable breastfeeding difficulties. I believe a loss of respect for oneself, when it happens to the majority of women, can over time translate into a loss of respect for life in general. But it also leads to more immediate issues as well, which also contribute to the deterioration of society's respect for life.

3. Abandonment of breastfeeding. This actually predates the widespread use of contraception and probably fueled its acceptance. When a woman breastfeeds, on average, her children will be spaced about two years apart, which is well within a woman's ability to manage. When she doesn't breastfeed, her fertility returns much sooner and she may be having a child every year, which is too much for most people to handle. In desperation, many women turned to contraception for relief. But even without the possible link between formula feeding and contraception, when babies are not breastfed, everyone loses. Again, a woman who does not breastfeed loses the opportunity to provide for the life she has brought into the world in the way God intended, and she won't bond as well with her baby. The baby suffers profoundly as formula is truly an inferior form of nourishment. There is also mounting evidence that breastfeeding plays a significant role in the way infants' brains are wired--that breastfeeding programs children to be empathetic and loving, whereas formula feeding can lead to more aggression and detachment, which can lead to less ethical decision making later.

4. Parenting style. As mentioned here, research has shown that parenting style has a profound impact on a child's ability to grow into an empathetic and ethical adult. A child who is raised with respect and allowed to question his parents' authority is more likely to also stand up against authority that is used for evil purposes, whereas a child who is raised in an authoritarian and punitive manner is more likely to go along with the evil as an adult. Perhaps, he will also be more likely to actively participate in said evil. Yet parenting manuals, many of which claim to be Christian, which promote everything from unreasonable limitations on breastfeeding to physically assaulting your child (spanking), abound. And due to parents' loss of confidence in their ability to parent (probably stemming from their birth experience), those manuals are sought after and followed to the detriment of the ethical development of their children. Parents need to realize that they must rear their children gently and respectfully, and that God has planted in their hearts the right instincts for at least getting started. They need to listen to their inner voice or find support from more experienced parents. A great blog promoting gentle parenting is TulipGirl.

OK, I think this is going to be one of those posts that is going to require a Part II. I haven't even touched on some of the factors that might be more obvious to more people--a strong faith in God, the way children are educated, and proper business practices (i.e., avoiding financial and other conflicts of interest--something we saw violated repeatedly in Terri's case). I know there are many more factors, but this is a good start. As you can see, all of the ones I have mentioned are long term and deeply personal choices. If you were to decide to implement these recommendations in your own life, it might be a full fifty years before you could recognize fruit, and it will take many families following course for society to see the good fruit. Yet I believe that without those changes, all the political action in the world is going to yield at best minimal results.

I've come to realize that the most revolutionary act I can do for my society is to live by these long-term principals in my own family--do the best I can to raise my children to become loving, thoughtful and ethical adults. The second most radical act I can do for the good of my society is to freely share my decisions with everyone who will listen. And this is what I intend do do through this blog and other means I am given.

More Collusion Among Terri's Killers

2006-02-17T14:59:00.000-07:00

The North Country Gazette has an article concerning Arthur Caplan, one of the people who strove to have Terri killed. Apparently, Caplan was a little more than just an unbiased source of information for the St. Petersburg Times. Turns out he was also a board member. Just the latest I hear about an unending series of illicit liaisons and conflicts of interest among the folks who worked so hard to murder this disabled young woman. Below are some excerpts:

Arthur Caplan was one of the perpetrators and advancers of the mainstream media bias in the Schaivo case, spewing forth erroneous information and tainting public opinion against Terri--her right to live, her will to live.

When Pope John Paul II said that even people in a vegetative state have a right to food and water and it is morally wrong to deny them a feeding tube, the St. Petersburg Times immediately ran to Caplan for his comments. Over and over the St. Petersburg Times drilled into the public that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and Caplan did his best to downplay the Pope's comments lest somehow they might sway public opinion to favor Terri's right to live...

...But then there's the rest of the story. What the St. Petersburg Times and Caplan didn't disclose is that Caplan is a member of the advisory board of the Poynter Institute of St. Petersburg, owner of the St. Petersburg Times.

Perhaps that's why the Times coverage of the Schiavo case was so one sided---Caplan sided.

Ethics? Mr. Caplan wants to talk about ethics? How about journalistic ethics? The St. Petersburg Times never disclosed that one of their most quoted "experts" in the Schiavo was in fact a member of their own board and an advocate for Michael Schiavo.

Caplan is a member of Poynter's National Advisory Board. According to Poynter, "members of the board help guide the work of the Institute by reviewing and giving reaction to its programs and plans, and through analysis of important developments and issues in journalism…." Yeah, like swaying public opinion.

The Poynter Institute claims to "promote excellence and integrity in the practice of craft….it stands for a journalism that informs citizens and enlightens public discourse". In the Schiavo case, it shamelessly advocated the right to die movement, promoted and glorified euthanasia and used one of its own to do it, fraudulently trying to pass Caplan off as just a source, never mentioning he was a board member. Independent journalism in the public interest? Hardly. Strongly biased, one-sided journalism in the Caplan, Felos, Schiavo interest of killing a disabled woman.

As Caplan was promoting Terri's death, Blogs for Terri were trying to place a paid ad in the St. Petersburg Times to dispel the numerous inaccuracies and misconceptions about the case that the St. Petersburg Times and other media had been promoting. But the newspaper refused to accept the ad, instead engaging in censorship and asking Blogs for Terri to edit the ad before they would agree to print it.

At the time the group was trying to place their ad, they mentioned a rumor that the Times was preparing to publish an anti-Terri editorial but the Times reportedly denied that there was any collusion between their advertising and news departments.

And the Times did publish an anti-Terri editorial, calling the Schiavo case a family tragedy that had turned into a public circus. The Times editorialized that Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature should "stay out of it". With words that were strikingly similar to Caplan's commentary for MSNBC, the Times said that Bush and the Legislature "have no business acting as obstructionists again in a controversy that needs to come to a conclusion". While Caplan's commentary had been titled "The Time Has Come To Let Terri Schiavo Die', the Times' editorial was headlined "Let Schiavo case come to a close".

As one observer opined at the time, "the editorial assumes, of course, that the Times, with its power-of-the press, should have something to say about Terri's future". Of course the Times forgot to disclose its' connection with Caplan. "I believe Blogs for Terri was correct in publicizing the editorial bias of the St. Petersburg Times who seem so focused on people's right to die that they forgot we should have an equal right to live".

HT: Blogs For Terri

Company harrasses woman over cost of her pregnancy

2006-02-17T09:46:00.000-07:00

Just another example of how the anti-life mentality has filtered down to all aspects of our society... A human resources director makes a most offensive and unthinkable suggestion.

(WOMENSENEWS)--Kathy Gable was seven months' pregnant with her first child and worried. Her gynecologist had warned her that her baby might have Down's Syndrome, and Gable needed to have two ultrasound scans each month to monitor the progress of her pregnancy.

After her latest scan, Gable had just returned to her desk at the midsize San Diego-based sporting goods company where she worked when the company's director of human resources rang her up. "Kathy," he said, "do you know how much your pregnancy is costing our company in terms of increased medical insurance?"

He proceeded to tell her. "In light of this," he continued, "the company is willing to pay for your abortion."

Read entire article here.

Contraception and Abortion

2006-02-16T22:04:00.000-07:00

Dr. Janet Smith, a professor at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, MI, has written and spoken extensively on the numerous moral problems associated with contraception. In a nutshell, she associates contraception with abortion and many of the other sexual perversions and social ills we now find ourselves mired in. And she is not alone in that belief. In any case, there is a very clear link between contraception and abortion, namely, that if you accept the use of contraception, you must also accept abortion, as the two are inseparable. Even the US Supreme Court recognizes that connection, as explained in an excerpt from Smith's 1994 talk: "Contraception, Why Not?"

Now, I'll give you the highest authority of our land, the Supreme Court says so.
There's an article out there, which I wrote, on the table you can have for free. It's called,
"The Connection between Contraception and Abortion" and I cite Planned Parenthood v.
Casey. In that decision (this is not quite verbatim but it's close) it says that: "in several
important respects, the decision to use contraceptives is the same as the decision to abort."
Or the decision to have an abortion is the same as the decision to contracept. And it goes on
to explain. It says that, "For two decades, couples have based their intimate relationships on
the availability of abortion should contraceptives fail." Now in this whole Supreme Court
decision, which is on abortion, there is not one mention of the humanity of the unborn child,
not one mention of whether the fetus was a person or not. It's not even dismissed as a
question. It's not even considered. But it does say we must have abortions because we have contraceptives. It's a necessity. For two decades, couples have counted on it should their contraceptives fail. The Supreme Court says so.

The transcript of this talk is available here, and even though it's long, it is well worth the time to read through it. She does a much better job than I ever could of explaining why our nation's acceptance of contraception so many decades ago has lead to horrible tragedies such as the cruel murder of Terri Schindler.

Pharmaceutical Tyranny

2006-02-14T16:24:00.000-07:00

Massachussetts is now the second state to require Wal-Mart to stock the morning-after abortion pill, a product Wal-Mart normally does not carry. This new directive came about as a result of a lawsuit filed by several women who were thwarted in their attempts to buy the abortifacient from Wal-Mart. The lawyer representing the plaintiffs says he is prepared to sue Wal-Mart in other states as well.

What we have here is a state government dictating to a privately run store what products it has to carry. Wal-Mart is a big store and no doubt lots of companies with something to sell would love to have Wal-Mart stock their product. Wal-Mart turns many of these products down for various reasons. The fact that Wal-Mart has refused to stock a particular product is nothing new.

So Wal-Mart also refused to stock Harry's Wonderful Widgets (that's why I've never heard of them and neither have you). But I really want one of those widgets really bad and I can't be bothered with shopping around for one. I better petition the government to make Wal-Mart carry those widgets. I bet that would tickle Harry to no end because he knows if he can only get his widgets into Wal-Mart where everyone can see them, he'll make lots of widget sales which will lead to huge profits for him. It's not fair that Wal-Mart carries some products and not others. Waaaaah!

I doubt the government at any level would listen to my tale of woe. It's up to Wal-Mart to decide what products they will and will not stock, and not government's business to intervene.

So why does the government give the morning-after pill special treatment? What's so special about it that the government must require Wal-Mart to stock it, especially when it can be easily found at the store down the street?

The morning-after pill is a pharmaceutical product, and for some reason the government has long seen fit to promote and even make mandatory all manner of pharmaceutical products. The companies that make them have it made and their advertising budgets must be enviably low. Think about this the next time you hear a "public service announcement" reminding mothers of small children to take them in for their shots. That is the government running the advertisement campaigns for several pharmaceutical products. And the government doesn't stop there; it actually mandates the use of those products nationwide. Yes, there are excemptions, but the laws are on the books.

So now the government of Massachussetts has decided to mandate the availability of yet another pharmaceutical product, and no doubt many pro-lifers are outraged (as well they should be) because this pharmaceutical product happens to be abortive. Just keep in mind that the government is not doing anything new here. Pharmaceutical drugs have been government's pet for a long time. This is the more foundational problem underneath the immediate and obvious issue of government forcing abortifacients onto private businesses.

Government needs to get out of the business of promoting and mandating the use of all pharmaceutical drugs, period. We all should have gotten outraged a long time ago, whenever it was that this first started.

Pharmaceutical tyranny--yet another example of Modern Medicine causing harm.

HT: Rush Limbaugh See here for another news story.

Parenting Style Important

2006-02-13T12:09:00.000-07:00

Vad Yashem, Israel's "Department of the Righteous" commissioned a study to identify the differences between those Gentiles (non-Jews) who rescued and otherwise assisted the Jews during the Holocaust from those who simply stood by. The study was carried out by Sociologists Samuel Oliner and Pearl Oliner. In the study they extensively interviewed 406 rescuers and 126 nonrescuers, where both groups were closely matched for age, sex, education, and geographical location during the war. The principal question the Oliners set up their study to ask was: How do people who risk personal disaster in order to help others, with no promise of reward, differ from people who do not? What kind of background or upbringing lends itself to altruism?

The Oliners compiled the results and analysis of their study in their book (published in 1988): The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. The most striking difference between the rescuers and nonrescuers was the way they were raised. Rescuers came from close, loving families where the children were deeply respected and treated gently. Discipline was based on talking and reasoning, and children were allowed to question their parents' decisions. The rescuers repeatedly used the words "reasoning" and "explaining" when describing how their parents corrected them. Rescuers were rarely, if ever, spanked. In contrast, the nonrescuers were raised by authoritarian parents who insisted primarily on obedience. Corporal punishment, though not necessarily the most extreme kinds, was the norm. In an article which cites the Oliners' work, psychologist and author Gregory Popcack writes: Parents of collaborators were significantly more likely to view their children's misbehavior as the result of innate bad-ness or manipulativeness. By contrast, the parents of rescuers tended to view misbehavior as the result of simple ignorance or clumsy high-spiritedness.

Everyone who uses his stature to promote corporal punishment and other punitive and disrespectful forms of childrearing will do well to pay attention to the Oliners' study. Many of those who promote and practice a more authoritarian style are themselves Christians and view the deeds of the Holocaust rescuers as heroic. No doubt if asked, they will say they hope their children will grow up to be rescuers, and not bystanders. They need to ask themselves if the way they are raising their children is likely to bring about those results. According to some very convincing research, the answer is no.

The way you parent your children now just might impact whether future people will live or die.

HT: Gregory Popcak, from his book Parenting With Grace

It's More Complicated

2006-02-12T12:59:00.000-07:00

Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has an article titled You Wouldn't Even Ask where he expounds on the problems with voting for any pro-abortion candidate, no matter how much one might agree on where this candidate stands on other issues. His firm belief is that if you are for abortion, that disqualifies you from public office and that pro-life voters should vote against you without asking you any further questions. He compares the pro-abortion stance to supporting terrorism. If a politician claimed he was in favor of terrorism, no one would even ask him about where he stands on healthcare, housing, or anything else.

I've actually long held this view and could be accused of being a single issue voter. In general, I vote for or against candidates based on their committment to protect our nation's unborn children. It's also worked out well for me because for the most part, the pro-life candidates have matched my political views in other areas as well, so I always preferred the pro-life package to the pro-abortion package. And I expect at least for the next few election cycles, I will continue to weigh abortion very heavily in my voting choices.

However, I am starting to question this view in principal. While I agree that supporting any form of mass killing of innocent citizens is dangerous for our country, I also see that there are other issues that in the long run are also serious. Suppose there are two candidates running for major office in this country. One of them supports terrorism and is proud of that fact. The other supports organized crime and has received large sums of money from the Mafia, and again, makes no apologies for that. Who should I vote for? In my opinion, neither one of them is qualified to serve in public office but there aren't any other candidates on the ballot.

Sometimes, that's closer to how it looks come election time. Usually, one of the candidates is pro-abortion and one is pro-life. The problem is that the candidate who is pro-life may also be in favor of societal institutions that support abortion, so even though not directly pro-abortion, his public policy really isn't going to make much difference. What if the pro-abortion candidate were willing to reform those institutions that support abortion, which would lead to abortion being less rampant, even though he's not against abortion but sees those reforms as important for other reasons? Who should I vote for?

So far, I haven't seen this scenario happen in real life, and maybe it never will. But I am starting to see abortion and euthanasia as being entwined with modern medicine, an institution that I believe is riddled with serious problems (see my previous post). Fortunately, as a citizen I do have a fair amount of freedom in determining how much I or my family participates in the institution of modern medicine. I can choose to refuse vaccinations for my children, for example. I can also seek alternative forms of healthcare when I get sick. And I enjoy a fair amount of privacy in that matter because no one other than my doctor and the various other healthcare practicioners I have visited hold my medical records, and they only have that portion that they have contributed to, or which I have given them. If I move to another state, any healthcare practitioner I begin to visit has to start from scratch with me or my family. Of course, it's in my best interest to be honest about my history, but it is very reassuring that a new doctor has to take me at my word, has to trust me that the information I'm giving him is correct (to the best of my ability). The fact that he can't verify what I tell him with some national medical database that all doctors can access puts me in a position of certain power, which I believe is a small, but healthy balance to the tremendous trust and power our society has given the medical profession.

A few months ago I was listening to the Sean Hannity show and Sean was interviewing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. I only heard a few minutes of the interview, so I may be taking this out of context, but what I heard was Mr. Gingrich elaborating on why he believed it was so very important to develop a national medical database where everyone's medical records would be centralized and accessible. Since I do not know much of his views beyond what I heard that day, all I can really say is that his words raised a red flag in my mind. I'm not sure I like this. I know I don't want my medical records being kept where people I haven't specifically authorized can access them, and I don't ever want to see such a database being forced on anyone or used to track anyone.

With the growing concern of a terrorist attack on this country taking the form of a biological agent, I have also heard talk among Conservatives (who in general are anti-abortion) about developing and making available new vaccines to counter the effects of these biological agents, and developing laws and systems to make sure everyone takes those vaccines. Again, the second part bothers me. I do not ever want to be forced to take a vaccine, or to have my children take a vaccine. No matter how serious the threat and no matter how much the vaccine is touted as being effective, I want the choice to still be up to me to make my own decisions regarding what treatments or preventatives I pursue for me and my dependent children. I do not want some beaurocrat telling me I must take treatment A over treatment B, especially when I know that treatment B is much better and safer for me. I want to be free to inform myself of the vaccine in question, determine as best I can its effectiveness and safety, then run my own risk-benefit analysis and decide for myself what to do about it. I believe this is part of being a free citizen. Yet I hear pro-life politicians or former politicians talking about stuff like this and it makes me very nervous.

On a more general level, financial ties between government agents and the pharmaceutical companies have been well-documented. I'm sure similar ties have been documented with government agents and other types of industries so this in and of itself isn't particularly surprising. However it does mean that when those agents make a decision that will affect said companies, the decision will not be an entirely free one, and will most likely reflect the best interests of the companies over the best interests of the constituents. Many politicians who are aware of these ties do not see a conflict because they honestly believe that both interests are complementary. But given the fact that it's the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the drugs and vaccines that the government then turns around and promotes, I do not have much confidence that when one of these products causes death or sickness, the politicians (including the pro-life ones) will always act in the most speedy manner to get that product off the shelf. In fact, historically and even recently, that has not been the case (Read The Virus and the Vaccine by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Shumacher for a historical example).

Really, what it comes down to is that for the most part, the pro-life candidates view abortion as an anomaly of an otherwise good healthcare system. My view is more and more that it's the healthcare system itself that makes such atrocities as abortion and euthanasia possible. Therefore, until a politician is willing to take the medical institution head on, his pro-life stance is to a large extent compromised.

Let's suppose in the next election I have a choice between two candidates. One is anti-abortion and a firm believer in removing the laws that allow for individuals to refuse vaccines for themselves or their dependent children--in other words, vaccines will now be made mandatory for everyone, no exceptions. Other than the concern over vaccine safety, this is problematic because there have been instances of vaccines being laced with substances such as contraceptives that the recipients knew nothing about, and I do not believe our government is immune to this temptation. The other candidate is pro-abortion, but believes the current exemptions for vaccines should be left alone, and actually expanded to give people even more freedom of choice in that area. This will put me in a very difficult position as a voter. On one hand, I am adamently against torturing and murdering innocent children (let's be honest, that's what abortion is). On the other hand, my first obligation is to protect my own children, and I believe vaccines are dangerous for them. Who should I vote for?

The question is actually much thornier than would appear at first glance.

Modern Medicine's Practice of Doing Harm

2006-02-10T20:58:00.000-07:00

I've once again developed a hankering to write about more controversial issues, and of all the various blogs I currently keep (all unlinked to each other on purpose), this blog is really the most appropriate outlet.

The issue on my mind today is probably way too big for one post, but you got to start somewhere, right? What's eating me these days concerns the practice of modern medicine and how it affects me and the society in which I live.

At the moment, I am battling a sinus infection, and this time, I am determined to not give in to the use of antibiotics. The MunchK has it too, but she is clearly tolerating it very well, and I think she's basically on the mend. I think I am too, but still need a day or so to recover completely. Anyway, I've entertained and distracted myself by paging through some old issues of the magazine the Couple to Couple League publishes. The magazine is dedicated to educating readers about the practice of Natural Family Planning (NFP), but it also delves into all kinds of issues related to fertility and reproduction as well as natural mothering. While the articles regularly will cite complaints about doctors who are undeducated about NFP, who don't give any credibility to their patients' charts and sometimes misdiagnose them as a result of their arrogance, the organization clearly views this as a problem with that particular physician and is by no means anti-medicine. But after reading five or more articles that mention medical error or just plain arrogance, you can't help but notice a pattern.

Over the past year or so, I have grown much less charitable towards the medical institution and doctors in general, though I do believe there are good doctors out there who actually are openminded and will listen to their patients. We are fortunate to have one as our family physician. During the time many of us bloggers were writing and fighting so hard to save Terri Schindler's life, I really lost whatever faith I had left in modern medicine. There was one point while Terri was starving to death that a number of doctors trotted out on TV and talked about how euphoric death by starvation was. I only know about this because Rush Limbaugh was mocking and decrying it and playing a few of the more ridiculous soundbites. But even before that, how many doctors had already gone public about Terri being in a permanent vegetative state, when any layperson with internet access could determine that to be completely untrue in about five minutes? Then there was the misinformation about what abilities she had and didn't have, which were never properly determined, not even by physicians. Anyway, there were doctors out there on TV, on the internet, on the radio, basically lying through their teeth about Terri and about what she would be experiencing by her death by starvation and dehydration. Whether they were lying or they were plain ignorant, either scenario ought to have been of grave concern to any of their unfortunate patients.

I was bewildered by how doctors could show their face in public with that baloney and expect us all to swallow it. I don't know how many people actually did swallow it, but clearly, their message prevailed where it really mattered. How is it that we as a society put up with and let doctors get away with this malarkey?

Then the answers started coming. Well, maybe not answers, but certainly indications that what I was witnessing ought to have come as no surprise to anyone. These lying or ignorant doctors come from the same medical profession that does abortions. I guess if doctors can rationalize the dismemberement of unborn babies, maybe it isn't such a big jump to rationalize the starvation of a handicapped adult woman. In fact, I learned at some point in my own efforts to save Terri's life that starvation and dehydration happen all the time in hospitals and nursing homes, and Terri was really just one of many victims. OK, so abortions are kind of an anomaly anyway, and many doctors will not do them. But are they really such an anomaly with modern medicine?

Most people are familiar with the Hippocratic Oath, which states to first, do no harm. All doctors are supposed to swear by it. I personally think they should just drop it. Doctors have actually caused countless people a lot of harm ever since the early days of what we now refer to as modern medicine. In fact, Hippocrates himself believed that woman equalled disease and he saw female internal organs as natural hotspots for disease. This couldn't have boded well for any women under his care.

So what harm exactly have doctors caused? Most of us remember reading about the ancient practice of bleeding sick patients, either by cutting their veins or by putting leaches on them. Many people who might otherwise have recovered, including some famous Roman Catholic saints, died of the treatment. I would consider that doing harm. OK, you say, but doctors realized their mistake and now don't do that anymore. I'm relieved that at least that's not one of the many risks I might face should I show up at a doctor's office, but it's hardly the only harmful prescription to their names.

At another time in history (and right now I'm just writing--maybe I'll go in later and fill in all my sources), many women were dying in childbirth or shortly after from "childbed fever." This form of maternal mortality began after doctors started taking over the practice of delivering babies from midwives who were actually doing quite well. Anyway, doctors who attended laboring women had this ego trip about how dirty their hands got. They would go from one woman to the other, and sometimes stop at the pathology lab or morgue in between such visits, and never once wash their hands. The women got infected and many of them died. A Jewish man (I don't know if he was a doctor himself or not) dared to suggest that doctors should wash their hands in between patients. He was ridiculed, impuned, and pretty much run out of the medical profession for that. It wasn't until fifty years later that doctors made it a practice to regularly wash their hands. How many people under physicians' care during those fifty years suffered and died needlessly as a result of that kind of arrogance?

Today, most people at least give lip service to the fact that breast milk is by far superior to formula as nutrition for infants. Actually, a more accurate way to put it is that formula is far inferior to breast milk. Babies deprived of breast milk can expect to experience more ear infections, more allergies, poorer health (and a whole list of other ailments) than their breastfed counterparts, all else being equal. And who was it that got mothers to abandon breastfeeding in favor of an inadequate substitute? Why doctors or course. Doctors started telling women that formula was better for their babies, that they weren't making enough milk for their babies, and so forth. To back that up, hospital procedures surrounding birth were making breastfeeding extremely difficult, so the women who believed their doctors were not just being gullible; they were being robbed of their God-given right to nourish their children, and they and their children suffered for it. About half of the women of about age 60 that I know have told me their doctors told them they couldn't breastfeed for various lame reasons. Did doctors honestly believe that a full half of the female population couldn't perform a basic female function? I doubt many of them even thought of it, which I do not find reassuring.

And what about C-sections? The current national C-section rate is 29 percent. So, I'm supposed to believe almost one third of the female population is incapable of another basic function, childbirth? No, the truth is many C-sections, which are major abdominal surgeries, are performed unnecessarily, and those unnecessary surgeries do cause harm. And who does C-sections? Doctors, of course. And this doesn't even delve into all the idiotic and harmful interventions doctors routinely do to women giving birth in hospitals and to their babies. Entire books have been written on the subject; feel free to look it up.

And once women are past the childbearing age, then they'd better hold onto their wombs for dear life. In America, nearly one third of women over the age of sixty have had hysterectomies and many of these women have also had their ovaries removed as well. The most common reason for a hysterectomy is the presence of uterine fibroids, benign but annoying tumors that grow in the walls of the uterus, and most of which will shrink during menopause. Why do uterine fibroids lead to removing the entire organ, and possibly the entire female reproductive system? Because it's easier to cut out the whole uterus than to carefully cut out the tumors. Why should doctors be bothered with a tedious surgery to cut out tumors rather than just get rid of it all? They seem to have this notion that if you're no longer bearing children, then you don't need a uterus. Actually, the uterus produces all kinds of important hormones that help a woman weather the transition to menopause and beyond. No problem, the doctors say. We'll just put her on hormone replacement therapy. I'm sure I don't need to go into what a fiasco HRT has turned out to be. First do no harm. My foot!

