Showing posts with label euthanasia