If hysterectomies have become a right of passage for women on the brink of menopause, let's take a look at male infant circumcision, one of the most common and useless surgeries performed on infant boys. According to Dr. Fleiss, an MD who writes for NOCIRC, circumcision traditionally was never accepted as something civilized people do. As the Roman empire was expanding into areas where circumcision was practiced for religious reasons, it outlawed the practice. The Catholic Church also came down against circumcision early on. I personally find it interesting that it was one of the very first issues to be decided on by the early Christians and they determined it was not something to be imposed on converting Gentiles. Circumcision made a comeback in America during a time when everyone was worried about boys masturbating. Someone thought circumcising those boys would put a halt to their masturbation and voila, the practice became acceptable again. When it became clear that circumcision did not mitigate masturbation, rather than give up the practice, the medical community started coming up with medical reasons to do it, all of which have since been proven to be hogwash. My favorite is the claim that it's more sanitary. Sure, let's make an open wound on a sensitive area and then regularly expose it to poopy diapers for the next year; yup, that's much more sanitary than leaving well enough alone. Only a doctor could see the logic in that!

Going back to breastfeeding and the abandonment thereof, this lead almost directly to the widespread use of contraception. Women who on average can space out their children every two years by breastfeeding now had their fertility return early and found themselves pregnant every year and with more children too quickly than they could handle. Rather than encourage them to return to breastfeeding, they were encouraged to take contraceptives instead. Several very convincing arguments have been made for the wide acceptance of contraception being responsible for many of the sexual perversions and other social ills that we now find ourselves facing. I can't go into them now as they would make for their own post, but more information can be found on the Couple to Couple League website. But general social ills notwithstanding, even people who have no quarrel with contraceptives in principle (I happen to, being Catholic) will agree that many of them carry serious side effects, most of which are not fully disclosed to women being offered the contraceptives. The Pill alone has been implicated in several cancers, infertility, permanent migraines, and at least three pages of fine print of other side effects. Tubal ligations are just as risky, with 37% of women reporting complications from the procedure, notably tubal pregnancies, one of the few cases where even adamant prolifers are forced to support the decision to abort, as the baby has no chance and the mother is likely to not survive either--a heartbreaking and dangerous situation for women finding themselves in that predicament. Anyway, contraceptives have caused harm and the medical profession has pushed them.

The detereoration of my own views of modern medicine as beneficial, or at the very least, benign, began while I was pregnant with the MunchK and some friends encouraged me and Crazy Diamond to fully investigate the vaccine issue. We did and were surprised by what we found. This too could make its own blog post, or entire blog for that matter, so I will only summarize and encourage you to investigate the issue for yourself especially if you have or will have babies or young children. In a nutshell, pretty much every benefit that has been purported to be brought about by vaccination has come under heavy fire, and for good reason, as there is much evidence to the contrary. As an example, take thimerosal, a mercury-derived preservative in many vaccines. Many people have attributed thimerosal to the recent nearly 600 percent increase in the rates of autism and related neural disorders among children. The jury is still out on that one as it's actually quite difficult to determine causation in that situation. However, whenever people have injected thimerosal into rats or mice, the animals have gotten brain damaged. If you inject thimerosal into ten mice, you will be left with ten brain damaged mice. The people who actually do these animal tests say there is no good reason (see bottom or page 3 in linked article) to believe that when you inject thimerosal into a human infant, that infant will not also get brain damaged. And yet, thimerosal-laced vaccines are routinely injected into infants and their unsuspecting parents assume their infants are being protected, not harmed. Doctors tell them they should give their kids shots, so they do. Unless someone tells them otherwise, as was the fortunate case for us.

Going back to why I refuse to take antibiotics for a sinus infection. My understanding is that antibiotics were extremely useful in treating war wounds and some very serious bacterial infections like pneumonia. We're talking fatal if left untreated pneumonia. Under those circumstances, I might even think antibiotics are a good idea. The problem is that they get overprescribed, and you can take them for viral head colds, ear infections, strep throat, sinusitis, and anything else you can imagine--things that our bodies are perfectly capable of dealing with on their own given fluids, rest, and maybe some extra immune support. Taking antibiotics for these can cause all sorts of problems, like diarrhea, yeast infections, killing off of all the good bacteria in our bodies--all of which would be trivial if your life is threatened by an infection, but which can start an unnecessary vicious cycle otherwise. Also, many of the infectious bacteria, including the more virulent kind, have grown resistant to common antibiotics due to their constant exposure to them. And yet who prescribes antibiotics for everything under the sun? Doctors do, and in this case patients do at times demand it and put pressure on the doctors to prescribe. Yet doctors have means to refuse to prescribe stuff that is not indicated and they don't always use those means as they should.

I could probably think of other examples of doctors having caused harm rather than good to the people who trust them to treat them for their ailments, but I think there's enough here. Doctor-induced illness and death is actually something that has been statistically measured, and while I do not know the exact ranking, iatrogenic (doctor-induced) deaths rank right up there with the top killers: cancer, heart disease, car accidents. Doctors indeed have a long history of harming, not helping, their patients. And we have a long history of placing way too much trust in them. In fact, as a society, I would say we have an idolatrous relationship with modern medicine. Doctors are treated as if they carry god-like stature and their word is considered the final authority on people's health and well-being. If you don't believe me, take any health issue concerning your children that you are at odds with the in-laws about, and then tell them your kid's doctor backs you up and watch them fall right into line. Modern medicine is looked on in much the same way Jesus was when he was walking around performing miracles--with unqualified awe and wonder.

I must, in the defense of doctors, add that doctors are not alone in this blatant violation of the trust society has placed in them. Doctors are part of an entire institution known as modern medicine that consists of the medical schools, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the politicians on both sides of the aisle who rely on these companies for campaign and party contributions, and the government who also is acting out of vested interests beyond our health. Books have been written about this too, and they make a fascinating read. Many doctors have the best of intentions and are caught in the throes of a system they do not understand and which is far more powerful than they are, and they do not have complete information either (although the truly good ones try to seek it out). For the most part I don't have quarrels with individual doctors, but I do not believe the institution of modern medicine to have my family's best interests at heart. Still, I do not blindly trust even our wonderful family doctor. I do the research myself and try to use the least invasive way to treat a bug that I can find--most of those treatments I will not learn about at the doctor's office. I must also state a disclaimer that since I am not citing all my sources, you, the reader, should not take me at my word, but look up the information and decide on this for yourself. See the relevant links at the bottom of this post.

So, given all the harm that modern medicine has caused people--the unnecessary surgeries, the bogus reccommendations, the arrogance with which many who question those reccommendations are treated--is it really such a huge step that this same institution, with many doctors who represent it, would also promote abortion, euthanasia, and recently, the cruel public starvation of an innocent, disabled woman? Is it really such a surprise that those representative doctors would use whatever lies they needed to in order to foist their agenda of death onto the unsuspecting public?

No, it really is not a big step, or a big surprise. It certainly isn't to me anymore.

For more information, visit some of these websites:

Abortion
Euthanasia
Starvation and dehydration
Circumcision
Vaccines another interesting article here.
Contraception
Childbirth
More technical info on childbirth
Natural Mothering
Breastfeeding
An interesting article on why we trust modern medicine so much
Hysterectomies
one of many alternative medicine websites
Thimerosal and autism
More on Thimerosal and autism

Also check out Confessions of a Medical Heretic and Male Practice by Dr. Robert Mendelsohn
Many more books and much more information can be found by doing a search on amazon and/or google.

Back again? I hope so.

2006-02-10T18:22:00.000-07:00

I'm starting to get more ideas for things to post on this blog. For anyone who has been checking back periodically, you can tell we haven't been keeping up as well as we should. We've also attracted a fair amount of comment spam. If you are a spammer, go away. For those of you who have left legitimate comments that we haven't responded to because we haven't seen them, our apologies, and please do come back. I'm working on an actual post now and hope to have more in the future. I'm hoping Crazy Diamond has some ideas of his own too.

I'm not sure what path this blog will take in the coming months. I honestly thought it might have died with Terri, and part of it did, in a way. I expect we'll be airing our opinions about controversial subjects (some current and some not so current). I can't promise we'll be keeping up with politics per se, so unless we get involved in another specific issue, as we did in the fight to save Terri's life, this probably won't be much of a political blog. But I'm sure it will be controversial. Mostly, I hope subjects we bring up here will trigger independent thought and the desire to check out the issues for yourself and make your own decisions. There are a lot of things that we take for granted that we really need to be thinking about more, and possibly not trusting as much.

I also do want to use this blog in part to keep Terri Schindler's memory alive and make sure no one who reads what we write ever forgets what was done to her. Please continue to keep her family in your thoughts and prayers. While no doubt many have moved on to other issues and perhaps even forgotten all about Terri--she's certainly not "news" anymore--please understand that the pain her family is experiencing won't go away so quickly. It may never go away. You don't have a daughter and sister starved to death right in front of you and get over that anytime soon.

With all that said, I will go back to working on my first actual post in over six months--this one will definitely be controversial. I hope to have you all visit here again soon.

Where Have We Been?

2005-07-08T13:08:00.000-06:00

Those of you readers who are still sticking with us have certainly noticed we haven't posted anything in almost two months.

There are a few reasons. Most immediate, summer is our busiest time. I work seasonally in agriculture--that's summer. Because of our desire to be the ones raising the MunchK (not some daycare), I work early mornings and evenings--around Crazy Diamond's more conventional 8-5 workday. This leaves very little time at the end of the day for extras like blogging.

The other reason is we are in the midst of making some major improvements to our property--things like new siding, a sprinkler system and (soon) lawn, a new fence and deck, and various other smaller projects. We are contracting out most of the work, but it still takes time and energy to schedule and manage (and pay for) all those projects. It's certainly a lot of fun.

Finally, I needed a break from all the bad news. I explained earlier how the circumstances surrounding Terri Schindler's court ordered death by starvation wound up leaving me and I believe a lot of people feeling like our voices as citizens had been silenced--certainly rendered ineffective. We could petition our elected lawmakers all we wanted, but in the end everyone who had any real power--even "let's go liberate the oppressed people of Afghanistan and Iraq" President Bush himself--was going to bow to a little probate court judge who wasn't even on the bench legitimately. And our own seriously oppressed citizen didn't have a chance.

After that, I'd read the blogs I normally read, listen to the radio shows I normally listen to, and I'd just learn more about how evil things were becoming more and more institutionalized in our country, while our legitimate rights were being stripped away. Oddly enough, the Supreme Court's latest decision which would basically give my city government the right to forcefully take my property (improvements notwithstanding) away from me and turn it over to a corporation just because they could squeeze more tax revenue out of the corporation was some sort of turning point for me: now I know it's really going to get bad from here on out. Confiscating property has always been a way out of control governments managed to punish citizens for speaking out or in other ways not towing the line. It's going to start happening in this country too. Just watch.

In any case, I needed (and to some extent still need) a break. I'm not quite sure where to go from here as far as political involvement goes. We are contemplating various possibilities. I do know that I need to do what I can to give my daughter every possible advantage and opportunity. And even when I'm not specifically trying to raise the MunchK, just the everyday stuff can take an amazing amount of time. It's what I need to be doing, and I'm enjoying the everyday stuff more as well.

Having said all that, I do hope to get back into blogging here. I enjoy it, and I do like the exchange of ideas, and the ability to coordinate with other people I've never met to accomplish something we all believe in, even if we don't succeed. It's always worth the struggle. It's just a matter of how intensely do you approach it, and how long do you sustain that intensity. Something we are learning and probably will continue to learn.

In any case, it was high time I wrote something here, and I hope it won't be another two months before I post here again.

Stop the Aid?

2005-07-08T12:58:00.000-06:00

Crazy Diamond found this Der Spiegel interview with a Kenyan economist. His claim is that all the aid going to Africa from the US and Europe is causing more harm than good, and that if the aid were to be ended, the African people would quickly learn to stand on their own two feet.

I think this is worth thinking about. Are we really helping with all our generosity? Or are we involved in creating a vicious cycle of dependence? In college I took a class on world food supply issues, and the teacher said that food aid has always been more about the rich countries getting rid of their surpluses than it was about truly helping the poor countries. I've since heard several times that the food aid tends to undercut the local food markets, causing the farmers to go under. This economist is making that same claim.

Anyway, something to think about. Do the Africans really need our billion dollar aid packages? Or is there a better way we can support them in their economic development?

Michael awarded Terri's estate the day she died

2005-05-26T05:30:00.000-06:00

Here's a post on BlogsForTerri explaining how Michael Schiavo was awarded what was left of Terri's estate the day she died. Apparently, Judge Greer was in such a rush to get the paperwork together that he put down Michael Schiavo, rather than Terri Schiavo, as the one who had died. Yes, this is the guy the American Bar Association honored for his professionalism!

The Fight

2005-05-21T16:22:00.000-06:00

It's been a while since I've posted here--been a little bit out of the loop and hope to get back into things really soon. For now, I am going to post something from Megan's blog that I've been wanting to publish for a while. This is something she posted shortly after Terri Schindler was killed. I don't ever want us to forget that what happened to Terri was a horrible atrocity, and I honestly believe something in our society fundamentally changed the day she died (more on that later). Anyway, here is Megan's thoughtful and inspiring post:

I Welcome The Fight Terri Continues To Inspire In Us
Terri had an extraordinarily large extended family. We are all truly better and changed in some ways as a result of her touching our lives. I know I am.

Most of us are still in fight mode. I just think we need to focus that energy in the best possible ways. What had happened to Terri over the course of 15 years is quite a complex web of questionable events. There are areas where people failed Terri and areas where the law failed Terri. We can demand the people be held accountable and demand that laws be changed. We have that power but only by taking reasonable and educated stands. We can get to some accountability in Terri's death if we identify and force change in those areas of culpability.

I am probably like many in that I am so angry I want to point a finger at someone and say "Murder, you are responsible for the killing of Terri Schiavo". It is not that simple. I think we probably all need to realize, we will most likely never get there. But there are steps short of pointing that finger that could force the recognition of this as a criminal atrocity.

Here are some of the areas I plan on being very involved in:

Judge Greer. The impeachable offenses are many. Most of them stem from his refusal to recuse himself due to tangible connections to George Felos and his refusal to remove Michael Schiavo as Terri's guardian even though he violated some 17 requirements under the statute of guardianship (Florida Statute 744.474) I also cannot find ANY law, even loosely translated, that gives Judge Greer the power to deny Terri food and water by mouth. Florida law prohibits this, calling the denial of food and water by natural means a deliberate act to end life. I plan to research and compile those most egregious offenses and with a clear and loud voice, call out for his impeachment. Efforts by many are already underway here.

George Felos. Fraud charges should be brought against him. (Comment deleted in order to correct the facts. To those who had a fit over it, Felos did support the assertions made at the mal practice suit and I even stated that would be a true statement made by him. Thank you for pointing out that my comment was written as though he made that true statement and he did not) He then orchestrates (thru his influence on the Hospice Board) stowing Terri away in the Hospice system, stating her life expectancy at 6 months or less thereby defrauding the Medicaid system. I am assuming this would be enough to have his license to practice law taken away. As well it should be, he is unfit. To state a personal opinion (why not, it's my blog) Mr Felos should be remanded to psychiatric care. Anyone who states he can read the minds of the incapacitated by looking in their eyes or that he can force planes to land with his mind, should be instiutionalized and NOT given the power to wield influence in a court of law.

Michael Schiavo. Boy, it sure gets complicated here. I am still thinking through all of this. (1) Fraud. These charges could probably be brought pretty easily. The money trail will show fraud very clearly. Also defrauding Medicaid as his wife had $750,000 dedicated to her care, yet (with the aide of is attorney) he illegally forced the cost of her care onto Medicaid and spent Terri's money to launch and continue a huge legal campaign to end her life. (2) Abuse and neglect. There is no statute of limitations issue here because the abuse and neglect continued throughout the 15 years and up until her death. Terri had protections legally afforded to her through The Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. He was also under certain obligations dictated by the statute of guardianship. Michael is criminally negligent and his actions qualify as abuse by denying Terri these protections.

Applicable areas of the law to re-visit.

(1) I would argue that nutrition and hydration should be TAKEN OFF the list of extraordinary or artificial life saving measures. One is not being artificially kept alive based on a need for food and water by any method. If that is the standard, then we are all "terminal".
(2) I would argue that someone's right to die should be a choice one makes to be allowed to die naturally and NEVER if it constitutes forcing someone to die. The burden should be MUCH greater to take extraordinary measures to end life than it is to take extraordinary measures to save life.
(3) I would argue that "right to die" issues are never considered without the written wishes of the patient. It simply should not be within any person's power to make life and death decisions for anyone else.
(4) If it is to remain law that hearsay evidence can be presented via proxy on the patient's wishes, then the "clear and convincing evidence" standard is not high enough. All evidence should be heard and a finding reached based on the evidentiary standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

In considering these battles and those we might be able to win, I am left with several questions but I will pose this one...

If Judge Greer were impeached based on his findings in this case and his refusal to remove Michael Schiavo as the guardian and Michael Shiavo was found guilty of abuse and neglect, would this make Terri's death criminal?

Baby Charlotte Press Release

2005-05-12T06:19:00.000-06:00

Darren and Debbie Wyatt, the parents of Charlotte Wyatt--the baby the hospital doesn't believe should continue living--have released this press release several days ago:

The parents of tragic baby Charlotte Wyatt today released new pictures of their daughter - which they say prove her health is improving.

Darren and Debbie Wyatt say the new photographs, taken just three weeks ago, show that 19 month old Charlotte is growing all the time.

When Charlotte was born she was just 5in. long and weighed under 1lb..

But today the baby is 26in. long and weighs 15lb..

The couple can now take Charlotte around hospital corridors in a pram, sparking hopes she could one day go home with them.

The dramatic development has been made possible by the trial use of new mobile breathing equipment, which stops Charlotte from being tied to her cot.

And Charlotte's parents say they have released the new pictures to show people how much their daughter has changed since she was born.

Chef Mr Wyatt, 33, of Portsmouth, Hants, said today: "I believe it is in everyone's best interest to see how well Charlotte is doing.

"When we see the pictures that were taken just after she was born now we just think, 'That's not Charlotte'.

"She has changed so much since that time.

"Just by looking at the new pictures you can see that Charlotte is looking pretty well.

"She is doing as well as she always has done. We think she is not getting worse, she is getting better.

"She has grown and she is responding more and more.

"When she was born we were told she could see and hear, then later on we were told she couldn't see or hear.

"But she recognises our voices and is reaching out for things.

"And we want people to see how she is looking now."

Mrs Wyatt, 23, added: "We get people coming up to us and asking how Charlotte is all the time.

"We want them to see how she is doing for themselves."

Charlotte was born three months premature at St Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth, in October 2003, with serious brain, lung and kidney damage.

Doctors said Charlotte felt nothing but pain.

Last month (April) the couple lost their legal battle to overturn a court order allowing doctors not to resuscitate their daughter.

But they are planning to appeal against the decision because they are convinced Charlotte's health is improving.

Mr Wyatt said: "She was just the size of your hand when she was born, she was the length of a ball point pen.

"Doctors said she wouldn't even reach her first birthday but she proved them wrong then.

"Now we can take her out of her oxygen tank which feels really nice.

"The only trouble is when you take her out and hold her you don't want to put her back.

"When we hold her we can see she is getting better."

The couple, who have two sons Daniel, two, and seven month old David, are now expecting a fourth child.

They want to raise awareness of the premature baby charity Bliss and to highlight a new website dedicated to Charlotte, www.savecharlotte.com

Mr Wyatt is also hoping to organise a sponsored walk to raise money for the charity.

Charlotte was delivered by emergency Caesarian section because she was not growing properly after just 26 weeks in her mother's womb.

Medical experts from across the country who have examined Charlotte insist that her chances of surviving even one more year are barely five per cent.

Doctors say that even a small cold or runny nose could be fatal.

Update on Baby Charlotte

2005-05-07T19:47:00.000-06:00

This directly from Sherri:

HOPE for Baby Charlotte: YOU CAN HELP!
Juleni has been a GOD GIVEN AMBASSADOR for Baby Charlotte. She asked me to pass this on to ALL I CAN!

Sherri...on a somber note, and off topic, here is my latest update on little baby Charlotte Wyatt. Would you please alert your readers to pray for her and to write those British media outlets that RottyPup put up for us over at Blogsforterri? I will try to repost them all here, too...Thank you!:

Over the past week and a half, the editor of the Olive Branch Press (www.theolivebranchpress.org) and I have contacted several doctors in an attempt to get help for Charlotte. There have been ups and downs, that I want to share with you later, but have no time right now: suffice it to say, the editor of Olive Branch Press (OBP) has made contact with a prolife British doctor willing to help Charlotte! This is good news!!

THIS IS WHERE WE NEED YOUR HELP, WITH PRAYER!

The doctor has told us that the hospital that Charlotte is in must first give PERMISSION for a second opinion to be allowed...can you imagine that? As a result the OBP editor has a call in, overseas, to a British legal expert who works alongside the prolife doctors. We are waiting for this legal expert's response (a woman). PLEASE, PLEASE PRAY that she responds as soon as possible, and that God will guide her as she reviews all the legal considerations in our getting a good, life asserting doctor to give an evaluation or second opinion on Charlotte!

Here is why this is so crucial:

THE FOLLOWING IS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH FROM THE STATEMENTS IN THE COURT DOCUMENTS FROM THIS PAST OCTOBER:

"On the basis of the unanimous medical evidence in this case, the issue in all probability is not whether this baby should live or die but how and when she should die. Charlotte has chronic respiratory and kidney problems coupled with the most profound brain damage that has left her blind, deaf and incapable of voluntary movement or response. It is very highly probable that she will during this winter succumb to a respiratory infection that will prove fatal. That said the unanimous medical evidence also recognises that in this area there is no such thing as certainty of prognosis of survival. "

That first sentence....."not whether this baby should live or die but how and when she should die". DOES THAT NOT SOUND JUST LIKE JUDGE GREER's pronouncement on Terri, "the (judgement) is that she will die" - or words like that?

Also the whole October pronouncement about Charlotte seems so silly now, from this perspective of months later, because she has obviously not gone the way they 'predicted' at all, and is obviously not what they said back then. She sees, hears, responds, smiles, is growing constantly, plays, and is just getting better and better - just like most newbies.

It would seem just something that they said back then, that could be ignored now, except that.....it almost sounds to me like a death sentence. I could just say, oh, well, that was back then, in October, and they just didn't know and look how far she has come now, so they must see that and believe differently now, if it weren't for one thing....

They are not acting like all of her growth, response, thriving, matters at all....

Case in point, today's news, from Joshua of the Friends for Charlotte (by email). (The SaveCharlotte.com website.)....this, DESPITE THE FACT that Charlotte twice the other day was successfully and happily out of her oxygen box for a while, on just a nasal cannula for oxygen and is now only needing 45% oxygen on a continual basis, freeing her up almost to the point that she could go home (she can go home when she is on a nasal cannula, and low % of oxygen need.....and she has already come down from 100% oxygen to only 45% oxygen in just these few months...):

"We found out today that the hospital has decided (no explanation) to
stop giving Charlotte time on the nasal prongs (cannula). She seemed to be doing
so well on them, and be getting ready for coming home, so this was a
great discouragement to us.

Please pray that Charlotte would soon get so well and strong it would
be evident even to those who most don't want to see it. And pray for
us, that we would know how to deal with the hospital. Pray especially
for Darren & Debbie, that they would be encouraged and have strength
to go on.:

___________________________
>From the www.savecharlotte.com website:

"Two steps forward, one step back

Charlotte is continuing to get stronger, but today there was another
set-back from the hospital. Though she spends most of the time in her
oxygen box, she had been slowly introduced to nasel cannula for the
past few weeks; going up to two hours a day, split up into two
sessions.

Darren and Debbie loved this new advancement-- she was more alert when
she was on them, and certainly easier to hold and stimulate. But today
they found out the nasal prong machine had been removed, and on
inquiring, that the hospital had decided to stop giving her time on it.
No reason was given, simply "it hadn't been a success".

But why not a success? She did so well on them!

They may mean well, but right now it is difficult to be anything like
certain.
If the hospital believes your baby does not deserve to live, will that
affect their decision making?

When will there be any accountablity?"
________________________________
And from Hannah, of the www.savecharlotte.com website:

"On the positive side, she is doing really well-- in spite of them! and getting stronger. She had her measurements taken yesturday, and she has been gaining a little weight and growing longer.

Pray especially for Darren and Debbie today, because it meant alot to them to have her allowed out of her box and with the nasal cannula..."

So, there are a few prayer requests, here.

1. for Debbie and Darren, Charlotte's parents, to be encouraged and to have strength for the continued fight for their daughter.

2.that Charlotte would soon get so well and strong it would
be evident even to those who most don't want to see it.

3.for Joshua, Hannah, Debbie Darren, the editor of OBP, the legal expert in Britain, the doctor in Britain who is willing to help, that they all may know and have discernment from God as to how to deal with the hospital, in regards to getting that second opinion evaluation done, and as to the hospital withholding the medical records from Charlotte's parents, as they are doing (possibly illegally?....see the savecharlotte.com website's comments for a comment from a British subject regarding this..)

4. for this stronghold of the enemy to be torn down by God, in satan's wanting to take little Charlotte's life.

Finally, if you would be willing, could some people please start writing to the British press contacts which RottyPup gave us last week?? A little spotlighting might be of help to let the hospital be aware that their actions are being watched in regards to Charlotte.

PLEASE PRAY!!!

THANK YOU, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH....

Judge Who Ordered Terri's Death Honored

2005-05-06T08:45:00.000-06:00

Believe it or not, "Judge" Greer, who ordered Terri Schindler to be starved and dehydrated to death without due process was honored at a banquet yesterday. It's bad enough that he had her starved to death, but to celebrate over dinner?

Texas Hospitals Overriding Parents' Desires (Updated)

2005-05-02T15:18:00.000-06:00

UPDATE: Baby Knya died while she was still receiving medical treatment. (HT: Sherri)

HT: BlogsForTerri

Recently, there have been two cases where hospital personnel decided against the parents' wishes to discontinue treatment for a critically ill baby. Both times, the parents have fought the decision. One family has already lost (their baby died after being taken off life support). The other family is still fighting.

This past Thursday, Memorial Hermann Hospital informed the parents of Knya Dismuke-Howard that it would stop all medical treatment except for pain in ten days. Baby Knya (five months) suffers from leukemia and some sort of skin infection. Mr. and Mrs. Dismuke-Howard are looking for anothe hospital that will treat Knya.

I find this trend extremely disturbing. While at this stage of my thinking I recognize that there actually can be an appropriate time to remove life support, I maintain that it has to be a family decision. The medical team and facilities need to support the family in this difficult time, not be the ones to make the decision of removing life support, or force an already stressed family to go hunting for another hospital. If the family wants to continue fighting for their loved one's life, the hospital needs to support that. The reason is simple: no one can care about a child better than the loving parents. No matter how compassionate the medical team might be, they are not the parents. I also maintain that an individual who has given up the fight will die, no matter what heroic measures we take to save his life. Baby Knya has not given up. Her parents want to continue treating her. It is not the hospital's place to decide to do anything differently.

Kidney Transplants

2005-04-29T08:16:00.000-06:00

Angela, a BlogsForTerri reader, has some personal knowledge of kidney transplants and believes the ebook I linked to here spoke too unkindly of them. Here are her well articulated thoughts originally posted on this thread:

…The article has some inaccuracies, especially about kidney transplants. Since kidneys are one of the organs that can be used for some time after death, I hate to see kidney transplants badmouthed. There's a hereditary condition in my family where, with no other symptoms, a person's kidneys simply stop working around the age of 30-50. Not polycistic kidney disease, either--the doctors don't know what it is. But my mother's grandmother, father and all his siblings died of it, and so far a little over half the people in her generation have it. My mother has it and was on dialysis for several years before receiving a kidney transplant. That transplant has given her a new life.

One thing a lot of people don't know about dialysis is that not only is it time-consuming to the point where you don't have much of a life outside of dialysis, it does carry a lot of health risks and hemodialysis is quite painful. Also, especially if the person is young when their kidneys failed, kidney dialysis doesn't remain effective forever. It doesn't clean all the toxins out of the blood and it becomes less and less effective after a while. The life expectancy on dialysis is shorter than with a transplant if the person is a good candidate for transplantation and a good match is found.

My mother was getting to the point where kidney dialysis was getting less effective and she was steadily declining, and she was actually starting to think about just stopping dialysis and dying when a kidney became available for her. It was such a perfect match that she's had no problems with rejection and the kidney started functioning before she even got off the operating table.

Yes, the anti-rejection drugs do suppress the immune system and cause some side effects, but my mother is so much happier and healthier than she was before the transplant, and I have no doubt that without it there's a very good chance she wouldn't be alive today. Her general health, energy levels, etc. are ten times better than they were on dialysis and we all believe that kidney transplant gave her back her life…

…Kidneys are one of the organs with the longest "shelf life"--that can be used for quite some time after a person has been dead. So they really can be used from a true cadaver.

I am listed as an organ donor myself, but I certainly don't want to have organs taken before I'm really dead. Once I'm dead they can feel free to use whatever will be helpful; it's not like it will matter to me at that point what's done with my corpse. I would be very happy, though, if after my heart has stopped beating and there's no more function, my kidneys and other organs could give life, sight or health to someone again.

What I was objecting to in the article "The Nasty Side of Organ Transplantation" is that it made it sound like many transplants (and it repeatedly singled out kidney transplants in particular) were only for convenience sake or to make money for doctors. It repeatedly said it was exchanging one disease for another and made it sound like life with a transplanted organ was probably worse than life would have been without the transplant. I wanted to clarify that kidney transplants in particular are not the way they are portrayed in that article.

It made it sound like dialysis was just as good or better of an option and said several times that kidney transplants are only for convenience sake and don't actually save lives. But the truth is that dialysis doesn't do a completely adequate job and just makes the process of dying from kidney disease much slower--dialysis cannot fully replace kidney function. It is very, very hard on your body, as well as uncomfortable and time-consuming, and really only slows the disease process. People still die of kidney disease on dialysis . . . dialysis does keep them alive longer but still leaves them sick to varying (and increasing) degrees. Most people on dialysis are still quite sick from the kidney disease itself, as well as frequently having complications and pain from the dialysis process.

So it's not just exchanging one disease for another that is equal or worse the way that article described it, and it's not an unecessary procedure done for the sake of the time it saves in not having to have dialysis or the money it saves insurance companies--it is a significant improvement in health, life expectancy and quality of life, and it does in fact save lives and often allows people to live years longer (and those years much healthier) than they would have lived on dialysis when a kidney transplant is successful.

Another thing that may be missed in a lot of the studies and info. is that the success of the transplant is largely dependent on the recipient themselves--how well they follow instructions and take care of their new organ. A big part of the reason my mother's transplant has been so successful is that she is so conscientious about taking her medicine, avoiding the things she's not supposed to eat, not taking medications that are hard on the kidneys, etc.--often when an organ fails it's because of "user error" and people not taking care of their organs, although of course there are sometimes unavoidable problems as with anything else.

I can't speak for the other types of transplants, but I know that kidney transplants are not done unless it is likely that the person's quality of life and life expectancy will be significantly increased. You have to have a certain level of kidney failure and have to show that the transplant would be a significant improvement over your current state of health before you get on the list at all, and people who are at a point where the dialysis is no longer effective for them will get priority I'm sure.

People on dialysis will most likely eventually die of kidney disease after years of being very sick from it, so being able to have 5 or 15 really good years of having health and energy again after feeling rotten and being really ill for so many years is nothing short of a miracle. So taking the chance of then perhaps dying of some other illness due to the lowered immune system is worth the risk for many recipients (and, despite the way that article made it sound, the doctors explain the risks and possible complications very thoroughly before a person makes that decision). Even if the recipient dies from cancer or pneumonia a few years down the road, it's that many more years of much better health and possibly several more years of life itself than they would have had otherwise.

Words

2005-04-28T23:11:00.000-06:00

The MunchK is becoming quite talkative. Her first word was "Mama," followed shortly by "Daddy" and "Milky" (to indicate her desire to nurse). It wasn't long before she would repeat just about anything we'd say, especially the last word in a sentence.

Me: "Hi Honey, how was your day?"
The MunchK: "Day."
Crazy Diamond: "Oh, it was alright..."
The MunchK: "'Right."
Crazy Diamond: "I got a fair amount done on my one experiment."
The MunchK: "'sper'mint."
Crazy Diamond: "How was yours?"
The MunchK: "Yours."
Me: "It was fine."
The MunchK: "Fine."

Now the MunchK uses quite a few words to express her needs and desires. She loves it when her father or I (or anyone, really) read books to her. "Book!" she'd say excitedly as she'd bring me not one or two books, but a stack. When she was hungry, she'd say "Eat," and sometimes indicate what it is she'd like: "Apple," "Cracker," or "Banana."

Recently, she has discovered the joy of putting words together. Her first complete sentence was "I'm done." She uses this phrase quite often, mostly it's when she's finished with something she's working on, but also when she's tired of whatever activity she and I are doing together. I try to involve her as much as I can with the house chores, like washing dishes or folding laundry. The MunchK, unfortunately, is not too thrilled with either one of these tasks, and will declare "I'm done!" when she's had enough, whether we're actually finished or not. And, she would like me to be "done" too. After all, there are so many more interesting things to do, like read "Hop on Pop" again.

She runs and grabs the book of interest and says: "Read the book." She's a girl who knows what she wants in life. One book she likes is a collection of young children making various faces accompanied by single words such as "yum-yum!" or "yippee!" All those words are followed by an exclamation mark, which the MunchK calls a "bouncy."

Anything electronic with buttons is called a "beep." But she is quickly learning that there are many different kinds of beeps, like a watch, a timer, a telephone, a camera.

The MunchK is very affectionate with us, and loves giving us hugs, kisses and snuggles, or "'nuggles." Actually, the MunchK will "nuggle" me, her dad, her dolls, various other toys, and today, a few water bottles she'd found. In fact, she wanted me to "nuggle" the water bottles as well.

This evening, Crazy Diamond and I went to the dojo, the "Boom-Slap" according to the MunchK, for our weekly martial arts lesson. Lately, we tend to take turns playing with the MunchK while the other is training. Crazy Diamond and another student were practicing the Yoko Gari, which is a defense against a mugger's hold, where the mugger wraps his arm around the victim's neck and starts chocking him. The victim winds up throwing the attacker. The MunchK and I were watching.

"Nuggle!" was her only comment.

News on the effort for Baby Charlotte

2005-04-28T15:08:00.000-06:00

Juleni has been working on arranging for a pro-life doctor from the US to independently evaluate Baby Charlotte. She and others have also been working on finding another place to care for Charlotte as the people at the hospital where she is currently staying have more than expressed the opinion that Charlotte is better off dead. The text below is from a series of comments Juleni and others have posted on this thread of BlogsForTerri:

Everyone, please, please keep on praying. (This is regarding Charlotte.)I know this is off topic, but I need to get this to you all...

I **have had contact with two doctors today**.

The first, is one who is the director of the MC Association of Prolife Physicians (I spoke with him directly). I will call him 'Dr. James'. He is a family physician, however has worked with babies in hospital, before. He, or another physician aquaintance of his may be the one whom God is placing in our path to send to Britain to evaluate Charlotte. He is going to speak with two important doctors who he knows personally, when he is able - and we need to pray for him about this! One is Dr. Patrick, who is a retired medical professor and missionary, and is currently the president of a college in Canada. Dr. Patrick is affiliated with the CMDA (Christian Medical & Dental Associations). Dr. Patrick is actually traveling right now - today, April 26th through May 9th, so Dr. James really needs prayer that God will open the way for him to directly contact Dr. Patrick, soon, even during his travels....
Dr. James is also going to contact Dr. C. Everett Koop, MD the former Surgeon General of the US, who is a pediatric surgeon and whom Dr. Johnston personally knows.

Here is a bit about Dr. Koop:
"Surgeon General Koop continued to champion children with disabilities, an issue with which he had long been involved as a pediatric surgeon. He organized a workshop on respirator-dependent children in December 1982, which explored ways of caring for these children in their own homes rather than in hospitals, and making Medicaid funds available to pay for long-term home care. One of the last conferences he convened was the "Surgeon General's Conference on Growing Up and Getting Medical Care: Youth with Special Health Care Needs," held in March 1989. In numerous speeches Koop urged policymakers, physicians, health care administrators, educators, and the public to recognize the dignity, rights, needs, and capabilities of children with life-threatening birth defects and other impairments. A growing number of such children were saved by advances in medicine, but were left with disabilities. Throughout his eight years as Surgeon General, Koop was the most outspoken and persistent government advocate for increasing access to medical and health care, educational opportunities, and employment for these children." (from http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/Views/Exhibit/narrative/babydoe.html )
PLEASE PRAY FOR DR. JAMES AS HE MAKES HIS CALLS TODAY AND IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, THAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE CONTACT AND RECEIVE RESPONSES!
Here is a verse to encourage prayer: "Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. **The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much**." (James 5:16)

TO 'DOCTOR JAMES' - Thank you for taking my call and for making calls on behalf of Charlotte's life, if you are reading this!

Second :
Dr. Paul Byrne called me! Thank you for your call, Dr. Byrne!
THANK YOU EARL FOR GIVING ASKING HIM TO CALL ME!
Dr. Byrne will also visit Charlotte's website today, and I am forwarding emails to him from Hannah, regarding Charlotte.

'Dr. James' and Dr. Byrne said some good things, to us. I really want to post some of their good words, here, but will have to later, because time is of such an expediency right now!

Thirdly, a private contact is getting ahold of two prolife pediatric cardiologists at the University of Michigan, Dr. Beekman and Dr. Ludamerski, but this contact is waiting on some more very specific information from Hannah, that these specialists will need to determine if they should be the ones to go to England.

PLEASE PRAY THAT HANNAH WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATION TO THIS CONTACT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AND THAT THE INFORMATION WILL BE CLEAR TO THE DOCTORS WHEN THEY RECEIVE IT, AND THAT THIS CONTACT WILL HAVE NO DIFFICULTY GETTING THIS INFORMATION TO THE DOCTORS.

Thank you. And please know that none of this could be possible without your prayers.

This could be good news....I do not know when this happened (and if they accepted)but I got this email tonight.

Dear Jody

I know that you have made contact with our Life Headquarters staff and with Zoë's, I will liaise with both and e-mail you as soon as possible.

Just so that you are aware, Zoe's offered a place for Charlotte.

Yours sincerely

Virginia Griffin
National Fertility Co-ordinator

It seems like progress is being made. Thanks, Juleni, for all your hard work!

Snow

2005-04-28T14:14:00.000-06:00

Unbelievable! Here we are almost in May and officially over a month into spring and last night it snowed. The MunchK got another chance to put on the snowsuit she received from her Aunt this past Christmas, and off we trotted outsite for her to once again experience her beloved snow. Only she leaves out the "s" when she says it so it sounds more like "No."

We took a little walk up and down our street. It was really weird seeing the young grass poking through the snow, and tree branches covered with both fresh green buds and snow. The snow is already starting to melt, leaving lots of puddles, which the MunchK enjoyed walking through with her rubber waterproof alligator boots on.

We didn't stay out too long, but I'm sure the MunchK will be asking me to take her "out' tide" again as soon as she wakes up from her nap.

Young grass and tree buds covered by a late snowfall

The MunchK walking through the puddles

Teron Francis' Family Consents to Removing the Ventilator (Updated)

2005-04-28T13:47:00.000-06:00

According to New York Daily News, Teron Francis' family has made the difficult decision to take him off the ventilator after they obtained a second medical opinion that he is brain dead.

Earl Appleby, director of Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia and a contributing author on BlogsForTerri has written Judge McKeon asking him to not lift the injunction against removing Francis from the ventilator.

UPDATE: Teron's ventilator was removed yesterday at 5:00pm. His heart and other organs stopped thereafter, according to a hospital spokesperson.

Update on Colorado Organ Donation Case

2005-04-28T07:24:00.000-06:00

I have been advised (HT: PoliticaObscura) since posting this yesterday that the county coroner who ruled the death as a homicide due to organ harvesting has amended the ruling to death by a self-inflicted gunshot wound following a review by the District Attorney.

Some of the stories about this that were published in the Rocky Mountain News can be found here. More detailed information on the findings of the DA review are located here.

According to the findings of the DA review, The standard tests performed in this case included clinical observations of the absence of brain stem reflexes, as well as standard apnea testing. These tests are routinely used in the evaluation of brain death not only in Colorado, but throughout the nation.

The medical diagnosis of brain death has been recognized since August of 1968, following the first heart transplant surgery in 1967. Controversy as to the validity of this diagnosis remains, as illustrated by this story (you will have to scroll down to find it):

Can 'brain dead' donors respond? 8-20-00By Andrew Alderson and Jenny Booth - UK Newss - Electronic Telegraph - Claim of donor pain 'will hit transplant surgery' SOPHIE PARKE, 11, would almost certainly be dead today if she had not undergone two heart transplant operations. Earlier this month Sophie launched a national campaign to encourage a million more people to carry organ donor cards. She was joined by her mother and Lord Hunt, the health minister, in a joint initiative by the National Health Service and Boots, the chemist.

Yesterday Sophie's family was alarmed that the chance of other patients having transplants could be harmed by a medical debate over concerns that "dead" donors may feel pain while their organs are being removed. Jane Parke, Sophie's mother, spoke of her fears that the debate, though legitimate, could set back the programme by years. Mrs Parke, who lives in Gloucestershire, said: "Without donors and the transplant programme, Sophie wouldn't be alive today. I would be worried by anything that put anyone off donating their organs. "There are an awful lot of people still waiting for a transplant and their only chance is finding a suitable donor. I am sure this medical debate will concern them, especially if it puts people off becoming donors."

The debate was started by Dr Philip Keep, a consultant anaesthetist at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, who fears that brain-dead patients may still feel pain while their organs are being removed. Because of his reservations, he will not carry a donor card until medical guidelines are changed to make it compulsory for donors to be given an anaesthetic before their organs are removed.

Dr Keep, 58, has now provoked controversy with a letter in Anaesthesia, the journal of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, saying that many people within the profession feel uneasy about the issue. This weekend at his home in Norwich he said: "Nurses get really, really upset. You stick the knife in and the pulse and blood pressure shoot up. If you don't give anything at all, the patient will start moving and wriggling around and it's impossible to do the operation. The surgeon has always asked us to paralyse the patient." Other experts have supported his criticism of the guidelines issued last year by the Intensive Care Society (ICS), which represents doctors, that anaesthetic is not necessary.

Yesterday fears were growing that people across the country would tear up their donor cards because they could feel pain while their organs were being removed. Dr Keep said: "I am very much in favour of organ transplantations. I think everything should be done to obtain donor organs. I am worried about the process by which these donor organs are obtained at the moment because it is not necessary to give an anaesthetic to a patient who is having his donor organs removed." "I will not carry a donor card for that very reason. If I knew that somebody was going to give me an anaesthetic before my donor organs were removed I would carry a donor card and I think a lot of other people who have got these doubts would carry a donor card as well. The number of potential donors would go up if donors were given anaesthetics," he said.

"I am not saying that these patients are alive, I am not saying that these patients can feel pain. I am saying I do not know whether these patients are alive, I am saying I do not know whether these patients can feel pain in some sense and, under those circumstances, I am not prepared to carry a donor card."

The debate centres on the term "brain dead' and the fact that organs such as the lungs, liver and heart cannot be removed if a patient's heart has stopped. Dr Keep said: "You have to keep the patient's heart beating [with a ventilator] all the way through the operation until the organs have been removed." There are 5,500 people waiting for a transplant. Last year 2,800 people received lifesaving organ transplants, the huge majority a donated kidney.

A spokesman for UK Transplant, which co-ordinates transplants in British hospitals, said that although eight million people are listed as potential donors on the NHS organ register, the number of donors is falling. She said: "In 1990 we had 1,009 donors but since then the number has dropped every year. "Last year we had only 815 donors. The situation is dire, and it is becoming increasingly worrying. Our waiting list for an organ has risen by four per cent every year since 1990."

The accepted definition of "brain dead" was laid down in the late 1970s as "the irreversible cessation of all the functions of the entire brain". Other anaesthetists are uneasy that brain monitors often show signs of activity in the higher brain when organs are removed. At present, no one knows what these electrical impulses mean.

Professor Michael Harmer, who edits Anaesthesia, said he disagreed with Dr Keep and believed that "99.9 per cent of anaesthetists" did too. He said: "Dr Keep has given a sensational description of something [reactions during operations] that I have never seen, and no one I know has ever seen. There is no problem. Everyone is absolutely confident that the current criteria for brain-stem death is absolutely reliable."

Dr Giles Morgan, the president of the ICS, conceded that it was healthy to worry about the welfare of the donors and said he stll gives them anaesthetics. "Why do I do it? Because I am a human being and it does make us feel a little more comfortable. It is a very traumatic thing."

A couple whose 25-year-old daughter died from a brain tumour last month said yesterday that they had no doubts when they went to donate her organs to seven different people. Her liver went to a man with 24 hours to live, her kidneys to two other people, and her heart valves and corneas to help four other people lead healthier lives. The woman's father, a former Army medic who asked not to be identified but was convinced that his daughter had not suffered said: "We had no qualms about it. I was there personally when brain-stem tests were carried out and I was more than satisfied that the compassion and care of the doctors were unparalleled."

More commentary on the concept of brain death can be found within this article

Are the patients really dead at the time of organ harvesting?
Organ transplantation is linked to the notion of “brain death.” As a matter of fact, supporters of “brain death” as a criterion for declaring a patient dead readily admit that one of its main purposes is to aid in the harvesting of organs. In 1997, the “brain death” debate in Japan focused exclusively on the need for adopting this criterion into law in order to advance the harvesting of organs there. One major newspaper editorialized against "brain death" asking, “Could you accept that a loved one is dead, even if the heart still beats and cheeks are flush?”(4) Still, the bill passed and is now law.

Before “brain death” was initiated in 1968, it was legally and ethically difficult, and practically impossible, to harvest unpaired vital organs such as the heart. The traditional criterion for declaring death centers on absence of breathing, heartbeat and brain function. Although some tissues can be harvested after death declared under the traditional criterion, hearts can be harvested in good condition for transplant only while there are functioning circulatory and respiratory systems, which exist when a person has been declared "brain dead."(5) This is necessary because blood must be pumping in and out of the heart and the respiratory system must be transporting oxygen to the heart. If this does not happen, destruction of the heart will occur.

Under the “brain death” criterion, the patient is declared “brain dead” while his or her vital organs are still functioning. The patient is paralyzed but not given anything for pain. An incision is then made, and the beating heart and other organs are removed for harvesting.

While some say that the “brain dead” patient is truly dead, a variety of evidence calls into question the entire notion of “brain death.” Scholars and physicians admit that “brain death” is conceptually and practically flawed.(6)

Organ Harvesting Homicide?

2005-04-27T17:40:00.000-06:00

A reader of my most recent post on BlogsForTerri posted a link to this article written about six months ago about a Colorado suicide victim whose death was ruled by the coroner to be the result of organ procurement, not the gunshot wound to his head.

The author is in favor of organ donation in priciple but believes the current lack of uniform standards for adequately determining brain death pose ethical and public relations problems to the organ transplant industry. He challenges the industry to work hard to make sure organs are only being harvested from truly brain dead people so that public confidence in the industry will not be eroded.

I post it because I believe it provides some balance and a different viewpoint to the material I linked to in my previous post.

More Than You Ever Wanted to Know...

2005-04-27T01:49:00.000-06:00

The circumstances surrounding Teron Francis have prompted much discussion on the diagnosis of brain death and organ donation. In the interest of encouraging factual research and formation of opinions based on documented investigation rather than propaganda, I want to refer all interested readers to this publically available electronic book titled The Nasty Side of Organ Transplanting.

The author is clearly against organ donation. I have managed to corroborate a few of the facts and arguments he presents elsewhere. I learned some very interesing information from this book that at the very least has caused me to question the assumption I've held until now (though with reservations) that organ donation is basically a noble and good thing.

Here are a few of the things I learned:

The very first heart transplant took place in 1967. It was after this transplant that Harvard University set up an ad hoc committee to examine the condition of brain death.

This committee of thirteen neurologists, neurosurgeons, lawyers, philosophers and an anaesthetist decided in August 1968 that death could be proclaimed if a patient failed to respond to a series of reflex tests. They called it the Harvard Criteria of Brain Death Test. This allowed a patient with a healthy, beating heart and fully operating renal and endocrine system to be defined as dead, just like a cold corpse.

This is significant to me because I had previously believed that the determination of "brain death" had become necessary with the invention of ventilators, heart/lung machines and other such equipment.

While some organs, such as kidneys and eyes, may be obtained from a donor who is dead as in no breathing, no heart beat, there are organs, such as heart and lungs, that can only be obtained while the donor remains on life support with the heart beating throughout the harvesting operation. This is something even the promoters of organ donation will admit, though they do not exactly advertise it.

The standards for determining brain death vary widely depending on the location and policies of the hospital, and the diagnostic methods all have issues ranging from inaccuracy to possibly even aggravating brain damage.

Due to the high demand for donor organs and other body parts, there is considerable motivation to accelerate a diagnosis of brain death in an organ donor patient compared to a non organ donor. Physicians attending the brain-injured have reported receiving pressure from the organ transplant teams to declare a patient brain dead.

There have been reported instances of organ donors exhibiting physical fear reactions (increased pulse rate, flailing of limbs) to the organ harvesting process. It has also been recommended that donors be given pain medication during the harvesting.

Medications given to preserve a patient's organs can be harmful to the brain, and efforts to save the brain from further damage can compromise the viability of the organs from a transplanting perspective.

There are numerous issues on the receiving end of an organ transplant. Many recipients do not even survive the surgery. Those who do need to be on immune suppressant drugs to prevent rejection; those drugs make them vulnerable to many other diseases. Receiving an organ transplant has been described as trading one medical condition for another. Often, the survival rate of organ recipients is not better than for those with the same condition that did not receive a transplant.

There is much, much more. I would say that anyone who is considering either donating or receiving an organ should read this and make sure the issues raised are addressed to your satisfaction. I would also encourage more independent verification of the material because if even half of what is written is true, the implications are chilling.

Cross-posted on BlogsForTerri.

2005-04-26T08:11:00.000-06:00

The Latest on Teron Francis

2005-04-26T07:53:00.000-06:00

In the hearing concerning Teron Francis, Judge Douglas McKeon ruled that it is up to the family to decide if and when to remove him from the ventilator. The Montefiore medical directors are standing by the diagnosis that Francis is brain dead, and also insisting they never intended to pull the plug on him against his family's wishes. The family now needs time to decide what to do.

Read the story here.

Cross-posted on BlogsForTerri.

More on Teron Francis

2005-04-24T19:52:00.000-06:00

BlogsForTerri has posted this update on Teron Francis. The judge in the case has decided Francis can be kept on the ventilator until Monday, when there will be an actual hearing among all parties concerned. It seems to me that the basic conflict is whether or not to take the teenager off the ventilator while his heart is still beating. Apparently the hospital staff are insisting the boy is brain dead and should be taken off; the family want to keep him on the ventilator until he actually dies on his own--i.e., his heart stops beating. I'm a bit confused because in an earlier report, a representative of the hospital was quoted as saying they were not insisting that Francis be taken of anything until the family, his mother in particular, consents. However, there is a hearing scheduled for Monday, and a judge is involved, which indicates a conflict between two or more parties.

We will keep a sharp eye on this story as it develops. If there is indeed a conflict going on, the conflict is not among dissenting family members; it is between a family united around at the very least wanting their loved one to pass away naturally, and a hospital that for whatever reason wants to hasten his death by taking him off the ventilator. Again, I want everyone who reads this to note where the conflict lies: family vs. the medical staff. This does not bode well.

When a Doctor Says There's Nothing More He Can Do...

2005-04-24T07:04:00.000-06:00

BlogsForTerri posted some news and commentary about Teron Francis, a young man from the Bronx who is currently on a ventilator having fallen victim to some sort of brain infection. An update is available here on New York Newsday.

The gist of the story is that thirteen-year-old Teron Francis complained of a headache and toothache, was taken to the hospital and given a CAT scan. The doctors diagnosed an infection had gone to his brain. He then went into convulsions, became unconscious and was hooked onto a ventilator.

Apparently, at some point, the family was encouraged to take the boy off the ventilator and donate his organs. The family felt threatened by this and arranged for a hearing resulting in Francis remaining connected to the ventilator. The family says the hospital personnel threatened to remove Francis from the ventilator; the hospital personnel are denying that they would have ever forced the issue, saying it's up to the family.

It seems now the family has accepted that Francis will probably die, and they want him to die on his own, not as a result of an action they have taken, so he continues to breathe with the assistance of a ventilator, while the doctors at the hospital insist he is brain dead and there is nothing that can be done for him.

In reading this story, I am not inclined to believe there is any foul play involved. It seems that Teron Francis succumbed to a nasty infection, and the doctors' diagnosis is probably correct. The family's desire to keep him on the ventilator until he dies on his own is understandable, and in my opinion the right thing to do. The hospital personnel's desire to not see his organs go to waste is also a legitimate concern, but secondary, and it seems they recognize this.

So why bring this up? And why is this story on BlogsForTerri, a site dedicated to advocating for the lives of disabled people in danger of being "allowed to die" when they are not going to die without some (shall we say) assistance?

I believe the simple answer is that the behavior and words of some doctors and other medical professionals in situations where the patient was not terminal, only severely disabled, have seriously undermined our trust in doctors and their diagnoses. Terri Schindler was a non-terminal, severely disabled patient, and the only way she was going to die was if she was killed, which is what happened. Yet, many doctors came forward saying she was brain dead, in a persistent vegetative state, and in general better off dead. These doctors made the pronouncements despite the fact that Terri did not receive two out of the three diagnostic tests (MRI and PET-scan) required to make the diagnosis of PVS. I even heard a local doctor claim that if you looked at the CT-scan, you would see that so much of her brain had deteriorated that there was no doubt as to her condition of PVS.

Then when it became clear that Terri was going to be starved and dehydrated to death, doctors and other such "experts" trotted out on TV informing us of how painless and euphoric death by starvation was, that Terri wasn't there anyway, so she wouldn't feel a thing.

All of these claims were made in light of abundant and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In Great Britain, we have an eighteen-month-old baby who is also severely disabled, and the people at the hospital where she is being treated are saying there is no hope for her and she's better off dead. As far as I know per the last court hearing, there is a standing Do Not Resucitate order on baby Charlotte. If she stops breathing, the hospital staff won't lift a finger to help her breathe again. These doctors attending Baby Charlotte have already been wrong about her prognosis on some important issues. For example, they proclaimed
"that she was permanently blind, deaf,and unresponsive, and would never survive the winter--- that she was 'terminally ill' and therefore any aggressive treatment would be pointless." Now, Charlotte can see, hear, is very responsive, and did indeed survive the winter. Yet still, the doctors with the support of a judge are holding fast to their opinion that this girl should die.

I posted earlier about a disabled man who can even stand on his own, but whose doctors will not change their definition of his condition as PVS, which has resulted in the father not being able to get any help from insurance to give his son therapy.

The result of hearing story after story where doctors are not only dead wrong in their diagnoses but stubbornly refuse to amend those diagnoses even in the face of abundant and overwhelming contrary evidence is that our trust in doctors, their diagnoses and their recommendations is severely undermined. So when a doctor tells a distraught family there is nothing more we can do; your son is brain dead, is the family supposed to just believe him? Maybe there really is nothing more that can be done. Maybe the doctor has just decided the patient would be so disabled his life wouldn't have any real "quality" by his definition. Maybe the hospital just needs the bed space. There's no way a family can know for sure. Not anymore.

It is truly unfortunate, especially for the honest doctors who put in long hours and work their hearts out for their patients. Many doctors would never dream of delivering anything but their honest to goodness medical opinion to the people who count on them. But some very prominent doctors have proven themselves untrustworthy and as a result, all doctors are now suspect.

So when a patient's loved one, knowing all this, hears the pronouncement "There is nothimg more I can do for your son/daughter/husband/wife/mother/father" it is entirely understandable that they mistrust that pronouncement from the beginning, even when the doctor is absolutely right. This too is part of the unfolding tragedy.

What's in a Living Will?

2005-04-22T17:18:00.000-06:00

Crazy Diamond and I are in the process of drawing up our will, mainly so that should we both die, the MunchK will be raised by people of our choosing. Our very friendly and helpful law firm asked in the will questionaire if we would also like a living will drawn up for us to sign as well. I checked the "yes" box--this was before I learned that signing a living will would not be in my best interests--so when I opened up the package from the law firm today, there was the living will document. All I have to do is answer the multiple choice question, round up a couple witnesses and a notary, and sign it.

In the aftermath of Terri Schindler's court-appointed death, I have read a fair number of articles like this one (HT: BFT) cautioning me against signing a living will, but I have not until a couple hours ago seen what the much discussed living will document actually says. Now, after reading the document drawn up for me, I know that I should definitely not sign it, and I won't. It seems to me that just signing it is already giving people who don't know me and therefore don't personally care about me way too much freedom with my life. I find the language to be rather vague and general, which means open to interpretation, and there's already a bias in favor of death over life in the document itself.

Here is what it actually says:

DECLARATION AS TO MEDICAL OR SURGICAL TREATMENT

Pursuant to the [my state] Medical Treatment Decision Act, C.R.S. Title [ ], Article [ ],

I, [Beautiful Belgian Babe], being of sound mind and at least eighteen years of age, direct that my life shall not be artificially prolonged under the circumstances set forth below and hereby declare that:

1. If at any time my attending physician and one other qualified physician certify in writing that:
a. I have an injury, disease or illness which is not curable or reversible and which in their judgment, is a terminal condition, and
b. For a period of seven consecutive days or more, I have been unconscious, comatose or otherwise incompetent so as to be unable to make or communicate responsible decisions concerning my person, then

I direct that, in accordance with [my state] law, life-sustaining procedures shall be withdrawn and withheld pursuant to the terms of this declaration, it being understood that life-sustaining procedures shall not include any medical procedure or intervention for nourishment considered necessary by the attending physician to provide comfort or alleviate pain. However, I may specifically direct, in accordance with [my state] law, that artificial nourishment be withdrawn or withheld pursuant to the terms of this declaration.

2. In the event that the only procedure I am being provided is artificial nourishment, I direct that one of the following actions be taken:
___a. Artificial nourishment shall not be continued when it
is the only procedure being provided; or
___b. Artificial nourishment shall be continued for ___days when it is the only procedure being provided; or
___c. Artificial nourishment shall be continued when
it is the only procedure being provided.

3. I execute this declaration, as my free and voluntary act, this ___day of _______, 200__.

By _____________________
Declarant

The foregoing instrument was signed and declared by[Beautiful Belgian Babe] to be her declaration, in the presence of us, in her presence, in the presence of each other, and at her request, have signed our names below as witnesses1, and we declare that, at the time of the execution of this instrument, that declarant, according to our best knowledge and belief, was of sound mind and under no constraint or undue influence.

Dated at______, [my state], this___day of _______,200__.

[Places for two witnesses to sign their names and write in their addresses]

1
Heirs, beneficiaries,
claimants, physicians or other patients by law may not witness your Declaration as to Medical or Surgical Treatment.

[It goes on to include the part where the notary signs it]

Steve Sakac on his Disabled Son

2005-04-22T13:58:00.000-06:00

This story comes from Sherri, and it is incredible. Two things come through strongly in the story. One is the incredible love this father has not just for his son, but for vulnerable people in general (see especially talking point #3 towards the end). The other point that practically screams is that doctors are often wrong, and those mistakes as well as the refusal to correct an error can cause some real problems.

Doctors Said Tony had One Week to Live......15 Years Ago!!!
Per email from Ron Panzer Pres/Founder of Hospice Patients Alliance

THE STORY OF A FATHER'S LOVE FOR HIS DISABLED SON

Steve (Istvan) Sakac from Fairfax, Virginia is the father of Tony Sakac. Tony, at age 16, used to travel the country and speak to groups of teenagers about the wonderful relationship he had with his father. Tony, now 31, became ill at the age of 16 when he went on a school field trip. When he came home from this trip he complained of ear pain, sore throat, headache, dizziness and tiredness.

The first doctor to see Tony said he had a minor flu. Three days later his condition had worsened, so father and son returned to the hospital. The second doctor looked at Tony for five minutes, said that Tony had the flu, and sent them home.

The third day after this visit Tony was a lot worse and was walking as if he were drunk. The third doctor consulted at another hospital also claimed Tony had a bad flu. Steve challenged this diagnosis and demanded they admit Tony to the hospital and run some tests to determine what was wrong. The doctor got so upset that he threw the pair out of the hospital with the help of four policemen.

The next morning, November 10, 1990, at 8:00 am, Tony had a seizure and was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. He continued to have seizures for four days. After four weeks, two doctors and a lawyer told Steve, "We're sorry but your son is brain dead and a vegetable. He has about one week to live, and we would like you to sign this paper so that his organs can be harvested to save lives."

Tony's father became angry, thinking of how they had been thrown out of the hospital, and now he was being asked to donate his son's organs! Everyone except for Steve had totally given up on Tony.

Steve stayed with his son day and night, never leaving his bedside. He requested a temporary feeding tube (naso-gastric) be inserted to make it easier for him to care for Tony by himself, and after six months he took Tony home. Upon discharge the doctor said to give Tony only water and Ensure, eight cans a day and NOTHING ELSE. This regimen was followed for 2½ years, while Tony remained like a vegetable. Since this was clearly not working, Steve started him on real food, which he pureed and put in the feeding tube. Meanwhile, Steve gradually eliminated Tony's tranquilizers and eight different medications.

Tony showed immediate improvement, and on May 20, 1993, he stood up for 3½ hours with the help of a tilt table. This table was donated by a dear woman who herself had been severely injured. Tony's improvement accelerated as his father exercised his arms and legs with range of motion therapy for 3½ hours a day. This therapy is performed from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. every night because Steve has determined that this is the best time of the day for Tony's brain development.

On July 11, 1994, Tony was so much better that he was able to stand with the assistance of crutches. Then after a month of standing with crutches, his left knee became swollen to twice its normal size. After going to over 20 different hospitals, the only remedy suggested was to not have Tony stand up. This was unacceptable to Steve. Father and son went across the United States in search of braces and other equipment to assist the younger man. Medicare and insurance issued a denial of benefits because the neurologist said he shouldn't be stood up, so therefore, he didn't need braces.

Since having the braces, Tony has improved greatly. He likes to stand for hours at a time, sometimes 8-9 hours a day. He is also taking steps. Steve would like to do more, but the neurologist has classified Tony as brain dead.

He is not brain dead and that is why Steve is pleading with our President to review our public policy when it comes to classifying and caring for our handicapped, injured, retarded and disabled citizens.

STEVE'S TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESS:

Steve was desperate to be interviewed and shown with his son on national television from Pinellas Park, Florida before Terri Schiavo-Schindler died. He felt that if Americans saw Tony and heard their story that Terri would have her feeding tube put back in the next day. He said, "I guarantee results!" But alas, he did not get his wish to be interviewed on national television and Terri passed away the next day. The following would have been Steve's talking points for his interview:

1.President Bush, Governor Bush, Congress and the American People; The reason why I came all the way to Florida from Fairfax, Virginia not knowing how I was going to pay my expenses, was to show you that my son is NOT brain-dead or in a vegetative state and neither is Terri Schiavo.

2.I can't work because I care for my son full-time. He has been disabled for 15 years. His mother left him when he was 2 months old and I was left to care for our 3 sons.

3.If Michael Schiavo really loved Terri he would be taking care of her like I am taking care of my son. Tell him to divorce her and I will marry her and take care of her!!!

4.Because of misdiagnosis, I can't get Medicare or my insurance to pay for the things Tony must have to continue his needed therapy. He was diagnosed as PVS (persistent vegetative state) 15 years ago and they won't pay to have him re-evaluated even though he is now in a minimally conscious state, which allows Medicare to pay for therapy. To re-evaluate him, a doctor must observe him for 8 hours straight, and they won't do it.

5.Why are we paying for the health care of foreigners in this country and we let our own people go without the necessary treatment they need?

6.I want to caution everyone to be very careful and investigate as much as possible before they accept as fact any diagnosis or implement any treatment prescribed by their doctor.

Note from Steve: Our country, the USA, brings over very sick people from foreign countries whom U.S. doctors try to help for free, to save their lives, to get them braces and help, room and board and everything for free, while many American disabled citizens get no care. This is extremely unfair.

If you have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact Steve, (Istavan) Sakac, Tel. 703-577-4626, P.O. Box 2594, Fairfax VA 22031.

Prepared by Lisa Wilson, M.S. 785-845-3664, 1132 NW Harrison St. Topeka, KS 66608. Thanks to Donna Rodgers, Atlanta GA, and Judith Goldsberry, M.A., Clearwater FL for typing and editing. We are referring to Terri as Terri Schindler since her passing at the direction of Monsignor Malanowski who said she is out of Michael's control now and back with her parents.

Charlotte's Biography

2005-04-21T11:54:00.000-06:00

Here is a synnopsis of Charlotte Wyatt's story:

Charlotte Wyatt--a short biography

Charlotte Paige Wyatt was born prematurely at St. Mary's hospital on the 21st of October 2003. She weighed 458 grams (about a pound) and was barely five inches long. Three times in her short life she had to be re-ventilated--the last time being July.

After that the hospital said that because she was born prematurely (at 26 weeks), and because she was only the size of a 19 week old baby, she had no chance to pull through. They decided that if her lungs would collapse due to an infection, they would not re-ventilate her, but stand by and watch her die.

Her parents brought it to court, but in a September ruling, the Judge agreed with the doctors, who testified that her quality of life was "terrible", that she could not see or hear, and that she was just living in a glass box, in constant pain, with oxygen being shot at her all the time. Her parents did not give up though, they continued to fight on. . .

In mid March they went back to the judge with new information, information to prove that she had improved, unlike what the doctors thought, and that she would react to sound, and light.--that she could see and hear. The doctors even admitted that she had improved a great deal--but they still thought that it was not enough. They testified that although now she could hear and see, her brain had stopped growing. The judge did not rescind his order allowing Charlotte to die, but he did tell her parents to collect lots of evidence. This evidence they were to bring to him at a hearing after Easter, when he would decide if she should be allowed to live or not.

This coming Thursday, on April 21, Mr. Justice Hedley will look at all the evidence her parents have collected to try and prove that her life is worthwhile. He will then make a descision on wether to recind his previous order, letting Charlotte live, or if he will let the doctors allow her to die.

Baby Charlotte

2005-04-21T11:42:00.000-06:00

Charlotte Wyatt is an eighteen month old baby who was born three months premature with a bleak prognosis. She has beaten the odds and continues to live today, though she still needs medical attention. Right now, there's a fight going on between her parents who want their daughter to live and the doctors at the hospital, who believe the infant should not be resucitated should she stop breathing. BlogsForTerri has the story here.

In reading the story you will notice that this is not a fight among family members who disagree on how to treat a disabled family member. In this case, the family is united--or at least we are not aware of any family members pushing for Charlotte's death. No. In this case, it is a fight between the parents, who brought her into the world and the hospital doctors, who are not at all related to her. All those of you who insisted Terri Schiavo's medical care decisions ought to have been kept within the family take note. Now it's the doctors vs. the parents.

And in the middle of it all is an infant who is fighting to live.

Judicial Nominees

2005-04-20T10:01:00.000-06:00

This comes from Sherri via BlogsForTerri.

April 19, 2005
ACTION ALERT!!!! The Most Important Vote: Fr. Frank Pavone
The Most Important Vote

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

Sometime in the next few weeks, the United States Senate will hold the most important vote of this generation. It is that important for the same reason that last year’s election was the most important one of our generation. As an election season billboard said, "Think of the Supreme Court!"

The vote I’m talking about will affect how easily the Senate can put the right men and women onto the Federal Courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court. It is a vote regarding Senate rules, and, simply put, will determine whether nominees who already have the support of a majority of the Senators can be voted on.

You may ask why this is even an issue, especially if the judicial nominees in question already have the support of the majority of the Senate.

Good question.

The United States Constitution says that the President nominates people to serve on our Federal Courts, and that the US Senate is to give "advice and consent." In other words, the President presents these nominees to the Senate, and then the Senators vote "yes" or "no" as to whether that nominee will serve as a Federal Judge. The same process is used when there is a vacancy on the US Supreme Court, and such a vacancy may occur within the next couple of months.

The President has been nominating people for the Federal courts, and there have been votes and confirmations. But there is an entire group of well-qualified nominees who, in the judgment of Senate Democrats, are too "far right" for their liking. Of course, these Democrats have the right to think what they want about the nominees, and they have the right to vote against them. They also have the right to try to persuade other Senators to vote against them.

But they are not content with that. They now want to claim the right to prevent a vote one way or the other. And they do that by prolonging debate on the nominee indefinitely, so that the debate never closes and the vote is never taken. This process is called a "filibuster."

Now filibusters do have their place. There may be legislation, for example, that the minority party objects to. A filibuster can be used to indefinitely prolong debate on the legislation. This gives the minority some leverage, so that they do not lose their power altogether.

But while filibusters have an appropriate place in legislative debates, we are witnessing, for the first time in history, the use of the filibuster technique to block the "advice and consent" process of the Senate for judicial nominees, when the nominees already have the support of the majority of Senators. To the extent that the Senator is deprived of a vote, the people who elected that Senator are deprived of their voice at the highest levels of government. If this can be done now with Federal judges, it will certainly be done with a Supreme Court Justice.

Federal judges have removed "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, allowed child pornography as protected free speech, redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, struck down bans on partial-birth abortion, and contradicted the will of the people in many other ways. Many Senators want this to stop, and they can stop it by confirming judges who know the difference between applying the law and imposing their political preferences on the people.

The vote that is coming up in the next few weeks is designed to end the abuse of the filibuster and provide a fair up-or-down vote on judges. This is a unique opportunity to tell your Senators you care about the unpredecented and unfair filibustering of President Bush's nominees. Senators need to know that you care about this issue and are watching how they vote.

ACTION: You can reach your senators through the Capitol Switchboard today, or any day, at (202) 224-3121. Just dial this number and ask to be transferred to your Senator's office. You'll have to call twice in order to place a call to each of your two Senators. (You can get direct contact information for both of your home state Senators at the website, judicialnetwork.org, as well.) If you call the main switchboard, simply ask for the Senator you are calling, and when that Senator's office answers, explain that you support a return to the constitutional tradition of a fair up-or-down vote on judicial nominees and an end to the filibuster of judges. We recommend that you also call the local state office of your Senator with the same message. It is even more powerful if you pay a visit to the local state office to register your concern.

SUGGESTED MESSAGE: "Hello, I'm a voter from (NAME OF YOUR STATE) and I support the constitutional option to end the filibuster of judges. Please tell Senator (NAME OF YOUR SENATOR) that every one of President Bush's judicial nominees should be brought to the Senate floor for a fair up-or-down vote. Thank You."

Clara Martinez

2005-04-18T07:37:00.000-06:00

Clara Martinez is a mother living in Chicago who suffered a debilitating stroke about a year ago. Her husband stopped feeding her about a month ago, though she continued to drink water. Due to intervention from various sources, Clara is now receiving nutrition once again. BlogsForTerri has continuing and detailed coverage of her story.

It iis my unfortunate realization that starving and/or dehydrating disabled people is actually fairly common practice. One of our goals at BlogsForTerri is to increase awareness of this injustice. Hopefully, we can save a few lives that way.

Going Raw

2005-04-16T20:29:00.000-06:00

A few months after my daughter was born, a friend gave me a magazine published by a Christian organization called Above Rubies. It is run by a family—each of the six children and/or their spouses contribute to the monthly magazine--and the mission of this organization is to encourage women in their calling as mothers. It has a special emphasis on attachment parenting and natural living so I very much enjoyed the few issues I read. One of the authors, Serene Allison, was into the raw food diet and would mention it in her articles. She wrote a recipe book (I guess you wouldn’t call it a cook book) which you can buy through Above Rubies.

That was my very first exposure to the raw food diet. I mentioned what I had learned to my husband, who immediately observed there are some foods you don’t want to eat raw. Things like eggs and meat. The idea seemed a little radical, and I wasn’t about to adopt it at that time, but the idea stayed in the back of my mind.

My daughter is now a toddler and still nursing. I started introducing solid foods into her diet when she was seven months old. The first thing she ate was a banana. Then it was onto cooked carrots and potatoes, then fruit, avocados, chicken and other meat, and more recently crackers and other wheat products, eggs, minimal dairy, and most recently nuts and seeds. Now she eats just about anything, and other than a mild reaction to dairy products, she doesn’t have any allergies.

A few weeks ago, I was shopping at my local food coop. Browsing through the book section, I came across the book Rawsome by Brigitte Mars. Oh, it’s about the raw foods diet, I thought. I noted the title and author and requested it at the library.

Meanwhile, I was starting to notice the different types of crackers I’d bought for a quick snack on the road for my daughter were piling up in my pantry as one after another, my daughter would refuse them. The only crackers she really enjoys are the pretzel flavored Goldfish crackers. Instead, she preferred frozen corn, various fruits, avocados, and of all things, whole raw tomatoes. I enjoy munching on nuts and seeds, and one day, I gave her some sunflower seeds. She just loved them. So the next time I went to the coop, I bought more sunflower seeds and various other seeds and combined them with some raisins and other dried fruit into a trail mix. My daughter really loved all the seeds except for the pine nuts. I also noticed that although she enjoys the oatmeal I regularly cook for her, she’s just as happy to eat the uncooked rolled oats.

By this time I had started reading Rawsome and was carefully studying the chapter explaining what it takes to convert your kitchen to a raw kitchen.

I’m not sure what it was exactly that made me decide to go for it. I’m sure the large tax refund we’re getting had a lot to do with it. It’s a bit pricey buying all the equipment. I think it was knowing deep down that raw foods are healthier. The whole enzyme thing makes sense intuitively. I’ve been noticing bad effects of what we eat in my family. We eat fairly well, by conventional standards. We use sugar sparingly and try to eat our fruits and vegetables, but we overdo it on the fried stuff, and honestly, our menu could use a bit more variety. I’ve tried a couple times to plan meals by looking through the Joy of Cooking book but then I get discouraged by how much all those ingredients will cost. I also really do not like to spend a lot of time cooking and baking. I got to thinking that going raw would force us to plan our meals ahead, since there is sprouting time and dehydrating time for some of the dishes. The planning ahead could be a challenge. On the other hand, both my husband and I really like the idea of getting meals prepared ahead of time. Using a dehydrator instead of a stove or oven is very conducive to that.

A few days ago I learned that I can purchase a share in a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) through my work. A few hundred dollars will buy us virtually unlimited produce for five and a half months. So, if we’re going to do it, next month is a good time to start. That will give me enough time to start ordering equipment. I’ve been spending a lot of time online doing the research on the various appliances and supplies I will need.

Learning about the CSA was a huge motivator. But I think the biggest thing was seeing that my toddler prefers her food raw. I never gave her commercial baby food (OK, maybe once or twice), and I’ve been careful about limiting her sugar consumption. Most of what I’ve given her has been prepared from scratch—whether it was cooked or raw. I remember reading in a couple baby books that what you give a baby early in life will shape their taste buds for the rest of their life. It was a warning to avoid giving them highly sweetened or salted food, and to also give them nutritious stuff. I think I’m seeing that in my daughter. She’s still mostly on my milk, which I’ve heard described as the ultimate raw food, and we’ve mostly given her wholesome stuff. So her taste buds haven’t adapted to the high protein, high fat, high sugar western diet. This is a good thing, and I realized I want to encourage her current food preferences, not discourage them. To give my daughter the best, I know I need to make some changes in our diet. Somehow, going raw makes sense, and we’re going to give it a try. In some ways, it’s easier to make a really radical change, because it’s like starting over, than to try to tweak our current diet. It would be too easy to fall back into the same patterns. But if we go raw, we’re making some drastic changes, and I think we’ll be more likely to stick with it.

Today I ordered a water filter. This is a good thing to have regardless of what we eat, and I’m bidding on a food processor on eBay. In the next few days I’ll be buying a dehydrator, sprouting bags, our CSA share and a few other things. I’m also looking into who will supply my nuts and sprouting seeds, and a few things I have no idea what they are: tahini, miso, nama shoyu and agar flakes. In the mean time, we’re going to try to eat up what we already have. As I write this, we are grilling chicken outside. It probably won’t be for a few weeks that we really get started. If you’re reading this, you’re catching me at the very early stages of going raw. In fact, we haven’t decided to go 100% raw at this point. We have to try it and see. I imagine we’ll eat cooked stuff once in a while and when we go to people’s houses. This isn’t about proving anything to anyone; it’s about finding the healthiest diet for my family. And right now, for various reasons, it has become very important to me that my family be as healthy as we possibly can be.

The latest on Mae Magouirk

2005-04-15T07:59:00.000-06:00

It appears progress is being made. Mae Magouirk is pulling through despite her medical condition plus having been dehydrated for over a week, and the family seems to be starting to work things out. We'll keep a close eye on it.

HT: BlogsForTerri

Terri Schiavo, Martyr

2005-04-14T07:50:00.000-06:00

Cross-posted on BlogsForTerri.

Deacon Keith Fournier weighs in on Terri's death. He considers her to be a martyr, one who has lived a sacrificial life that changes the world. That her life was full of deprivation and her death brutal is undisputible. Will her life and death change the world? That is up to us.

Terri Schiavo, Martyr

By: Deacon Keith Fournier

© Third Millennium, LLC

The news out of Pinellas Park, Florida breaks the hearts of all decent people. It should shake us to the core. Terri Schiavo is dead, intentionally deprived of food and water, with the force of the raw power of government holding the hands of the executioners. She was killed deliberately, by starvation and dehydration. No Court, Legislative body or Chief Executive had the courage to stop this killing. She was deprived of her substantive due process rights by every branch of government.

Terri was not dying. She was not receiving any "extraordinary medical treatment." She was being fed and given water, as many disabled people are at this very moment, with assistance. She had trouble swallowing because she was disabled by damage to her brain. She would have lived for many, many years, bringing great joy to her family and changing the world. But now she is dead; killed by the complete abject failure of a system that has lost its soul.

The Greek word for "witness" is "martyrion". In our use of the word over all these centuries of Christian history, we have emphasized those who shed their blood for the faith. However, there is also a tradition of "white martyrs", those who live sacrificial lives that change the world. That is what Terri did. None of us will forget her smile. We all adopted her beautiful family. We now mourn her loss and share, at least a little, in their deep pain. We must also become outraged at the sheer evil of this killing and we must act.

Terri Schiavo is a martyr. She had her life taken away by the enforcers of a New Rome. Remember, the old Rome also had an elaborate system of courts and a highly developed legislative system. It prided itself on its culture, its arts and its claims to "civilization." Yet, it legally sanctioned horrors such as the practice of exposure, where children, the disabled and other "unwanted" persons were left on rocks to die by exposure to the elements or to be killed by hostile passers by. We now do the same.

The killing of Terri Schindler must mark a turning point in American history. Terri was killed while "the law" was unwilling to intervene. Her death stripped away the veneer of civility painted on the face of the current culture of death. It was a diabolical event, plain and simple. The rejection of the inherent value of every human life as a foundation of our whole understanding of ordered liberty is a clear and present danger. We face a serious risk to both life and liberty when reference to the truth is removed as the measuring stick for our behavior. Authentic freedom has been replaced by a counterfeit. The very foundation of decency is shaken.

To honor Terri, we should dedicate ourselves to the long term work of building a new society, a culture of life and civilization of love, where the dignity of every human life will be the polestar of all public policy; marriage and family will be protected as the first mediating institution and defended against those who aim to replace and eradicate them; authentic freedom will be exercised in reference to truth and within a moral constitution, and our obligations in solidarity to one another, and most especially those who have no voice, will be upheld by elected and unelected public servants.

With all the talk of the "religious influence" in America, the martyrdom of Terri Schiavo reveals the lack of a national soul. Terri was killed in a manner reminiscent of past evil regimes. I am reminded of the old adage attributed to the English Philosopher Alisdair Macintyre who, commenting on the decay in English society, once said "The Creed of the English is that there is no God but it is proper to pray to him once in a while." Without reference to the Source of unalienable rights, the One who placed the hunger for true justice within every human heart, we have become unmoored as a Nation.

Terrible injustices sometimes mark turning points in the political history of Nations. I pray that Terri’s death becomes such an event; an impetus for a new coalition for life, family, freedom and solidarity. If it does, Terri’s martyrdom will not have been in vain.

__________________________________________________________________

Deacon Keith Fournier is a member of the Catholic Clergy and a human rights lawyer.

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

Issues Remain in Mae Magouirk's case

2005-04-13T08:01:00.000-06:00

Although Mae Magouirk is currently in a medical facility that can actually treat her (as opposed to a hospice center), there are still some serious issues with her case, the main one being that her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, has refused to allow Mae's family to visit her. More information is available on BlogsForTerri.

Mae Magouirk Safe

2005-04-11T07:36:00.000-06:00

Mae Magouirk was transferred to the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center, where she is currently being treated for extreme dehydration and when possible, will be treated for her other medical issues, none of which are terminal nor should have warranted her being placed in hospice in the first place. The details are confusing, but they are all available on BFT. Updates will be forthcoming.

On another topic, BFT has knowledge of a disabled baby in Florida in need of adoption. The fear is that if no one steps forward to adopt the baby, he will become a ward of the state, and possibly a target for euthanasia. If you can help this baby in any way, please contact the people listed on this post. Thank you.

A Great Letter about Mae

2005-04-08T16:27:00.000-06:00

A great letter about Mae written by Angela.

Urgent News

I don't normally send out e-mails like this, but this is a very urgent situation and we need to get the word out quickly.

A woman is dying once again by the witholding of food and water--but this time she is neither terminally ill, comatose or in a vegetative state, and she is being dehydrated AGAINST her wishes clearly stated in her living will. She needs our prayers and support.

Mae Magouirk is an 81-year-old grandma who was checked into LaGrange hospital a couple of weeks ago by her granddaughter (Beth Gaddy, a schoolteacher) with heart problems--specifically a hereditary aortic problem which both her brother and sister have also had and survived.

Mae has a living will that specifically says nutrition and hydration are *not* to be witheld unless she is in a coma or a vegetative state.

Even though she is neither---and is not terminally ill--her granddaughter falsely claimed she had durable medical power of attorney (she doesn't; she only has financial power of attorney), and decided it was time for Grandma to die. She had Mae moved to hospice and has withheld nutrition and hydration since March 28th, 2005, despite the objections of Mae's brother, sister and nephew, who are frantically fighting to save her life.

Quote from WND article: "Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?" [end quote]

Mae was lucid when she entered the hospital, but since at her granddaughter's request she has been denied food and water while being given morphine and ativan for the past 11 days, she is obviously not in very good shape by this point. She is 81 years old and even the youngest and healthiest of us couldn't survive for long in those conditions. Unfortunately, her brother, sister and nephew did not find out that she was being dehydrated until a few days ago, and she may have only hours or at most days left to try to save her.

Unfortunately, a probate judge has, despite Mae's living will and the fact that she has closer relatives who should by law be given guardianship, given the granddaughter a temporary emergency guardianship and allowed her to continue witholding treatment against Mae's clearly expressed wishes in her living will.

Mae did receive IV fluids overnight and possibly a feeding tube for a few hours (I am not certain about the food) this past weekend between the time Mae's siblings informed the hospice that her granddaughter did not really have medical power of attorney and her living will stated that she would want food and fluids in her situation, from the evening of April 30th, 2005 until a few hours later on April 1st, 2005, when Troup County, Ga., Probate Court Judge Donald W. Boyd ruled to give Gaddy emergency guardianship over her grandmother. Gaddy immediately had the tubes pulled again.

If you thought a living will would protect you, think again. This could be any one of us.

I have personally checked this out as well as I can and have determined that, unless Mae's sister, brother and nephew are blatantly lying, it is indeed true. There is really a Mae Magouirk in the hospice mentioned, although they will not give out medical information of course, and I have heard her nephew talk about the situation on the radio. Many people have checked out various details of the case and so far everything seems to be confirmed. I have left a message on the lawyer's voicemail and am waiting to hear back.

You can read the rest of the story at WorldNetDaily: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688

Here is a radio interview with Mae's nephew Ken Mullinax on The David Allen Show that you can listen to online:
http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/medialibrary/interviews/ataudio.2005-04-08.5890983887

And you can keep up with breaking news and updates on the situation at Blogs for Terri: http://www.blogsforterri.com

Please contact your local news stations, radio talk shows, and political leaders to alert them to Mae's situation. There is a list of people you can call in Georgia that might actually have the power to help Mae on the Blogs for Terri website.

Things like this happen much more frequently than we would like to think, and we can't stop them unless we get people to talk about them. If we keep quiet, we may in essence be allowing ourselves or someone we love to be killed in this way against their will at some time in the future.

We also need to ask our elected officials to pass laws to make sure that a person's food and water cannot be withdrawn so easily. Many are requesting that a law be passed preventing the withdrawl of food and water unless the patient themselves clearly requests it in written form (such as a living will) in their particular situation.

Even feeding by mouth (no tubes involved) is now by court precedent (the Carol McConnell, Nancy Cruzan and Terri Schindler Schiavo cases--in which it was specifically stated in court and, in the case of Terri, ruled by the judge in an official court order, that food and water *by mouth* should be denied) considered "medical treatment" that can be witheld on the basis of hearsay or the decision of a family member (even one who may have vested interests in the person's death), without the patient's consent or even, as in the case of Marjorie Nighbert and several others, denied food and water even while they were awake and begging for it.

You probably didn't think that things like this happened in the USA, but they do--and the law allows it or even in some cases orders it.

I have been researching and writing about these issues for the last few weeks on my blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=purple_kangaroo_Angela

Love,

Angela

GA House of Representatives and Senate

2005-04-08T10:10:00.000-06:00

Y'all know what to do...

GA House of Reps

Roberta Abdul-Salaam rsalaam@legis.state.ga.us
Amos Amerson hamerson@alltel.net
Alberta Jacqueline Anderson aanderso@legis.state.ga.us
Kathy Ashe kathyashe56@mindspring.com
Terry E. Barnard tbarnard@legis.state.ga.us
Mike Barnes repmikebarnes@aol.com
Tim Bearden bearden4house@aol.com
Sharon Beasley-Teague steague@legis.state.ga.us
Stephanie Stuckey Benfield stuckey@mindspring.com
Tommy Benton tbenton@legis.state.ga.us
Ellis Black ellblack@surfsouth.com
Tom Bordeaux tbordeau@legis.state.ga.us
Ron Borders rborders@legis.state.ga.us
Ben D. Bridges, Sr. bbridges@legis.state.ga.us
Tyrone L. Brooks, Sr. tbrooks@legis.state.ga.us
Jeff Brown jbrown@legis.state.ga.us
Roger B. Bruce rbruce5347@aol.com
Bob Bryant bbryant@legis.state.ga.us
Debbie Buckner dbuckner@legis.state.ga.us
Gail M. Buckner gbuckner@legis.state.ga.us
Mark Burkhalter mburkhal@legis.state.ga.us
Sue Burmeister subrmyster@aol.com
Jon G. Burns jburns@legis.state.ga.us
Mark Butler mbutler@legis.state.ga.us
Charlice H. Byrd charbyrd@legis.state.ga.us
Buddy Carter bcarter331@aol.com
David S. Casas dcasas@legis.state.ga.us
Jill Chambers jchamber@legis.state.ga.us
Mickey Channell mickey@legis.state.ga.us
Mike Cheokas mcheokas@legis.state.ga.us
Mike Coan mcoan@legis.state.ga.us
Jim Cole jcole@legis.state.ga.us
Brooks P. Coleman, Jr. bcoleman@legis.state.ga.us
Terry Coleman tcoleman@legis.state.ga.us
Sharon Cooper scooper@legis.state.ga.us
Clay Cox asc647@bellsouth.net
Mack Crawford mcrawfor@legis.state.ga.us
Bill Cummings bcumming@legis.state.ga.us
Steve Davis sdavis@legis.state.ga.us
Burke Day bday@legis.state.ga.us
Douglas C. Dean ddean@legis.state.ga.us
Tom Dickson tdickson@legis.state.ga.us
Ron Dodson dodson.ron@worldnet.att.net
Matt Dollar mdollar@legis.state.ga.us
Karla Lea Drenner dren16999@aol.com
Winfred J. Dukes wdukes@legis.state.ga.us
Earl Ehrhart eaeh@facilitygroup.com
Terry Lamar England englandhomeport2@aol.com

Carl Von Epps cepps@legis.state.ga.us
Barry A. Fleming bfleming@legis.state.ga.us
Hugh Floyd hfloyd@legis.state.ga.us
Johnny Floyd jfloyd@legis.state.ga.us
Virgil Fludd vfludd@legis.state.ga.us
Ronald L. Forster rforster@legis.state.ga.us
Bobby Franklin bfrankli@legis.state.ga.us
Allen G. Freeman agfreeman@cox.net
Pat Gardner pat@patgardner.org
Harry Geisinger hgeising@legis.state.ga.us
Rich Golick rgolick@legis.state.ga.us
David B. Graves repdavidgraves@hotmail.com
Tom Graves tgraves@legis.state.ga.us
Gerald E. Greene ggreene@legis.state.ga.us
Bob Hanner bhanner@legis.state.ga.us
Ben L. Harbin bharbin@legis.state.ga.us
Mark Hatfield mhatfield@legis.state.ga.us
John Wilson Heard jheard@legis.state.ga.us
Keith Heard kheard@legis.state.ga.us
Joe Heckstall jhecksta@legis.state.ga.us
Bill Hembree bhembree@legis.state.ga.us
Michele D. Henson mhenson@legis.state.ga.us
Calvin Hill chill@legis.state.ga.us
Cecily A. Hill cecilyh@legis.state.ga.us
Bob Holmes bholmes@cau.edu
Doug Holt doug@dougholt.org
Billy Horne gahouse71@yahoo.com
Penny Houston phouston@legis.state.ga.us
Henry Lee Howard hhoward@legis.state.ga.us
Sistie Hudson sistiehudson@aol.com
Carolyn Fleming Hugley chugley@legis.state.ga.us
Lester Jackson ljackson@legis.state.ga.us
Mike Jacobs mike@meetmikejacobs.com
Lynmore James ljames@legis.state.ga.us
Jeanette Jamieson jjamieso@legis.state.ga.us
Charles F. Jenkins charlesj@legis.state.ga.us
Paul Jennings pjenning2@legis.state.ga.us
Terry Johnson terryjohnson@cobb.net
Jan Jones janjones38@bellsouth.net
Sheila Jones info@sheilajones.org
Darryl Jordan djordan@legis.state.ga.us
Jerry Keen jlkeen@bellsouth.net
Mike Keown mkfnbc@rose.net
Jane Kidd jbvkidd@aol.com
David Knight dknight@legis.state.ga.us
Tom Knox tknox@legis.state.ga.us
Dan Lakly dlakly@mindspring.com
Bob Lane blane@legis.state.ga.us
Roger Bert Lane rogerlane167@hotmail.com

Jeff Lewis jlewis@legis.state.ga.us
Edward Lindsey elindsey@legis.state.ga.us
Jimmy Lord jlord@legis.state.ga.us
Barry Loudermilk barry@barryloudermilk.com
David E. Lucas, Sr. dlucas@legis.state.ga.us
John Lunsford jlunsford@legis.state.ga.us
Gene Maddox topdrawer@mchsi.com
Randal Mangham rmangham@legis.state.ga.us
Judy Manning judymanning@bellsouth.net
Pedro Marin marinstatehouse@aol.com
Chuck Martin chuck@martinforgeorgia.com
Howard R. Maxwell hmaxwell@legis.state.ga.us
Jeff May jmay@legis.state.ga.us
Tom McCall tmccall@legis.state.ga.us
JoAnn McClinton jmcclinton@legis.state.ga.us
John D. Meadows, III jmeadows@legis.state.ga.us
Fran Millar fran_millar@palmercay.com
Phyllis Miller pmiller@legis.state.ga.us
James Mills jmills@legis.state.ga.us
Billy Mitchell mitchell@legis.state.ga.us
Alisha Thomas Morgan alisha@alishamorgan.com
Greg Morris gmorris@legis.state.ga.us
Howard Mosby mosb7101@hotmail.com
Hinson Mosley hmosley@legis.state.ga.us
Robert F. Mumford rmumford@legis.state.ga.us
Jack Murphy jmurphy@legis.state.ga.us
Quincy Murphy qmurphy@legis.state.ga.us
Jay Neal jneal@legis.state.ga.us
Mary Margaret Oliver moliver@legis.state.ga.us
Larry O'Neal loneal@legis.state.ga.us
Nan Grogan Orrock norrock@legis.state.ga.us
Bobby Parham bparham@legis.state.ga.us
Larry "Butch" Parrish lparrish@legis.state.ga.us
Don Parsons don@donparsons.net
DuBose Porter dporter@legis.state.ga.us
Alan Powell alanpowell23@hotmail.com
David Ralston dralston1@tds.net
Nikki T. Randall nrandall@legis.state.ga.us
Robert Ray rray@legis.state.ga.us
Barbara Massey Reece breece@legis.state.ga.us
Stacey G. Reece sreece@legis.state.ga.us
Bobby Clifford Reese bobby_reese@bellsouth.net
Tom Rice trice@legis.state.ga.us
Glenn Richardson grichard@legis.state.ga.us
Jay Roberts jayroberts@alltel.net
Carl Rogers crogers@legis.state.ga.us
A. Richard Royal rroyal@legis.state.ga.us
Ed Rynders erynders@legis.state.ga.us
Ron Sailor, Jr. rsailor@legis.state.ga.us

Chuck Scheid chuckscheid@msn.com
Austin Scott ascott@legis.state.ga.us
Martin Scott mscott@legis.state.ga.us
Ed Setzler lesetzler@mactec.com
Jay Shaw jshaw@legis.state.ga.us
Donna Sheldon dsheldon@legis.state.ga.us
Chuck Sims dawg4116@aol.com
or csims@legis.state.ga.us

Freddie Powell Sims fsims@legis.state.ga.us
Georganna T. Sinkfield gsinkfie@legis.state.ga.us
Bob Smith smith98@bellsouth.net
Lynn Ratigan Smith lysmith@legis.state.ga.us
Paul E. Smith psmith@legis.state.ga.us
Richard H. Smith richard@smithforgeorgia.com
Tommy Smith tsmith@legis.state.ga.us
Vance Smith, Jr. vsmith@legis.state.ga.us
Calvin Smyre CONTACT calvinsmyre@synovus.com
LaNett Stanley-Turner Ron Stephens quickrxdrg@aol.com
Pam Stephenson pstephen@legis.state.ga.us
Willie Lee Talton wtalton@legis.state.ga.us
Rob Teilhet rteilhet@yahoo.com
"Able" Mable Thomas mthomas@legis.state.ga.us
Brian W. Thomas bthomas@legis.state.ga.us
Steve "Thunder" Tumlin stevetumlin@bellsouth.net
Len Walker lwalker@nfumc.org
Pete Warren petewarren99@comcast.net
Stan Watson staxx@bellsouth.net
Joe Wilkinson jwilkins@legis.state.ga.us
Wendell Willard wkwillard@hotmail.com
"Coach" Williams ewilliam@legis.state.ga.us
Al Williams caw@coastalnow.net
Roger Williams wroger@alltel.net
Don Wix dwix@mindspring.com
John P. Yates jyates@legis.state.ga.us

Contact info for Georgia Senate
Adelman, David (D-SS 42)dadelman@legis.state.ga.us
Balfour, Don (R-SS 09)ss9balfour@aol.com
Brown, Robert (D-SS 26)rbrown@legis.state.ga.us
Bulloch, John (R-SS 11)jbulloch@rose.net
Butler, Gloria (D-SS 55)gbutler@legis.state.ga.us
Cagle, Casey (R-SS 49)kccagle@bellsouth.net
Carter, Joseph I. (R-SS 13)joseph@josephcarter2004.com
Chance, Ronnie (R-SS 16)rchance@legis.state.ga.us
Chapman, Jeff (R-SS 03)jchapman@legis.state.ga.us
Douglas, John (R-SS 17)jfdouglas@aol.com
Fort, Vincent D (D-SS 39)vfort@legis.state.ga.us
Goggans, Greg (R-SS 07)drgg@altell.net
Golden, Tim (D-SS 08)tgolden@legis.state.ga.usV
Grant, Johnny (R-SS 25)sengrant@alltel.net
Hamrick, Bill (R-SS 30)bhamrickiii@yahoo.com
Harbison, Ed (D-SS 15)eharbison@legis.state.ga.us
Harp, Seth (R-SS 29)sethharp@aol.com
Heath, Bill (R-SS 31)billheath@billheath.net
Henson, Steve (D-SS 41)stevehenson@mindspring.com
Hill, Jack (R-SS 04)jhill@legis.state.ga.us
Hill, Judson H (R-SS 32)judsonhill@legis.state.ga.us
Hooks, George (D-SS 14)ghooks@legis.state.ga.us
Hudgens, Ralph T. (R-SS 47)ralph@ralphhudgens.com
Johnson, Eric (R-SS 01)ejohnson@legis.state.ga.us
Jones, Emanuel D (D-SS 10)emanj@mindspring.com
Kemp, Brian P (R-SS 46)bkemp@legis.state.ga.us
Meyer von Bremen, Michael S (D-SS
12mmeyer@legis.state.ga.us
Miles, Steen (D-SS 43)smiles2k@bellsouth.net
Moody, Dan (R-SS 56)dmoody@legis.state.ga.us
Mullis, Jeff E (R-SS 53)jmullis@legis.state.ga.us
Pearson, Chip (R-SS 51)cpearson@legis.state.ga.us
Powell, J.B. (D-SS 23)jbpowell@legis.state.ga.us
Reed, Kasim (D-SS 35)kreed@legis.state.ga.us
Rogers, Chip (R-SS 21)chiprogers2@comcast.net
Schaefer, Nancy (R-SS
50)senatornancyschaefer@alltel.net
Seabaugh, Mitch (R-SS 28)mail@mitchseabaugh.com
Seay, Valencia (D-SS 34)vseay@legis.state.ga.us
Shafer, David J. (R-SS 48)dshafer@legis.state.ga.us
Smith, Preston W. (R-SS 52)pwsmith@gov.state.ga.us
Starr, Terrell (D-SS 44)tstarr@legis.state.ga.us
Staton, Cecil (R-SS 18)cstaton@legis.state.ga.us
Stephens, Bill (R-SS 27)bstephen@legis.state.ga.us
Stoner, Doug (D-SS 06)dstoner@legis.state.ga.us
Tate, Horacena (D-SS 38)htate@legis.state.ga.us
Thomas, Don R. (R-SS 54)dthomas@legis.state.ga.us
Thomas, Regina (D-SS 02)rthomas@legis.state.ga.us
Thompson, Curt (D-SS 05)curt@curtthompson.com
Thompson, Steve (D-SS 33)sthompso@legis.state.ga.us
Tolleson, Ross (R-SS 20)rosstolleson@alltel.net
Unterman, Renee S. (R-SS 45)Reneeu@mindspring.com
Walker, Charles W (D-SS 22)cwwalker@legis.state.ga.us
Weber, Daniel J. (R-SS 40)djweber@bellsouth.net
Whitehead , James L. (Jim) (R-SS
24)jwwhitehead.legis.state.ga.us
Wiles, John J. (R-SS 37)john@johnwiles.com
Williams, Tommie (R-SS 19)tommie@tommiewilliams.com
Zamarripa, Sam (D-SS 36)szamarri@legis.state.ga.us

Contact GA Attorney General

2005-04-08T09:48:00.000-06:00

Sherri asked me to post this, as she is currently experiencing technical difficulties with her blog:

Ga Attorney General knew nothing of this case!

Please contact him by FAX! He has NO email address!

FAX : 404-657-8733

Please get this out!!

Helping Mae Magouirk: more cages to rattle.

2005-04-08T07:44:00.000-06:00

Sherri has done it again. She's compiled a list of people to contact who have authority to do something about the parching and starvation of Mae Magouirk. Please take the time to let these people know how you feel about this latest government execution in progress. Politely of course.

Cross-posted on BFT.

UPDATE: More contacts available here. Be sure to check the comment section too.

More on Mae Magouirk: Here we go again...

2005-04-08T07:34:00.000-06:00

Taken directly from BFT...

April 08, 2005
More on Mae Magouirk : Here we go again…….
Here we go again, another day, another life, another murder at the hands of the (in)justice system. Yet another case of murder by judicial fiat at yet another hospice - the hospice industry's agenda of euthanasia marches on and on! Here's a nice quick synopsis of the plight of Mae Magouirk who is being killed by her granddaughter, Beth (Michael Schiavo) Gaddy, at the order of Probate Court Judge Donald (George Greer)W. Boyd, at the Lagrange (Woodside death camp)hospice.

- Lonestar Times.com via Sounding the Trumpet
The first case is always the hardest. But then, it becomes easier.

A lot of people were were mortified about the dehydration death of Terri Schiavo. We all thought it would be a while before a similar situation would arise.

Well, think again.

It’s happening RIGHT NOW in Georgia, except in a more egregious way. Mae Magouirk, an 81-year old grandmother, is not terminally ill, comatose or in a vegetative state, but she is being starved to death in a hospice. Another case of not having a "living will"? NO, wrong again. She has a living will that specifies that she not be denied food or water unless she were in a coma or vegetative state.

Mrs. Magouirk was admitted to the hospital with an aortic dissection, which was contained. Her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, asked that she be placed in hospice without hydration or food. Gaddy was quoted as saying, "Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus."

Gaddy, claimed to have a medical power of attorney, but only had a financial power of attorney. Once the hospice became aware of the situation, it prepared to have the feeding tube inserted. But before they could have Magouirk transported to a hospital, Gaddy obtained emergency gardianship over her grandmother from Probate Court Judge Donald W. Boyd.

There are closer living relatives, two siblings, that want to take care of Magouirk, but Gaddy will not consent.

If you thought a medical power of attorney would protect you, it seems that it is not worth the paper it’s written on in some Probate Courts. It looks like low grade euthanasia via denial of food and water to non-terminal patients, regardless of wishes, is becoming "normal".

Welcome, to this brave new world……….

cross posted at Hyscience

Keep checking BlogForTerri for more information on this one, also Straight Up With Sherri.

Email all media outlets about Mae Margourik's situation

2005-04-07T09:20:00.000-06:00

Cross-posted on BlogsForTerri.

A good place to start with helping Mae Margourik would be to contact the media outlets to get her story publicized, especially targeting media personalities who tried to help Terri. Here is a link to a huge number of email addresses posted earlier. This same list is also posted somewhere on BFT, but I don't have the link right now.

I'm sure contact information on the relevant law makers, judges, etc. will also be forthcoming, so keep checking BFT for more information.

UPDATE: Sherri has an update here.

Another Terri

2005-04-07T08:44:00.000-06:00

As I've said before, Terri Schindler is not the first, nor the last person to be starved and parched to death. Below is a story about a Mae Magouirk, a woman who has had her food and water removed since March 28. The story is posted here on BlogsForTerri. Her family is asking for our help.

April 06, 2005
Shiavo case Redux in Georgia: Mae Magouirk…not comatose,not vegetative,not terminal, BEING STARVED AND DEHYDRATED TO DEATH (Update)
RECEIVED VIA EMAIL - EMERGENCY
Please propagate throughout the Internet!

UPDATE 1(noticed question in comments about authentication): This was confirmed by lengthy telephone call before it was posted. I personally spoke with Kenneth Mullinax, and have more details than has been posted. We do need to seek copies of court documents for posting

From: The Family of Mae Magouirk
To: BlogsForTerri and their readers
Subject: Family Seeking Help From BFT Bloggers and Media
April 6, 2005

Contact: Kenneth Mullinax Ph: 205-408-7598
mailto:Mockingbird@compuhelp.net

Why is Hospice LaGrange, Ga. withholding nourishment?

Mae Magouirk is being withheld nourishment and fluids and the Provisions of her Living Will are not being honored at the Hospice-LaGrange, (1510 Vernon Street, LaGrange “Troup County” Georgia, (706-845-3905) a subsidiary of the LaGrange Hospital in LaGrange Georgia.

Her family is desperately seeking to save her life before she dies of malnourishment and dehydration.

Mae Magouirk IS NOT comatose and she IS NOT vegetative. She is not terminal!

Despite these facts the Hospice and Beth Gaddy (706-882-9124), a school teacher at LaGrange’s Calloway Middle School and granddaughter of Mae Magouirk(who according to "heresay," may have been mismanaging funds of the 85 yr-old woman) have been denying her proactive nourishment or fluids (via a nose administered feeding tube or fluids via an IV) since March 28 without prior legal consent; against the wishes of her Living Will and against the wishes of Mae Magouirk’s closest living next of kin. Mae Magouirk’s next of kin are: Mr. A. B. McLeod (Her Brother 256-236-1331) and Mrs. Lonnie Ruth Mullinax (Her sister 205-408-7598) both of nearby Anniston, Alabama.

Under Georgia law, unless a medical durable power of attorney is in place, your closest living next of kin are stipulated to make all medical decisions. When Mae Magouirk’s closest living next of kin lodged a complaint with Hospice LaGrange’s in-house attorney Carol Todd (706-882-1411) last Thursday, March 31, Ms. Todd checked Mae Magouirk’s case file and upon examination of both documents discovered that Beth Gaddy DID NOT have the durable medical power of attorney for Mae Magouirk and upon closer examination of Mae Magouirk’s Living Will ascertained that fluids and nourishment were ONLY TO BE WITHHELD if she was either comatose or vegetative.

SHE IS IN NEITHER STATE!!!

Nor is Mae Magouirk terminally ill. Her local LaGrange, Ga. cardiologist, Dr. James Brennan (706-812-4308) and Dr. Raed Aqel, (205-934-9999) a highly acclaimed interventional cardiologist at the nationally renowned University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center have determined that Mae Magouirk’s aortic dissection is contained and not presently life threatening.

Two weeks ago, Mae Magouirk’s aorta had a dissection and she was hospitalized in the LaGrange Hospital in LaGrange, Ga. Her aortic problem was at first determined to be severe and she was admitted in the intensive care Unit. Her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, a teacher at the Calloway Middle School in LaGrange, stated that she held Mae Magouirk’s medical power of attorney and thus invoked said powers against the wishes of Mae Magouirk’s closest living next of kin by having her moved to Hospice-LaGrange. While at Hospice-LaGrange, Beth Gaddy stated that her wishes were for no nourishment for Mae Magouirk v Probate Judge Donald Boyd (706) 883-1690)…
Court CASE NUMBER: Estate 138-05

Attorney for saving Mae’s life: Jack Kirby, Kirby & Roberts, (706) 884-2992***

Update 2:
On the personal side, I know that many if not all of you are emotionally and perhaps physically exhausted from all of your efforts during the last week of Terri's life. I share that malady. We fought hard, but we were new at the game of trying to save a life with our keyboards, and allowed ourselves to often think with our hearts instead of our heads.

But that's behind us, and we are a larger group now and growing, we've gained some experience and contacts, we've learned a little more about how to work together and are getting better organized, and we are learning how to divide up our labors and act quickly. Let's try to avoid letting our hearts overtake us, let's use them because they are a great asset, but we have to outsmart and outwork the euthanasia crowd, and let's not forget that. We are likely to have many people like Terri that need our help, so let's move forward methodically and with determination to stay the course, together.

One last thing: We know how hateful and angry our opposition can be, but let's not fall into the trap of getting angry ourselves - let's keep our cool, be an example for others to follow, and by all means pray hard and fight hard.

Update 3: Random and Politically Incorect Thoughts also verified.

Meandering Thoughts on Raising the MunchK

2005-04-06T14:01:00.000-06:00

This morning I gave the MunchK (my daughter) a piece of a granola bar, which she greatly enjoyed. She decided she was done before she'd actually finished the piece, and for that matter, before she'd swallowed the last bite she'd taken. So that bit came out. The MunchK thought it was funny and started laughing. She's spit out her food before and now she's added the laughter. This is not something I want to encourage. I hear the voices in my head warning me that if I don't correct this now, she'll keep doing it and it will only get worse. By this time, I have mildly said something like "Hey, don't spit it out; we don't do that with our food," as the MunchK continues to giggle. The question: do I move more forcefully to correct this behavior?

But wait! Suddenly, a flood of incredibly cute things the MunchK has done in the past and no longer does comes to mind. Certain cute "words" she'd use like "Bouilla!" A funny expression on her face I haven't seen in months. Using the furniture to pull herself up to a standing position (now she doesn't need the furniture, thank you very much). Her father and I amply reinforced all of those cute behaviors by smiling, laughing, even telling her "good job." And still, those behaviors stopped.

So now she's figured out something that annoys me. Just because it annoys me, does that suddenly mean it's going to last forever? Couldn't this too be just another stage she's going through that I can relax about and, uh, enjoy?

Whew! I'm relieved. I have not doomed the MunchK to a lifetime of spitting out her food because I'm not going to come down hard on her about this one.

Later we take a walk outside. I have a couple bills to drop off within walking distance, so that gives our stroll just enough purpose that I can still feel I've accomplished something even if the MunchK wants to walk around in circles or spend time picking up the pebbles on the dirt roads. The MunchK walks along holding my hand very well, until she gets curious about something. Then it seems the only way to pull her away is to physically pick her up. I do not like to overpower her; I'd much rather get her cooperation. So, I stoop down and see what it is that's grabbed her interest.

A lot of times, it's a piece of litter she found. I always take along a plastic bag because it's the best way to get her to drop the litter. I hold the bag open for her, she drops the litter in and we move on. It's not unusual for me to drop a half-filled grocery bag into the dumpster on our way back home. Today, it's a length of wooden railroad ties bordering someone's yard. She wants to walk on top of them. Once she gets up, she holds my hand and we continue on.

Sometimes I can get her to leave something interesting behind after a little while by telling her it's now time to say "Bye, bye" to it. She'll say "Bye, bye" and wave and start walking away with me, waving to it for several steps. One time we were with a group of people and the MunchK had gotten interested in a design on the pavement and wanted to stare at it longer than the rest of us did. We couldn't get her to leave it. We'd grab her hand, and she'd break free and go back to it. Crazy Diamond picked her up and started walking away with her; she started crying. He tried to comfort her. Something felt wrong about that situation, so I said "let's take her back there." She immediately calmed down and we went back to the design. After about twenty seconds I told her we were going to leave and we'd have to say "Bye, bye." About a minute later, I told the MunchK we were leaving now and it was time to say "Bye, bye." She did, and then she had no problem walking along with us away from the design.

"Bye, bye" doesn't always work. Sometimes I still end up carrying her away from her point of interest; still, she doesn't fuss so much when she has a chance to say goodbye. "Do you want to hold my hand, or shall I carry you?" I've started asking if she won't walk with me. If she continues to try to break free of my hand, I carry her for a while. It's not a matter of punishment or anything like that. It's a matter of walking the fine line between encouraging her natural curiosity and also respecting my need to keep us moving at a pace I can live with. It's making an honest effort to meet both our needs in a way that works for both of us.

We found a vacant lot that has a small hill right in the middle. The MunchK really enjoys climbing up and down hills, so we walked towards it. She had a great time being up high. Near the hill, we saw some ladybugs. The last time the MunchK saw a live ladybug, it flew right to the edge of her eye. When she saw the ladybug she was understandably apprehensive. She leaned against me and softly said "'Cared."

"Are you scared?" I asked, holding her. Her expression told me she was.
"Ladybugs are friendly bugs," I tell her. "They help us out by eating aphids. I don't want you to be scared of them."

Oops, rewind. I don't want to give my daughter the impression that her feelings are wrong.

"It's OK to be scared. I want you to know ladybugs won't hurt you. They are friendly bugs; they eat aphids."

The MunchK did warm up to the ladybugs very quickly, even placing her finger in front of one so it would crawl onto her hand. I made a mental note to check out a book on ladybugs the next time we visit the library.

Somewhere along the way, the MunchK figured out that all those pictures and statues at church were of Jesus. She excitedly points to them and says "Jesus!" The March picture on my calendar was a stained glass of Jesus, and she recognized Him immediately. "Jesus!" A couple times she's pointed Jesus out I've told her things like "Jesus is a wonderful person," or "Jesus lives in your heart, and he lives in my heart" while pointing to her chest, then mine. "Jesus loves you very much." I don't say those things all the time, or even everytime she notices a likeness of Jesus. But it feels good to know I'm starting to pass on my faith to her.

She recently saw some pictures of Mary. She thought they were of Jesus. I told her it was Mary. "That's Jesus' mama." When she hears the word "mama" she points to me, so I tell her that I'm her mama and Mary is Jesus' mama. She especially liked a picture of Mary holding baby Jesus to her chest. "'Nuggle!" she informed me. Yes, Mary was indeed snuggling her baby.

Of course, the MunchK wanted to snuggle too. So did I. I don't think I'll ever get enough of the MunchK's snuggles.

A Prayer of Remembrance and Commitment

2005-04-06T07:51:00.000-06:00

Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life was able to spend some time with Terri and her family a few minutes before she died. Here is a prayer he wrote for those of us who want to make sure her death is not in vain.

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,

And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.

I know that life is always a good,

and that it never loses its value

when it is beset by weakness or injury.

Lord, thank you for the life of Terri.

Even in her suffering and death

She revealed Your glory

and truth that life is always sacred.

As I remember Terri, I also commit myself

to be active in the pro-life movement,

And never to stop defending life

Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,

And our nation once again becomes

A nation with liberty and justice

Not just for some, but for all,

Through Christ our Lord. Amen!

The Pope's Favorite Song

2005-04-05T08:41:00.000-06:00

I recently learned Pope John Paul II considered the song Lord, You Have Come to be his favorite song. It is one of my favorites as well. Here are the lyrics:

Lord, you have come to the seashore,
Neither searching for the rich nor the wise,
Desiring only that I should follow.

Chorus:
O Lord, with your eyes set upon me,
Gently smiling, you have spoken my name;
All I longed for I have found by the water,
At your side, I will seek other shores.

Lord, see my goods, my possessions;
In my boat you find no power, no wealth.
Will you accept, then, my nets, my labor?

Lord, take my hands and direct them.
Help me spend myself in seeking the lost,
Returning love for the love you gave me.

Lord, as I drift on the waters,
Be the resting place of my restless heart,
My life's companion, my friend and refuge.

Reflection

2005-04-05T07:38:00.000-06:00

Today, a Mass will be held for Terri at 5pm EST. I think today is a good day to reflect a bit on her life and what she has meant to us. It's also a good time to ask ourselves some hard questions about her death, both individually and as a nation.

I think Terri is going to turn out to be one of those saints whose main witness was in dying. Christian history is punctuated with martyrs who chose to die rather than deny or compromise their relationship with Jesus, their faith, and convictions. Terri was never given a choice in the matter, which in some ways is even worse because she was in essence forced to go against her religious convictions about life. Not only was she brutally killed, but the people who spearheaded the effort explained that they were doing what she wanted, carrying out her wishes. She wasn't able to voice her opposition to this, wasn't able to make any sort of final statement about how she would remain true to her faith even to death. In fact, her ability to speak would have placed the position of her killers in jeopardy, not as in the case of the martyrs, sealed her death sentence.

Despite the fact that Terri couldn't speak clearly enough for her killers to be swayed, though make no mistake, she was able to communicate with those who loved her, her life and death speak loudly to all of us. Her message was clear: I want to live. Our nation refused to hear her message in time to save her life.

This begins some of my questions. Why did our nation refuse to hear her compelling message about wanting to live? Why did her valiant efforts to plead for her life fall on deaf ears? Why did we allow it to happen?

It's easy to point fingers at those who hold more authority than we do. And those people with such authority do need to be called to account for their actions, or lack of actions. However, today, it might do us good to pause those thoughts and look at things more philosophically.

Last week, I had the opportunity to meet my US representative during an open house. When I got to speak with her, I asked her the question that has been burning on my mind ever since the Federal Court in Tampa first refused to order the reinsertion of Terri's feeding tube: How do we as a nation get to the point where we are starving one of our citizens to death?

My representative didn't have a good answer and I can't say I do either. Among other things, I am deeply hurt and angry over the fact that my voice as a citizen has been completely disreguarded by a number of judges. It's not like I didn't try to use the legal chanels open to me to save Terri's life. Despite that, today I don't believe I am completely blameless in the matter of her death.

I'm part of a nation that killed her. The systems that conspired against her are systems I probably use on a daily basis. The media misrepresented just about all the facts about Terri. But at this point the way we view it is that they have the right to free speech. This is a right I enjoy. In this country we enjoy freedom of religion. This is a wonderful and fundamental right that I do not want to change. However, the fact that I have free reign to practice my religion also means that my faith never gets seriously challenged. I can get very lazy about my relationship with God and never notice anything is amiss.

Someone once said the price of freedom is constant vigilance. But when you're free to do whatever you want, who wants to take the time to be vigilant? Who wants to pore over the Constitution when there are so many more exciting things to do?

In our efforts to save Terri's life most of us have probably gotten more politically involved than we have in a long time. We became galvanized by this woman's plight and vowed to do something to help her. Now that Terri has been killed despite our involvement, I submit that we need to stay involved in the political workings of our nation. We need to exercise vigilance.

I also believe we need to continue in our daily efforts to become better people. We should work to excel in our very ordinary, daily duties. We should pay attention to the thoughts we think and the words we say. We should take the time to listen to the voice of God in our hearts and we should educate ourselves anew on our rights and responsibilities as American citizens.

In short, we need to be purposeful in our private and public lives. We need to be vigilant both on the home front and in the political arena. Our life and freedom are precious, and there are forces out there that would seek to undermine them. We need to be an active force in their preservation and progress. We can not take for granted our God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you, Terri Schindler, for the many lessons you have taught us through your life and death.

A Growing Collection of Possibilities

2005-04-03T19:03:00.000-06:00

Cross-posted on BFT.

A little over a week ago, we posted an essay asking the question: what is the next step? to get us thinking about where we go from here. At the time we posted it, we were still hoping for a miracle to save Terri’s life. That miracle never came, which makes our mission all the more urgent. There are others out there who are facing the same horrible possibility of being parched and starved to death if people don’t stand up for them.

Terri’s tragedy did much to illustrate a whole host of things that have gone wrong with our society and which have conspired against her. All of these issues need to be addressed at some point, and the question is where do we begin and what do we focus on? This essay is intended to be a summary of the issues that have been brought to light in the last few weeks along with some ideas for how to begin resolving them. I thought it would be beneficial to have them all in one place. I draw from my own thoughts, as well as the feedback we received to our post a week ago. I present these thoughts in no particular order.

 Identify everyone involved in killing Terri either by their actions or failure to act (from judges to politicians to police officers to hospice nurses, it can also include those medical experts who lied about Terri’s mental state and told us starvation wasn’t all that bad). I know Tim is already working on this “Wall of Shame” and it will be posted on BFT. Once these people have been all identified, we can systematically target them for a “career change,” be it losing the next election, impeachment, loss of license, whatever is necessary to remove them from their current position of influence. This has to be very carefully distinguished from a harassment campaign. We go to the voters rather than protesting outside the homes of politicians or policemen. We go to professional medical societies rather than organizing a boycott of a particular team of doctors to pressure them to fire the perjurors.

 Demand a thorough investigation into all the irregularities surrounding Terri’s death. Before writing this, I notice BFT already has plans for how to carry this out.

 Target the mainstream media for their continued lies and bias which no doubt contributed to Terri’s demise. I’ve actually wanted to do this before I became aware of the urgency of Terri Schindler’s plight. My understanding is that the media rely on income from their advertising sponsors, so urging the sponsors to stop buying advertising, possibly reinforced with boycotting of the products, could be an effective way to let the news networks know we do not appreciate their misleading coverage of events relating to Terri. We also have the option of boycotting those news networks directly.

 Examine reports of euthanasia (HT: Sherri) being practiced in medical centers, expose such places, and introduce legislation making it illegal.

 Encourage Congress to hold Greer accountable for ignoring the Congressional subpoenas and to hold the Federal judges accountable for refusing to hold a de novo trial for Terri, as asked by the American people via our elected senators and representatives.

 Look into the guardianship scandal in Florida (HT: Sherri), and take steps to expose and mitigate it.

 This is more along the lines of protecting yourself as an individual, but realize that each one of us needs to take charge of our own healthcare by educating ourselves and playing an active part in medical decisions. It is important to realize that medical facilities do not do everything with the patients’ best interest in mind. The people at these facilities have desires and needs as well. While this isn’t in and of itself evil, it is important to remember that when you are a patient, you need to be aware of what your needs are and advocate those needs. Some medical interventions are vital to saving your life; others are unnecessary and may lead to further problems later. An example of this is a feeding tube. It is more convenient and less time-consuming for staff to feed disabled patients with a feeding tube even if they can eat normally, and I have heard several anecdotes to back this up. In fact, according to one of the nurses caring for Terri, this happened to her, and we all know what happened next. So, if you are in a situation where a medical practitioner is recommending a certain medical intervention for you or a loved one, recognize that there may be other options which should be explored.

 Carefully examine the living will concept. As has been pointed out earlier, if you wish to be killed, a living will assures you will and no one can intervene. If you do not want to be killed, you need to consider other legal documentation. Various pro-life groups promote a Will to Live, and the Catholic Church provides a form that is in keeping with Catholic teaching (more information can be requested here).

 A commenter to our previous post suggested boycotting Florida tourism and products.

 This is a long term strategy. Some of us may need to rethink our childrearing practices. I have been dismayed by how easily it seems the police officers followed orders to guard the hospice from any water-bearing trespassers, how easily it seems the employees at the hospice went along with parching and starving one of their patients to death. They were following orders. That was also the excuse used by many Nazi soldiers during the Haulocost. According to author Gregory Popcak, Israel sponsored a study to learn the differences between the people who stood by while Jews were being hauled off to concentration camps and those people who defended them. The prominent difference between the two groups was how they were raised. Those who were raised in an authoritarian and punitive fashion were more likely to go along with the Nazi regime. Those who were raised by parents who reasoned with them, explained themselves, and welcomed questioning were more likely to defend the Jews. So, in relating to our children, are we raising them to conform absolutely to our authority as parents, or are we raising them to feel comfortable questioning and when called for, going against authority?

 There were some prominent media figures who stood up for Terri and her rights, people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and others. Unfortunately, it seemed to me they got on board too late. My heart just sank when Sean Hannity told of how he had just the night before read the sworn affidavits by Carla Iyer and Heidi Law, who had previously taken care of Terri. He said this on his radio show after Terri had already been without food and water for five days. He had just found out about those affidavits and was giving them as much coverage as he could. But they had been published on BFT for months already. I can’t help but wonder how we might have been able to get this information to him sooner. These prominent talk show hosts can help us a lot, but they need to be brought on board much sooner if possible.

 Continue to remember Terri and tell her story. Don’t let people forget what happened to her. Keep society aware. We are not shoving this under the rug and moving on.

 Several people commented that we need to demand Governor and President Bush to explain their ineffectiveness in saving Terri’s life, particularly why they chose to not use their executive authority to protect her. A question was raised as to how President Bush is able to liberate women under duress around the world and yet was unable to save a woman under severe duress within his borders. I realize both Governor and President Bush were placed in difficult situations and did put forth substantial effort on Terri’s behalf. I can logically understand their reasons for limiting their involvement. However, I can’t help but think that what is going to be remembered is that they did not act effectively to uphold Terri’s constitutional rights.

 Several people have suggested that we begin legislative efforts to protect life in non criminal cases. Right now, convicted criminals get lots of legal protection and will not be executed until they have been given every legal opportunity to have their death sentence repealed. This is a very good thing, and we have been warned against impuning our legal system for this. However, this thorough protection needs to be extended to those in hospitals and nursing homes who are unable to control their own fate.

 Another commenter suggested there needs to be reform in the area of accepted diagnosis and how to determine the right to live or die when no documentation of the patient’s wishes is present. For example, I believe it should be mandatory for a complete battery of tests to be performed to obtain an accurate diagnosis (as was not done for Terri). It should also be mandatory that during the time it takes to make these life and death determinations by whatever means, the patient in question receive adequate and complete rehabilitative therapy and that the results of that therapy be admitted as evidence in the final decision. My opinion is that had Terri been given adequate therapy during the past 10 years or so, there would not have been any controversy over her mental state, or her tenacious desire to live. It would have been obvious to everyone that she was present with us and wanted to live.

 A simple matter that some have already started doing: refer to Terri by her maiden name of Schindler, rather than by her husband’s name.

 Terri’s death is not the first of its type (HT: Marie) in our nation. The wheels of euthanasia have started to turn years ago and have no doubt gained some momentum with Terri’s death. This may be an uphill battle for a while.

 Of course, there is the overall problem of judicial tyranny, which needs to be addressed. After all, what use will all the legislative effort in the world be if judges choose to simply ignore that legislation as they did with Congress’ emergency measure on Palm Sunday to grant Terri a new trial? As a society, we need to be more willing to question judges and hold them accountable for their decisions. Certainly, our legislative and executive branches need to be proactive about reigning in activist judges.

 Finally, one thing that disheartened me during the intensity of trying to restore Terri’s water and food was the realization that there didn’t seem to be adequate communication or teamwork among all the various organizations fighting for Terri’s life. During the time that we were still hoping for the Florida legislature to come through for Terri, there was a list of ten senators that we were targeting for phone and letter campaigns. After this list had been posted on BFT for over a day, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was interviewed on Sean Hannity’s radio show. Dr. Dobson mentioned that there were some senators who were more open to persuasion. A caller asked if there was a list anywhere and Dr. Dobson didn’t even know who the key senators were. It wasn’t long before Randall Terry weighed in with the same list posted on his website, but still, the fact that BFT had that list posted and other key players in this fight weren’t aware of it bothered me. When I was emailing all my friends to invite them to help out in this struggle, I sent several emails to Dr. Dobson inviting him to coordinate his efforts with ours. I finally got a response the day before Terri died thanking me for standing up for Terri and informing me that they would pass along my letter. I share this not to disparage any of the great people fighting for Terri, but to point out that communication and teamwork among all of us was lacking. In future cases like this (make no mistake, there will be future cases), I would like to see some thought put into how we can truly coordinate our efforts and all work together. I will certainly be happy to pass along any suggestions you have.

This is the list I have come up with of ways to address the societal problems that have come to light through Terri’s tragic ordeal. Please let me know if I have left anything out; my goal is to have as complete a list as possible compiled in one place. Also, this is meant to be a brainstorm, where all ideas are put on the table. Feel free to voice your disagreement to any one of these ideas, but let’s not lose focus by getting sidetracked on a side issue. At some point in the very near future, we are going to need to decide where we want our organized efforts to focus. Some of us may individually take on other causes, and you choose the issue that you are most passionate about. I believe we will be most effective in uniting around one or two focal points. Once we are satisfied with the results, we can choose another area and focus on that.

Once we choose where and how we are going to organize our efforts, it is important that we take the time to learn who else is already working on this problem and work with them, rather than try to reinvent the wheel. For example, there already is a group of people working on reforming the Florida guardianship laws. I’m sure there must be hundreds of groups concerned about judicial tyranny. There probably is at least one organization already working on every single issue I brought up. I would appreciate you sending me any links to organizations you know of. Already, we have seen organizations and interest groups representing a wide variety of concerns uniting around the goal of saving Terri and others like her. We can definitely continue to build on and improve that momentum.

Thank you to everyone for all your hard work in trying to save Terri. Thank you for not giving up when she died. We are involved in a very important effort, and we want to do everything we can to help our effort succeed.

Pope John Paul II

2005-04-02T14:33:00.000-07:00

Pope John Paul II died today. I got the news from BlogsForTerri. I think it is significant that he died the same week Terri Schindler was murdered. He will be greatly missed.

Terri's Legacy

2005-04-01T07:30:00.000-07:00

This beautiful tribute to Terri Schindler was posted yesterday in Cait's Oz Blog. I couldn't have said it better myself.
HT: BlogsForTerri

This is a day that holds a promise of better times to come.

In the midst of a war on the beauty and mystery of life itself a new power has emerged to oppose the darkness of a philosophy
that sees only misery where there is joy and desolation where there is hope.

There was joy in the vision of Terri with her family - a glimpse of love that refused to despair and never grew weary.

It inspired me, and I know it has inspired thousands and perhaps millions of others to stand firm in the face of an onslaught against life that defies all reason.

There is a new unity of purpose amongst us. In future it won't merely be demonstrations to protest against judicial and state sponsored acts of murder. The advocates of life will be found everywhere its sanctity is threatened - in Congress, in Parliaments, in courts, in hospitals - in every institution where issues of life are debated and decided.

There will be ordinary people who had never aspired to anything more than a peaceful, quiet life, studying and joining the battle as lawyers, politicians, doctors and nurses.

For every legal representative of satan like George Felos there will be a representive of God - an opposing counsel with the power of words and wisdom to confound every transparent and disingenuous argument they present.

For every doctor like Ronald Cranford who seeks the death of those entrusted to his care, there will be a doctor who seeks to heal and relieve.

A Nobel Prize winning doctor, an atheist, once accompanied a pilgrimage to the Marian Shrine at Lourdes. He was caring for a girl who was as close to death as it's possible to be without dying. She was so ill she could not be taken to the baths so the healing water was poured on to her stomach in her room at the Sanitarium where she was housed. This doctor saw a massive tubercular tumour resolve spontaneously before his eyes. His name was Alexis Carrel, author of Man The Unknown. The miracle he witnessed restored his faith.

Terri's patron saint, Theresa of Lisieux, promised a shower of roses after her death. "After my death, I will let fall a shower of roses. I will spend my heaven doing good upon earth. I will raise up a mighty host of little saints. My mission is to make God loved..."

Shortly after her death, the rain of roses began. Cures of painful and fatal diseases and many other miraculous experiences were attributed to her intercession. People found peace and a warmth of spirit and confidence.

The "little way" of St Theresa transfomed the lives of milions and has inspired great deeds and achievements. Similarly, the life of Theresa Schindler will let fall a shower of roses, a shower of grace given to God's little ones who will find the strength to oppose and defeat the evil that seeks to usurp His authority over life and death.

That will be the legacy of Terri Schindler.

Terri is dead

2005-03-31T12:29:00.000-07:00

After 14 days of torture, Terri Shindler-Schiavo finally succumbed to her court ordered execution by dehydration and starvation this morning.

The judicial branch of our government ordered an innocent disabled citizen to be summarily executed in the most horrendous manner.

Terri held on as long as she could. Many people who had the power to end her torture and save her life were given repeated opportunities do so. They turned down all opportunities. I think this is significant. Many judges in Florida and Atlanta, as well as on the US Supreme Court have blood on their hands.

Quite a few legislators in Florida also have Terri's death on their conscience. They may appear to be moving on, but they carry this crime with them.

Every single police officer who guarded the Woodside Hospice is tainted. These are the people who faithfully guarded Terri's room and searched her family to make sure they didn't smuggle in any water or food for Terri. These are the people who arrested the protestors who attempted to walk into the Hospice carrying water to offer to Terri. I wonder how they go home to their families every day. I wonder how they even sleep at night.

People at the Woodside Hospice are also implicated in Terri's death. After all, they were the ones who actually carried out the procedures that lead to Terri's death.

The US Congress made the most valiant effort to save Terri, in my opinion. Still, I think the presence of people in the Congress who wanted Terri dead may have hindered the emergency bill passed on Palm Sunday from truly being effective. They all know who they are, and they too have blood on their hands.

There has been much debate over whether or not the Bush brothers ought to have intervened despite the court orders and despite what the procedures were. I don't have a real answer to that question. When Jeb Bush attempted to send in the DCF to take custody of Terri last Wednesday, Judge Greer was tipped off and he responded by issuing a broad restraining order, which the police force of Pinellas Park pledged to uphold. Any further action on Jeb Bush's part could have lead to a showdown at the hospice leading to violence. I can understand why he backed down, but I can't say I respect that decision. Both a governor and a president take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution prominently states that all people have an inaleable right to life. Terri's inaleable right to life was not upheld by either her governor or her president. In that respect, neither Jeb Bush, nor George Bush fully lived up to their oaths to uphold the Constitution. In the end, they too allowed Terri to die.

Although I tried to save Terri's life by calling on the people who had any real authority to use it, in the end she still died. Should I have done more? What do I do now? Am I in some way responsible for her death as well? I mean, how did we get to this point as a nation, where our government can order the death of an innocent citizen? What do ordinary citizens like Terri's parents do when evil people are in power? What does your voice matter when activist judges can flip off Congress, the governor and the president?

Terri Schiavo is dead, killed by court order. In America. This is only the beginning of something truly awful.

We can't bring Terri back. But for the sake of our children we must fight this "something truly awful" the forces of the Culture of Death are hoping to usher in with her death. Please do not give up this fight. Take the time to mourn. Then find your place in this war and fight for all you're worth. As always, much more information can be found at BlogsForTerri.

Cross-posted at BlogsForTerri

Sorrow

2005-03-26T22:15:00.000-07:00

All appeals for Terri have been exhausted. Her parents have decided not to file any more appeals. What's the use anyway, the judges just keep saying no. Things life E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E don't matter in the slightest to them. Hey, if the media repeats PVS often enough, doesn't that make it true? Terri's breathing is becoming more labored. Just how long can someone last without water anyway? Even someone with such a passionate desire to live as Terri Schiavo. No one can ever tell me this woman did not want to live. No one can ever tell me this woman did not have something to tell us. A message we will never hear in this life.

Earlier in the week one of Rush Limbaugh's callers said it best: Regardless of the outcome, Terri's life has more meaning than all those judges. The caller went on to say how her ordeal shows us that all the stuff that goes on in between elections really does matter, especially which judges get appointed.

Terri's life has so much meaning. I've worked to bring her justice for the past few weeks, and I know it has fundamentally and deeply changed me. I can't quite say how, but I know I am not the same person I once was. It's as if I just woke up from a coma to a world where it is legal to subject our most vulnerable citizens to death by dehydration. I learned today that Terri Schiavo's case is not the first in this country. It will not be the last. I wish I didn't know this, but I know that indifference to this could cost my life or that of my loved ones.

The right-to-die people today are saying this is a situation that should stay within a family, as opposed to being dragged through the courts. It won't be long before they try to wrest that decision away from the family. This is a step in the relentless march of the Culture of Death, and it is only a step.

Many things need to change in our country, and I have so many ideas going through my mind as to where I can dedicate my energy. No doubt, those ideas will soon coalesce into concrete thoughts and a plan of action.

But for now, I am broken-hearted beyond what I can describe. I never had the priviledge of meeting Terri. I was so hoping she would finally be given the chance to receive the therapy she'd long been denied, and recover her ability to communicate beyond a few basic words. I know she has an incredible story to tell. I believe she has been conscious and with us these past fifteen years, fully aware of everything that's gone on, yet unable to tell us. I have so longed to hear what it is that has sustained her through those long years of living in limbo, where everyone who believed in her was barred from helping her, and the only one who had any power used it to torment her. I believe it was her relationship with Jesus that sustained her through her life of suffering. She must be so close to Him, as He has been the only one who could truly listen to her thoughts these long years. I was hoping one day I would get a glimpse of her inner life and in that way learn something about my own life.

Instead the forces of evil in this world who want to destroy everything good are almost at the point of silencing Terri Schiavo forever--at least in this life. These are the same forces that crucified Jesus 2,000 years ago. He had never done anything hurtful to anyone. He was the ultimate expression of love. And evil could only respond in one way: KILL. Everything beautiful and noble must be destroyed. Terri is beautiful and amazing and vulnerable. For that, she must die in one of the most cruel ways imaginable.

"A sword shall pierce your heart." Those were Simeon's words to Mary the day she brought Baby Jesus into the temple for his circumcision. Thirty-three years later, she would watch helplessly as the Roman soldiers, egged on by the crowds, subjected her beloved son to a barbaric, shameful death. I ask her in these next days to embrace Mary Schindler as she witnesses the death of her daughter. This is a sorrow that is too deep and too heartrending to bear alone. Only a mother who has gone through it can understand what it is like. It is a sorrow no mother should ever have to endure. I am a mother myself and just the thought horrifies me.

What a horrible, cruel world we live in. Such a world in need of redemption. Terri was a bright light in this world. People who knew her always talk about the way she laughed. Even while she lay starving, she joked with her parents. Now she cries. She knows what's happening to her. It wasn't supposed to end this way.

But Terri has left her mark on all of us. I know that in some way, I will hold her in my heart for the rest of my life.

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-26T21:02:00.000-07:00

In response to my letter

2005-03-26T06:26:00.000-07:00

In response to my letter to my congresscritters, ADamiani responded in textbook case of how to post a polite disagreement on someone else's blog:

ADamiani said...

Wait-- in what way, precisely, are the judges violating the law? The passage of an extraordinary measure wresting the case out of the hands of the states was intended to grant the parents the right to petition for a de novo hearing to determine if Terry Schaivo's (sic) medical rights had been violated. They have not been denied this. The parents further petitioned for a temporary restraining order premised-- in their filing- on alleged process violations by Judge Greer (among other grounds), rather than Public Law 109.3. These were found to be without merit-- essentially that there was no grounds for appeal. This ruling has been upheld in its each successive court it has been appealed to.

The Judiciary branch is, by intent, the final authority on what the laws passed by congress and the president actually mean, and where they apply. That is in many ways its primary, perhaps only function. This has been the case since Marbury v. Madison, over 200 years ago. Are you seriously advocating removing an entire branch of government -- on both the federal and state level-- because you don't agree with their decisions? Supreme Court justices are life appointments, constitutionally speaking, they cannot be removed without ignoring the plaintext of that document. What you suggest is tantamount to suggesting we overthrow the president or dissolve congress on policy grounds.

Don't you think you might be taking this a tiny bit too far?

I think that's worth a thread in and of itself. I see two major points to address here. First, without quibbling over phrasing, why do I think the law was violated here, and second, do I really think it's a good idea to remove an entire branch of our government?

As to the first question, within the way our legal system works right now, I'll freely admit it's not possible to say that any judge has violated any law by any ruling. If a law says "this shall happen" and a judge interprets it to mean "this shall not happen", who can challenge them? They, after all, decide the meaning of the law, the extent of its application, and the consequences. That is the practical result of the idea that the judiciary has the final say over what the law means and how it applies. The same would be true no matter what branch of the government had the absolute final say.

If my analysis stays entirely within the current legal thought system, then I cannot come to the conclusion that anything has gone wrong here, or in any other case that has ever or will ever occur. A judge handed down his judgement, and that's the way it is.

Reading over that last paragraph, I realize it's starting to sound pedantic, even a little sarcastic, but that's genuinely not my intent. If I can think of a better way to write these thoughts, I'll replace what I just wrote. I'm only trying to state the cold, hard reality of limiting my analysis to the thought-process of systematic legal thinking. I'm a scientist, and in my work I deal strictly with the consequences of putting biological materials under defined chemical conditions. Within that system of thinking, it's not possible for me to say that I love my wife, or that a confluent monolayer of BHK-21 cells is beautiful. Both are true, but they have no meaning within the thinking of science. In the same way, the current legal process of thinking does not allow for the idea that a judge violated any law by any ruling. (A higher court judge can overturn a ruling, but that's not the same thing - until they do so, the lower court ruling is the law of the land, and there's no legal consequence for having gotten it wrong.)

So my sense that something has gone wrong here has to do with something outside the accepted process of generating legal rulings. The same is true of the sense that caused Congress to make an extraordinary attempt at intervention (after all, as you point out in another comment, many judges had already sided with Michael Schiavo). Now that I come to think of it, the same is true of any time Congress makes a new law. If the current law can and does cover all situations (which is one of assumptions judges make in scouring the legal texts to determine a ruling) then what point is there in making new ones? (Okay, idea for yet another thread - the fact that each branch of government operates on the basis of very different assumptions, and it is the contradictions between these assumptions that leads to their conflicts, and that it is the recognition of the differences of assumption that avoids a sort of war between the branches and allows the balancing of powers. But I'm drifting off topic. The point of this paragraph was an introduction to my stepping outside the processes and procedures of U.S. courts and asking the more general question, what is law and what do we expect of it?)

So, stepping outside of the current U.S. legal system in order to analyze the source of my current nausea, I have to ask what is law, anyway? I've mused about this somewhat before, and the thought that is relevant here is that law is simply the expectations of a society, codified. All societies have expectations for behavior, but why bother writing them down? Not, I think, for the sake of justice, but for the sake of predictability. Writing down the expectations gives everyone the chance to find out beforehand if they do x, the consequence will be y. No one has to be in the dark about the likely outcome of deciding to do things a little differently.

In the decliningly Christian West, we have the additional cultural expectation that our laws will not only whimsically decide utterly trivial questions like which side of the road everyone is expected to drive on, but will increasingly reflect Justice with a capital J, the Higher Moral Standard with a capital HMS. This adds a substantial burden to our thinking about laws and legal proceedings because in addition to the question "What does the law say?" we automatically ask the question "and is that Right and Just and Good?"

Hmmm, my next paragraph was a lengthy defense of the idea that no matter how detailed the laws of a particular culture, there will always be ways to cheat the system by using the rules of the system. And adding to that the difficulty that our English language is capable of such frightening subtlety and flexibility that no matter how tightly you wrap a legal net around a person, they can always rhetorically pry apart some of the strands to force an arm through (or Terri Schiavo's case wouldn't have gone all the way through the federal system to the Supreme Court, what, three times now? Or is it four?). And that this is part of the reason it is so important to pay attention to the recognizeable intent of the law as well as the strict phrasing. Well, this is getting lengthy enough. Maybe I'll spin off another post on that subject.

So to answer your first question, "in what way, precisely, are judges violating the law?", I have to say that they are violating the expectations of our society from which those laws arise. We expect all evidence to be weighed in small matters, and far more so in cases of life and death. In a very real sense, the case of Terri Schiavo has been about the question of whether new evidence should be weighed in a new hearing or not, especially when a judge has already made a decision. We expect those with conflicts of interest to either resign them or step aside (recuse themselves - is that the legal term?) from a position of decisionmaking authority. We expect hearsay evidence to be given a very light weight in comparison to objective, measurable facts. We expect judges to avoid cherry-picking the testimony of supposedly disinterested professional observers. We expect that standard medical tests will be performed and the results applied to actual legal and medical definitions when deciding medical cases.

All of those expectations, and more, have been violated. From Congress' perspective, I think they expected her feeding tube to be reinserted and that the evidence that went unconsidered by Greer would be given the weight it would normally receive. (Of course, cynical representatives may have done exactly what they needed to do to bring about this outcome, satisfying the courts that they are unchallenged, and at the same time convincing us unsophisticated JesusLanders that they really did hear us - I don't dismiss the possibility out of hand.) That expectation was dismissed so brutally that I think Congress has little choice but to conclude that their law was broken - broken like a stick.

Since I'm running out of time here, I'll try to be more brief with your second question. "Are you seriously advocating removing an entire branch of government -- on both the federal and state level-- because you don't agree with their decisions?" The answer is "no" to a couple of different senses of the question, and "yes" to one way of looking at it.

Simply because I don't agree with their decisions? No, but that's not what I think is happening here. I don't simply think they have made a bad decision, which can happen to anyone, I think they have violated the basic assumptions and expectations that our law - and indeed, their power within the system - is built on.

On both the federal and state level? Not really, I think state-level judges are generally a bit more circumspect about their roles and the limitations on their power (having to run for election injects a certain humility). It takes a special kind of state judge to laugh and flip the bird at a Congressional subpoena.

Removing an entire branch? No, I don't think that's necessary, but I don't have any problem with removing the people in that branch who have violated the basic foundations of our assumed social contract ("we hold these truths to be self-evident", as an example of the assumed social contract). Every branch of government over time has assumed to itself powers not strictly (or even remotely) granted by the constitution. The Judiciary's claim to final authority over all interpretation and extent of laws is just one example. I rather doubt the founding fathers intended the President to be able to commit massive numbers of soldiers to invading another country without ever asking for a declaration of war from Congress. I rather doubt they would have nodded their heads in sage agreement at the wisdom of Congress in maintaining a legal state of emergency for decades so they could (legally) spend money well beyond revenue. The arrogant actions of the Executive Branch in Viet Nam produced significant rips in the fabric of our society, and very much threatened the ability of that branch to later perform military actions foreseen constitutionally. We're still repairing the damage from that fiasco. The current arrogance in the judiciary threatens the same sort of damage (I think worse). And eventually Congressional arrogance over spending may put us in a hole we can't climb out of.

The violations of the well-developed expectations of our society by any branch of government cause real and serious damage to the fabric of our society. We've had one President resign over the damage he caused, and numerous legislators have been forced to leave office before they got to the point where they could cause irreparable harm. I don't see anything special about the Judiciary in this matter.

Although I've answered "no, but" to most senses of your question, I have to answer yes to one of them. Do I advocate massive intervention? Sure, if that's what it takes. Our whole system is based on a massive intervention where the executive branch was downgraded from King to President. I don't see anything special about the Judiciary in this matter either.

What I don't advocate is pretending that the system is working as expected. I don't really care what the solution is, as long as it isn't playing pretend. I'd be perfectly happy to see the entire Supreme Court removed and replaced over this. Since I think part of the problem is that legalese has become divorced from the situations that cause legislators to call for new laws, I'd be perfectly happy to hear the President say "Since the Courts seem to lack the education necessary to understand the plain message of the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, I'm withdrawing all of my judicial nominees and replacing their names with current sitting Senators and Representatives, so we'll have people who understand how and why the laws were passed." (If someone who wanted to be a Federal judge had to get themselves elected to a legislative office first, I think that would weed out a lot of idiots.) I'd be perfectly happy to see a fourth branch of government, one that in late-night homebrew tasting sessions I've called the "Fifth Grade Branch", meaning a branch of government that has the authority to study whether a given law is understandable to the average fifth grader, and if not, to declare it unconstitutional as written.

You see, the greatest danger that I see looming isn't that Terri Schiavo has been treated unjustly, but that most of us see the legal system as highly unpredictable. The law is just our expectations, codified. And if the legal system consistently comes up with rulings that leave people scratching their heads, it is doomed to collapse from sheer lack of support. Anarchy is far more dangerous to us than a single unjust Judge Greer, but men like him are smilingly waving us down a very dark road.

What is the next step?

2005-03-26T05:14:00.000-07:00

This has been a brutal, bitter hard week for anyone trying to save Terri Schiavo from cruel and powerful men. There are still a few chances left, and I am thankful and heartened to see the Schindler family still pursuing those options. Who knows, some powerful person may yet find the courage to act justly.

But if the cowardly delaying tactics of courts and legislators succeed in their clear aim of murdering Terri Schiavo, I want to ask my fellow bloggers not to give up this fight. There are helpless others who will soon have the knives at their throats, and we can't simply leave them to the mercy of men like Greer.

So what do we do for the next target of judicial homicide? In spite of the callous recalcitrance of the courts, there are some encouraging events we need to build on. I want to ask for help figuring out what went right, as well as what went wrong, so we can be more effective more quickly. (Blogs For Terri can't take comments right now because of the current massive traffic, but when the media has lost interest and the trolls have moved their graffiti efforts to other blogs, we need to have a longer conversation about this. In the meantime, you're welcome to leave comments on our blog and I'm sure any of the other blogs on the BFT blogroll.)

First encouraging sign, there is evidence that the much-overused dichotomy between Left and Right has bent and cracked in this case. Had we been able to break through the consistent media mantra that Terri is PVS, it might have shattered completely.

Second, both the Legislative and Executive branches of our federal government came together in an extraordinary fashion to try to break through judicial stonewalling. And it wasn't a party-line vote, either.

Third, there have been some judges - not enough yet, but we need to acknowledge them - who tried to stop this insanity. Is there any way we can give them a louder voice?

It will obviously be tempting to focus entirely on what (we think) went wrong. Strategies could have been modified, statements could be worded slightly differently. There is a lot of talk even now about this legal phrase, that legal twist, some other slight variation on the scenario that might have tipped the balance. Personally, I'm unconvinced that slight variations on the theme would have been enough. The recalcitrance of the courts has to be dealt with on a deeper, longer-term level.

We've made some important allies here and seen some extraordinary events. I would appreciate ideas on how to build on those advances for the next time a judge's hands are at the throat of an innocent helpless disabled person.

Cross-posted on BFT.

Email Media Outlets

2005-03-25T20:21:00.000-07:00

Contact Florida DCF

2005-03-25T15:17:00.000-07:00

This comes right from BFT.

March 25, 2005
DCF Contact Information -ACTION ALERT
SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE! ACTION ALERT! DCF ANSWERED ON THE FIRST RING!

That shouldn't be happening! Tell people to pressure DCF to take Terri into protective custody! They told Greer they didn't need his permission- make them act!

Contact info for DCF

Lucy D. Hadi, Secretary 1317 Winewood Blvd.Building 1, Room 202Tallahassee, Florida32399-0700 Phone: (850) 487-1111
Email: dcf-osc@dcf.state.fl.us

HT: Jacqueline

What Terri is Enduring

2005-03-25T06:50:00.000-07:00

The following are notes taken from another time that Terri's feeding tube was removed. This is very similar to what she is enduring now.
HT: Sherri.

On Oct. 27, 2003, Michael Schiavo, the husband of the cognitively disabled Florida woman, Terri Schindler-Schiavo, appeared on Larry King Live to explain why he was fighting so hard to remove his wife’s feeding tube.
His appearance was only days after the Florida legislature intervened to have Terri’s feeding tube reinserted for the second time in two years.
Michael Schiavo insisted that he wanted to help his wife "die with dignity." He told King: "It’s painless, and probably the most natural way to die. It is a very easy way to die — probably the second best way to die, the first being an aneurysm."

At the same time he was speaking on national television, Terri’s medical file contained a document prescribing for her a slow and painful death by starvation and dehydration. Called an "Exit Protocol," the document contains explicit instructions for how Terri will be treated during the grisly series of events that will occur should the courts decide to withdraw her feeding tube. Terri’s fate remains an active issue in both the Florida state and U.S. federal courts.

The nurse who discovered the Exit Protocol, Cheryl Ford, R.N., a Tampa nurse, was reviewing Terri’s medical file at the request of the Schindler family when she found the document. For the benefit of our readers, Ford agreed to explain this document in detail. [Editor’s note: The protocol, in bold print, is followed by Ford’s comments.]

• Patient Care Notes— The Hospice of Florida Suncoast — 4/19/01 — Clinical Pharmacy — Re: Medication review and symptom management. The patient is a 37-year-old woman in a vegetative state with no apparent signs of distress. Enteral tube-feeding to be discontinued on 4/20/01.

"This is a very critical piece of information from a nurse’s point of view," Ford said. "We have a patient with no apparent signs of distress, yet enteral tube feeding is going to be discontinued on 4/20/01. This is murder. And it’s premeditated murder, because look at the dates — notes were prepared the day before the tube was supposed to be withdrawn."

What would make the death more difficult is that Terri is a healthy woman, weighing approximately 138.5 pounds, which means she will endure longer than other patients who are in the midst of a natural-death process.

"I was an oncology (cancer) nurse," Ford said. "These people are very weak and gaunt. Their bodies are already shutting down, and their tube feedings are withdrawn when their body systems can no longer handle it. But Terri is not a cancer patient — that’s what bothers me. She’s a healthy young woman."

• Upon discontinuation of enteral feeding the following signs/symptoms may or may not occur. The following is a brief list of symptoms for which to monitor and recommended interventions.

• Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn ["Q8 prn" means eight times a day as needed]. If someone in a persistent vegetative state cannot feel pain, as Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos, have consistently told the world, why do Terri’s charts tell nurses how to treat her for pain?

According to Ford, that is because Terri can and will feel pain during this process — and a lot of it. "Think about what hunger pains are like if you haven’t eaten in a while," Ford said. "You start to get that gnawing feeling, almost a burning in your stomach. Most people don’t extend themselves into the depths of hunger. They grab a cracker or bread if they’re out shopping for a while just to make themselves feel better." Terri would not have this option, however. "Within several hours, she’ll start to feel this kind of hunger pain," Ford said.
Dehydration would only add to the discomfort: "When she starts going into the dehydration stage, her metabolism will start to change. Her electrolytes will get imbalanced. She’s going to get uncomfortable and will start to writhe. "Advance a couple days without food or water. Now her mouth is parched, her lips, her gums, her tongue will start to crack and bleed. The nasal cavities will start to dry, crack and bleed. The stomach will get dry and shrink, causing vomiting and heaving," Ford said.

• Pulmonary (a) Inability to clear secretions — reposition and swab mouth, consider scopolamine patch behind ear every 3 days. "When you first go into dehydration, your body will automatically compensate by making saliva. But when she gets into the stage where the stomach shrinks and nausea begins, they’re going to stick a patch behind her ear for the nausea. What the patch also does is dehydrate you by taking away this fluid."

(b) Dyspnea — nebulize low dose 2-5 mg. Morphine sulfate Q4 prn [four times a day as needed]. "Dyspnea is when you have difficulty breathing. What they’re going to do is use a nebulizer the way you might use for asthmatics — only instead of giving a histamine to help her breathe, they’re going to give Terri morphine sulfate, which only suppresses respiration more. In the later phases she’ll start gasping for air."

In seven to nine days, as most of her body fluids are lost, her blood pressure will go down and her heart rate will rise. The blood will be shunted to the central part of the body from the periphery of the body, so that usually two to three days prior to death, the hands and feet become extremely cold. They become mottled and have a bluish appearance. The eyes will become so dry the patient can’t move them anymore because there will be fluid in them.

• Multifocal myoclonus or terminal agitation [sometimes caused by electrolyte imbalance]. Consider diazepam rectal administration 5-10 mg. May repeat in 4 hours if not resolved then daily — twice daily as needed.

Multifocal myoclonus means seizures taking place in various parts of the body. "Because of the electrolyte imbalance, Terri will begin to have seizures," Ford said. "She’ll start to twitch. You don’t see this in an oncology patient because they’re already dehydrated. Even the elderly, who are going into the natural process of death, their bodies are doing what God created them to do — slow down.

"Our job as health-care professionals at this point is to understand the death process and to oblige the process God has given these people to help them in comfort measures — palliative care — not to enhance death. But Terri’s not terminal," Ford said. "What they’re doing here is starving a healthy person to death. This is the only reason why she’ll go into multifocal myoclonus."

• Grand Mal seizure, which is highly unlikely given current conditions and lack of contributing factors (meds) [medication]. Recommend diazepam 15 mg. rectally as indicated in seizure management orders.

"If she happens to make it into a grand mal seizure, they will give her 15 mg. of valium. … The valium won’t make this easier, it will just help to bring her to death faster, because she won’t have the ability to fight her way out of it," Ford said. "Her body will not be in good shape at this point. You wouldn’t look at her and say she was comfortable. She’s been without food and water for a long time. She’s pretty much withered, her skin is broken down, her metabolism is broken down, her kidneys haven’t received anything. Her body is reacting to the lack of food." At this point, death is imminent.

During the Oct. 2003 tube withdrawal, Ford saw Terri before the process began. "They started off by dressing her in wool sweaters and long pants, then wrapped her in a wool blanket — to ‘sweat her out’ — to make her deyhdrate faster," Ford said. She was horrified, especially because it was only October and it’s still hot in Florida in October.

"This is not a painless or dignified way to die," Ford said. "It’s against the law to dehydrate and starve to death a prisoner on death row. Why should we allow it to be done to a disabled woman — or anybody?" The cruelty Ford has seen Terri endure is "not even believable," she said. "In this case, Dr. Kevorkian would be more humane than what they intend to do to Terri."

Contact Susan Brinkmann at fiat723@aol.com or (215) 965-4615.

Well Said, Ann!

2005-03-24T12:01:00.000-07:00

I couldn't say it better. Here is Ann Coulter's argument for why Florida Governor Jeb Bush should intervene and immediately take Terri Schiavo into protective custody despite opposition from Judge Greer.

Why Bush even bothered to seek permission to intervene from Judge Greer is beyond me! It's like asking Scott Peterson (convicted of brutally murduring his wife and child) to set the parameters for his trial and sentencing! How about Governor Bush just step down and appoint Judge Greer to be governor instead. I mean, it's obvious who has the real power!

Governor Bush can be reached at 850-488-4441. Email him at jeb.bush@myflorida.com . Ask him to intervene and take Terri into protective custody. More information on BFT.

Terri Schiavo is being slowly tortured to death. Going on seven days without food and water. Note to all those slimy "experts" who crawled out of the woodwork to tell us all how serene and euphoric death by dehydration is: You try it, and give me your blow by blow account of how it feels.

Do not allow this to stand

2005-03-23T10:21:00.000-07:00

My letter to my Senator (since all the phone lines are jammed):

This cannot be allowed to stand.

~~Three~~ Thirteen judges have tried to crush a law passed by Congress and signed by the President asking them to do as the voters have requested: consider all the evidence available in deciding the Terri Schiavo case.

The judiciary must learn that "independent" does not mean "unaccountable". They cannot simply decide that they do not have to follow a law. They cannot simply decide that following a few procedures negates the law intended to protect the innocent. They cannot simply decide that they can afford to delay a reckoning because the star witness will likely die during the delay.

And the Legislative and Executive Branches can no longer afford to ignore the Judicial culture that has set itself up as the whimsical final authority over what Congress and the President mean by the laws passed.

Do not allow this to stand.

I support any largely nonviolent means you may take to bring these judges in front of Congress, expose their judicial arrogance and incompetence, and permanently remove them from the practice of law. Undoubtedly lawyer-judges will argue that any procedure undertaken is not lawful -- I really don't care. We do not allow the accused to be the trial judge, and these judges should not be allowed to stand in judgement of procedures designed to curb their arrogance and incompetence. If you have to remove the entire Supreme Court all at once, including Justice Scalia, do it. Some will complain of a "chilling effect" on justices. I do not want a chilling effect. I want judges locked in glaciers, frozen with fear of making judgements contrary to the purpose and principles of the laws we the voters ask you the congress to pass.

Terri Schiavo is starving. Do not allow this to stand.

PleasePleasePlease

2005-03-23T09:55:00.000-07:00

From Brian J. Noggle...

Pleasepleaseplease do not reach a precedent-setting judicial decision based on what the blogosphere says.

Agreed. And pleasepleaseplease do not reach a judicial decision based on what Congress says.

Or the President.

Or the voters who keep calling their representatives.

Or heaven forbid, the actual laws violated here.

And the worst possible thing of all would be to look at all the evidence. We really cannot have that. Please.

<Do I really need the /sarcasm tag?>

Postscript: Sarcasm directed at the judges, not Noggle. But there are plenty of people under the mistaken impression that the evidence has had its day in court, and their cries of "Let her starve already!" are enabling judges to shirk their duty to weigh evidence, instead of cherry-picking the evidence they like.

Contact Florida Senators!

2005-03-23T07:35:00.000-07:00

Terri Schiavo, who has been without food and water for almost six days now, has been again let down by a Federal Court. The Florida Legislature may be able to help her by passing a bill that will require more compelling evidence of a wish to die in order to remove sustenance. Please go here for a list of key Florida Senators to contact. These Senators need to know where America stands. Please take a few minutes of your time to email them. Then make every effort to contact them by phone.

Terri Schiavo is being tortured to death.

Starving Cows seems to be a crime...

2005-03-22T17:34:00.000-07:00

Hat tip: Amsiriano

Amsiriano comments:
It's World Hypocrisy Day!

March 22, 2005 06:59 A rancher in Florida has
been arrested for starving a bunch of cows. But, hey, let's give this guy a break! After all, maybe he took his cue from what his own state is doing to Terri Schindler.

(AP)IMMOKALEE -- A fourth-generation rancher who said he ran out of money to buy feed for his livestock has been charged with 120 felony counts of animal cruelty, authorities say.

Michael Lee Swails, 47, of Immokalee, was arrested Thursday in connection with the discovery of dead, dying or severely malnourished cows on his ranch last year.

The whole thing's not much longer, but I think you get the point. Was this in Florida? Oh, yes, it was.

Cross-posted at BlogsForTerri.

Judge Stalls, Terri Continues to Starve

2005-03-21T22:43:00.000-07:00

It's worse than I thought. Attorney David Gibbs filed the motion to restore Terri's feeding tube as soon as President Bush signed the emergency bill passed by Congress, and Judge Whittemore didn't hold a hearing until almost 5:30pm EST! Then he declined to rule, and I suppose went home. Terri is starting to get really dehydrated; her skin is cracking.

Either way the judge rules, an appeal will be filed by whoever didn't get their way. However, if the judge doesn't rule, it would be much more complicated to file an appeal. It seems to me this judge is going to wait and wait and hope Terri dies before he gets around to a ruling.

I tell you, our courts have really gotten out of control. Hugh Hewitt (or was it Sean Hannity?) had a great comment on his radio show today, that one result of this whole ordeal is that people are starting to see just how indifferent to evidence and justice our judges have become.

I am starting to get really discouraged. I and many other Americans have worked very hard to contact our Senators and Representatives about our support for Terri. And our elected officials acted on her behalf. The only problem is they threw the ball right back in the judicial court (pun intended). And we have seen again and again that the judges can not be trusted to uphold justice.

The worst feeling is the incredible sense of helplessness. An innocent disabled woman is being killed slowly and painfully and I find myself once again emailing a brick wall. But at least I am in good health and had enough to eat and drink today.

Terri Schiavo is suffering from hunger and dehydration. How much longer can she hang on?

Another Judge to Decide Terri Schiavo's Fate

2005-03-21T07:57:00.000-07:00

Congress worked hard all weekend to come to an agreement, President Bush cut his vacation short to sign a bill, us ordinary citizens spent the entire weekend emailing and calling our congressmen, Governor Bush, President Bush and anyone else we could think of to please spare Terri Schiavo's life. And all for what? So yet another judge could decide whether or not to grant her parents' request to reinsert her feeding tube?

All this hard work just so her fate could be put back in the hands of the courts? There is ample evidence that Judge Greer is corrupt. Yet the Florida DCA refused to grant Terri a stay of execution in order to allow for an investigation. This makes me wonder if the DCA judge(s) isn't also corrupt. What confidence does anyone that this judge in Tampa, Clinton appointee Judge James Whittemore isn't corrupt as well? I'm talking about the judge who gets to decide tday if it's OK to start giving Terri food and water again.

Why must this always be subjected to the courts? Congress issued a federal subpoena which requires Terri to be protected as a witness. I don't have any indication that Congress is enforcing this subpoena. Governor Bush has the authority to take Terri into protective custody via Florida Statute ~~417~~ 415.1051(2). Why isn't he invoking that statute? I understand President Bush has similar authority to protect Terri. I understand he wants to work with Congress and he did sign the bill. Only so the Schindler's attorney can now ask a judge permission to end Terri's torture.

I thought it was a given that once the bill was signed early this morning, Terri's life would automatically be protected while her case is being investigated. Well, only if a judge says so.

Terri has now been hungry and thirsty for four days. Let's hope she can hold out long enough while our government plays lackey to the courts.

Terri Schiavo is being tortured to death.

Latest on Terri Schiavo

2005-03-21T06:26:00.000-07:00

The latest right now is that President Bush has signed the bill to protect her, and AG Alberto Gonzales has been formally asked to initiate an investigation. Please visit BlogsForTerri for more information.

Michael Schiavo Fits the Profile of Abusive Husband

2005-03-20T15:11:00.000-07:00

Go here to find out all about the loving husband who only wants what's best for his wife.

You can find additional supporting documents here.

Keep up with BlogsForTerri for the latest on which congressmen need some extra convincing to pass the incapacitated persons legal protection bill.

Terri Schiavo is being tortured to death.

Terri Groggy and Unresponsive: High fever last night likely due to infection caused by improper removal of the feeding tube

2005-03-20T13:09:00.000-07:00

I copied this directly from BlogsForTerri. Terri is really suffering right now. You would be too if you had no food or water for three days and a high fever.

Terri Groggy and Unresponsive: High fever last night likely due to infection caused by improper removal of the feeding tube
According to a trusted source, Terri developed a high fever last night, most likely due to infection caused by improper removal of the feeding tube... she is groggy and unresponsive, and may not make it much longer.

So PLEASE GET THIS OUT ASAP...DIRECT CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST!!!!
Please if you have a fax machine take a moment and contact by fax the offices of Congressman Robert Wexler: 19th District of Florida - FAX 202 225-5974Email here
and Earl Blumenauer - FAX 202 225-8941, Email here

Their voice mails are already full! These two are going to oppose the legislation today that will save Terri Schiavo. Please stress the following: (copy and paste if needed or write your own message)

This is NOT about interfering in states' rights. It is the job of the Federal Government to ensure that State Law is followed and that Terri Schiavo and others like her receive their right of due process, which to this point, has been denied. The federal amendment will ensure that Terri and other disabled people like her will receive a review of the procedures followed by state courts - a right everyone is entitled to, especially in matters of life and death.

Please stand up for the life of those who are unable to speak for themselves and pass the Incapacitated Persons' Legal Protection Act without delay. To allow Terri to die based on the hearsay testimony of a husband who has abandoned her, a lawyer who is a euthanasia advocate - and a judge who has allowed both state and federal law to be broken would be a gross travesty of justice. Judicial tyranny in this country must end!!

Symbolic Stand for Terri

2005-03-20T06:19:00.000-07:00

Megan, a fellow blogger came up with this brilliant idea: let's send food and water to Terri right at the Hospice where she is currently being starved. You can read more by visiting her blog. Megan does not exactly fit the profile of right-wing pro-life conservative. It's great to welcome her to Terri's cause.

The address where Terri is being kept is:

Woodside Hospice House
6770 102nd Avenue
Pinellas Park, FL 33782-2909
phone (727) 541-4199

A good online grocery store to use is NetGrocer.

BlogsForTerri is on this as well, so you can find updates there.

Terri Schiavo is starving.

Evidence of Impropriety

2005-03-19T17:11:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Related post here on BlogsForTerri.

If you have any doubts that there has been and continues to be some serious legal impropriety in Terri Schiavo's case, check out this series of accounts written by someone who actually worked for Terri's lawyers and knows her parents. Much of the information presented here can be easily corroborated.

This person writes further down that she is pro-choice and supportive of a right to die provided a living will is in place. I mention this just to show that this is not just a cause taken up by the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd.

Terri Schiavo is starving.

Some Concise Facts for Congress

2005-03-19T15:07:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: crossposted at Blogs For Terri.

It's looking like congressional action is the most likely hope for Terri right now. Soon, the US house and senate are going to vote on a compromised bill that will insure Terri gets an appeal in federal courts.

I think it's important to emphasize these facts in contacting our congressmen:

1. Terri has not been given an MRI or PET scan, two tests that are required to properly diagnose PVS. In addition, there is a lot of evidence that she is more responsive than someone in PVS would be. She is reported to have pleaded for her life as best she can the day her feeding tube was removed.
2. Michael Schiavo has been lax on numerous guardianship laws, and therefore, needs to be removed as Terri's guardian.
3. Judge Greer has allowed Michael to be lax on numerous guardianship laws, and therefore, needs to be removed as the judge on her case.
4. There are witnesses who have written court affidavits that indicate Michael has been abusive and neglectful of his wife since her collapse, and possibly even before.
5. Terri has never had a chance to receive appropriate medical care and therapy, per Michael's orders. Therefore, we have no way of knowing what her recovery possibilities are. She ought to at least be given a chance at therapy under her parents' care.

Terri deserves to have all of this and more properly investigated before she is killed. Let's keep contacting our congressmen. They need to hear us.

Terri Schiavo is starving.

Misinformation

2005-03-19T08:21:00.000-07:00

Bobby Schindler, Terri's brother, is asking all of Terri's supporters to keep contacting their representatives and senators all weekend long. Those of you who read this blog, please take a few minutes of your time to ask your congressmen to use their voter-given authority to save Terri's life.

Michael Schiavo's attorney George Felos has already gone on TV asking people who want Terri dead to do the same.

On a slightly different note, I have finally had it with ABC News consistent distortion and misrepresentation of Terri's ordeal. I have contacted my local radio station and asked them to please get rid of ABC News and find a news provider that will actually report news. I have also written to ABC News to register my complaint. I know my little letter won't mean anything unless many others also write their local media outlets with the same request.

We're all doing what we can to get the truth out about Terri, but we are up against a lot of misinformation.

Terri Schiavo is starving.

Disenfranchised

2005-03-18T20:00:00.000-07:00

Well, it's happened again. Not even a congressional subpoena is going to stop a state judge from continuing with his intention to kill Terri Schiavo.

I've been listening to the radio all day, at least the part of the day when I wasn't emailing or trying to call people involved in the case. And every half-hour I have to listen to the news segments decrying how cruel it would be for anyone to force Terri to have her feeding tube reinserted. Never mind that she had to have suffered in getting it removed. How cruel and inconsiderate it would be to force her to undergo any more medical treatment, or even force her to eat. Michael Schiavo's attorney likened the congressional subpoena to thuggery.

You'd think from listening to the news that this congressional subpoena was some last ditch stunt by some publicity-seeking congressman. Actually, the congressmen involved issued the subpoena because I asked them to. No, I didn't ask them to subpoena Terri Schiavo to appear as a witness. It would have never occurred to me. But I did write my representative and senators asking them to do everything they can to save Terri's life. And this subpoena is what they came up with. They would get a chance to interract with Terri first hand and meanwhile she would receive the protection offered federal witnesses. What they did is perfectly legal. My elected officials were doing what I and thousands of other voters were asking them to do: save Terri Schiavo.

So Judge Greer decided to disregard the subpoena, and ordered Terri's feeding tube removed anyway. One judge gets to place himself above the will of the people who elected these congressmen who decided to act based on their constituents' wishes. If this doesn't tell you we have a huge problem with runaway judges, I don't know what will.

It's finally come to the point in this country of government for the people by the people where I cannot do one thing about this travesty. My representative powers as an ordinary citizen are limited to voting, contacting my senators and representatives, contacting other senators and representatives, and writing. And our government was set up such that this ought to be enough. I can't go to Florida and protest what's going on. And I shouldn't have to. The fact that enough of us have contacted our congressmen to prompt them to try to intervene on Terri's behalf should have at least postponed her court ordered starvation.

But it didn't. The courts trump the will of the people. The courts trump the laws of congress. If the courts don't like a law, all they have to do is declare it unconstitutional and that's that. Right now, we have a court in California declaring that California cannot have a law that bans gay marriage. Never mind that this law was on the ballot and passed with an overwhelming majority. Five or fewer judges get to overturn the will of millions of voters. I honestly don't feel that strongly about gay marriage--if the people really want it, then fine, as long as it's the people who want it. But I do resent the judges declaring that the people of California are not allowed to prohibit it by majority rule.

Almost fifteen years ago, I had a conversation with a friend who had been involved in getting a referendum allowing abortion in her state to be overwhelmingly voted down. Initially, it looked like this referendum permitting abortion was going to pass by a majority. She and others organized a phone campaign where they asked people if they knew a few basic facts about pregnancy--things like when the heart starts beating (8 weeks), when the nervous system is formed (12 weeks), and other facts like that. When the referendum went to a vote, it was voted down overwhelmingly. Evidently the phone campaign worked. The voters in that state did not want abortion.

A few months later, Roe vs. Wade was decided. Five judges decided that the will of at least a million voters meant absolutely nothing. I'm sure this happend in other states as well. All that hard work, all the long hours on the phone, all that money spent on the campaign, all those voters who took the trouble to get informed on the issue and vote on it. All for nothing. The courts trump all.

A friend of mine mentioned the Jim Crow laws that caused the African-Americans to suffer discrimination, and many lost their lives to lynch mobs. So I looked it up. It turns out the Supreme Court had a role in that as well. There was a law passed in Congress called the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which provided "That all persons ... shall be entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement." This law at least made a start in upholding the rights of African-Americans to be treated with the respect of citizens. Would you know it, the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional. This opened up the door to lots of discriminatory legislation including the Jim Crow laws. It then took 90 years for African-Americans to be legally protected against discrimination.

A doctor wrote BlogsForTerri earlier today saying that if Terri Schiavo dies, we should contact the office of the Medical Examiner and demand an autopsy to determine both the immediate and proximate cause of her death. Michael Schiavo wants an immediate cremation. If it comes to that, and I pray it doesn't, I will certainly contact the ME. But I know it won't make any difference. Judge Greer will simply order an immediate cremation and that will be that. The courts trump all.

I know as I write this that certain representatives are still at work trying to figure out another way to save Terri's life. There will be some more sessions on Monday. They are trying everything. After all, their constituents have asked them to. Meanwhile, Terri will not be receiving any food or water. No doubt, Judge Greer will disregard whatever else our elected officials try to throw at him.

The question is, will one judge continue to be able to trump the will of the people and our elected officials? Will the courts continue to trump all? Or will this case be what finally sounds the alarm that our judges have gotten out of control? Is there going to be a way to curb their power--power that they have gradually acquired over the course of many years? Or is it too late? Have we ultimately replaced rule by a monarchy under the British with an entrenched judicial tyranny? Maybe.

I am coming to terms with the realization that I have been disenfranchised.

Terri Schiavo is starving.

More Judicial Tyranny

2005-03-18T11:59:00.000-07:00

Judge Greer reinstated the order to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. This is despite the subpoena of Terri as a witness.

It doesn't look like this is final, yet. There are other people involved in trying to sort out the legal stuff. BlogsForTerri is urging us to keep calling the US congressmen.

I'd really like to know where the petition to impeach Judge Greer is at.

Subpoenas Are On Their Way!

2005-03-18T09:40:00.000-07:00

Some good news! I copied this directly from BlogsForTerri:

Subpoenas on Their Way!
Fox News is reporting that House Government Reform Committee lawyers are on their way to Florida to deliver subpoenas to Michael Schiavo, to the Schindlers, (Terri's parents), and to two doctors and the hospice administrator where she now lives. The subpoenas call these people, and Terri, as witnesses and also require that her feeding and hydration not be suspended until they can investigate the case. It is very significant that Terri is named as a witness, because there are laws to protect federal witnesses.

Also, the House and the Senate have delayed their Easter recess to take up these issues.

Florida DCA Says No

2005-03-17T11:37:00.000-07:00

So much for giving the courts a chance. The Florida District Court of Appeals refused to grant a 60 day stay for Terri Schiavo to give the Department of Children and Families adequate time to investigate the evidence of abuse and neglect against Terri.

When I went to the Empire Journal to read the original story, I learned their website was recently hacked and many of their stories about Terri Schiavo were deleted.

All is not lost, however. As I write this, the US senate is going to decide whether to pass the bill the house just passed unanimously--the one that would give disabled people certain rights currently afforded convicted criminals. If the bill passes on time, it should be enough to stop Terri's execution scheduled for tomorrow. Also, there is a lot going on in the Florida legislature. Some bills are in the process of being passed into law there, and Governor Bush will sign them right away. This too could stop Terri's scheduled starvation.

I also heard on the Rush Limbaugh show this morning some comments about the nuclear option. Apparently the Republicans in the US Senate are getting fed up with the Democrats filibustering every single judicial nominee that Bush has appointed. Some Democrat senators are joining up with moveon.org to get that killed. Hey, the liberals can't win elections and they can't pass legislation, so all they have left is foisting their wishes on us through their activist judges. And it's these activist judges that are really wreaking havoc on society. I, your humble blogger, am certainly sick of these activist judges, in Florida and elsewhere.

Please keep up with BlogsForTerri to get the latest news on her case. There's a lot going on, and Richard and Tim are doing an amazing job of staying on top of it.

There's Still Hope

2005-03-15T13:52:00.000-07:00

The Florida Department of Children and Families is appealing Judge Greer's decision to deny its request to postpone Terri Schiavo's starvation by 60 days while they investigate the allegations of abuse and neglect. There will be a hearing this Thursday at 5:00 pm. The article is here and I found this out from Sherri's blog.

One thing I find amusing (in a sick sort of way) about the article is that Judge Greer gave as his reasons for denying the DCF's request for 60 days: "All of the things (the witness) ticked off ... were all issues that have been in open court in front of the media and in the court files which the media has access to." I don't know if what he said is even true, but if it is, I certainly haven't noticed the mainstream media running with any of it.

I really feel bad for Terri and her family, that they are so much at the mercy of the courts--courts who cannot even be trusted to uphold existing law. On the other hand, not every single judge is corrupted, and right now, this is the system available to them. Let's hope the judge who hears this case is a good one.

Planned Parenthood Sues Indiana

2005-03-15T11:46:00.003-07:00

I found this story this morning in the Evansville Courier & Press. Apparently, there is a law in Indiana that states that having sex with someone under the age of 14 is child molestation, even if the person under 14 consents. Several Planned Parenthood centers in Indiana provided "reproductive health services paid for by Medicaid" to some 12 and 13 year old girls. The attorney general of Indiana, Steve Carter, felt he had reason to believe that the Planned Parenthood clinics serving these girls were not reporting their sexual activity. Since in Indiana, having sex with someone under the age of 14 is considered child molestation, a medical practitioner who is aware of a 12 or 13-year old girl having sex would be obligated to report it as an incidence of abuse. So Carter requested to see the medical records of some minors as part of his investigation. After turning over eight such records, Carter asked to see about 70 more. So Planned Parenthood is now suing the state of Indiana claiming a violation of privacy. Let the games begin...

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I would be perfectly happy if Planned Parenthood ceased to exist starting today. But that aside, this little story concerns me because it is yet another example of how people who are not able to garner enough voter support to pass legislation are using the courts to foist it on the rest of us. In this case, Indiana law says that it's illegal to have sex if you're under the age of 14, and that if you know of someone under 14 having sex, you are supposed to report it as child molestation. Whether you agree or disagree, that is current Indiana law. If you are a publicly funded organization claiming to serve the public, which Planned Parenthood is believed to be, at the very least, you should be respectful of the laws in the jurisdiction under which you operate. If you disagree with those laws, then you can pressure your congressman to sponsor a bill to change one or more of them. Or, you can start a petition to get it on the public ballot. Instead, what I am seeing more and more is that if you don't like the law, you ignore it, and then when the law begins to come down on you, you sue. And there will be no shortage of activist judges who will just declare that particular law unconstitutional. No representation, no voting, no due process. Suddenly, the law is deemed unconstitutional by some judge. No doubt, that is what will happen here. I doubt anyone trying to introduce legislation making it legal for kids under 14 to have sex will get very far. Who in their right mind would vote for such a thing? But for those who think kids should start having sex as soon as they can spell the word, there will always be activist judges.

Breaking Information on Terri Schiavo's Case

2005-03-05T19:26:00.000-07:00

For some interesting and previously unpublished news on Terri Schiavo, I refer you to Sherri's blog. She is currently working through a number of files on the case that she was able to obtain, and she's publishing a series on them as she's going through them. Of course, please also check BlogsForTerri for the latest news on the effort to save her life.

My Letter to my Representative

2005-03-04T17:33:00.000-07:00

I just emailed this letter to my representative regarding the Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act that Rep. Weldon from Florida is planning to introduce to the US House the week of March 6. You can read more about this bill here and I found it via this post on BlogsForTerri. We need as many people as possible to write your representative and ask them to vote yes on this bill. Feel free to use or modify my letter for this purpose. Before I copy the letter, let me again stress that much, much more information is available at BlogsForTerri--more than this humble blogger can possibly keep up with. There is a lot you can still do to help save her life, so please visit BlogsForTerri to find out how. OK, here's the letter:

Rep. Dave Weldon from Florida is planning to introduce a bill called the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act the week of March 6. My understanding of this bill is that it would provide people like Terri Schiavo the opportunity to have their case fully reviewed by an impartial court before anyone can order them killed. At this time, convicted criminals on death row have more legal protection than severely disabled people like Terri Schiavo who have committed no crime. This bill seeks to increase the legal protection for the innocent and disabled. Please vote yes on the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act.

Many of us are deeply concerned about Terri Schiavo and the fact that the judge on her case for the past few years has several times ordered her death by starvation. At this time, he has ordered her death once again by having her feeding tube removed this March 18.

There are several reasons why I am concerned about what happens to Terri Schiavo. The most compelling reason for me right now is that there is enough evidence to indicate the possibility that Terri's husband--the one who has been seeking her death all these years--was physically abusive towards Terri and that it was one of his attacks which lead to her mysterious collapse in 1990. Furthermore, there is more evidence that he has been extremely neglectful of his wife since the collapse. People who worked with Terri at the various facilities where she has lived have stated that Michael has refused to allow her to receive even routine therapy and some medical treatment, and that he has been vocal about his desire that she die soon. None of this has been investigated yet, so I don't want to outright accuse Michael Schiavo of this, but the fact that it hasn't been investigated is something I am concerned about.

I'm very much concerned that there is a possibility that an abusive husband attacked his wife to the point of severely injuring her, then not only did he get away with it, but he gets the Florida courts to finish the job for him. This is what would happen if Michael gets his way and Terri gets killed. This is not a possibility I'm willing to live with. I know that no bill can possibly put an end to all domestic violence; but neither should domestic violence be allowed to be legally cloaked in the guise of "My wife wouldn't want to live like this, so let's end it now."

Many people see the Terri Schiavo case as a right to die issue--i.e., who would want to go on living with severely impaired mental function. While I personally do not believe in a right for an individual to hasten their own or anyone else's death for any reason, I don't see Terri Schiavo's case as a right to die issue. I see it more as a situation where a woman, Terri Schiavo, has been victimized and denied all sorts of rights for the past fifteen years by a husband of questionable character and a judge who refuses to even look at any evidence that would render a different outcome in her case. To put it bluntly, there is some major injustice going on at Terri Schiavo's expense.

In that light, please do all you can to use your influence in the US House to help Terri and her family gain justice. Please vote yes on the bill I mentioned above. And if there is anything else you can to for Terri and for people like her, please do it.

This is really important.

Thank you for your consideration and action.

Laws to protect women

2005-03-03T13:22:00.000-07:00

An odd connection occurred to me in regards to the Terri Schiavo case. Her legal husband is also her legal guardian, and will not allow her a divorce (or her marriage to be dissolved) which I guess would put her under someone else's care and not allow him to fight to have her killed. This legal gordian knot is made possible in part by the legalization of things like adultery. Were there still laws against adultery in this country, his claim to be her guardian and thus to have the right to kill her would be laughed out of any court. Instead, he would be condemned for having an affair and the idea that he should have power over her would appear ludicrous.

Now, I think striking down adultery laws and such things was probably a good thing for women, if they were mostly enforced against women (not unlikely, especially before women had the vote). But did those laws have a seed of truth in them, an element meant to protect women against more powerful men?

So why aren't they being arrested?

2005-03-02T16:25:00.000-07:00

In this article, horror of horrors, muslim girls say they are uncomfortable with the things required of them in German public schools and they want to opt out. Perhaps German authorities ought to arrest their parents, fine them, assess the children to be mentally ill, and tell them that their religious group has no protection under the German constitution, as they do with Christian homeschoolers. Or maybe they could just have a SWAT team burst into their homes and force the girls to go where they want, as they did years ago to another homeschooling family.

Not that such idiocy is unthinkable in the US, as this confrontation with a dull-witted police officer shows. However, at least here the guy lost his job. So if someone by the name of Michael Snow applies for a position at your local police department, make sure it isn't this Michael Snow.

To a certain extent, I sympathize with the German official who told homeschooling families that they are living in "situations where you'll have to accept that your world view will be curtailed." To give him the benefit of the doubt, he's probably trying to avoid things like this. And we all know how violent those Anabaptists have been in Germany over the centuries! But the state deciding it can curtail people's conscience and force them to do things against their religious beliefs is not merely a slippery slope, but a nosedive back to the middle ages.

[The BBB didn't like my previous post, which I put up because of this comment on Little Green Footballs. Maybe this one is more to her taste.]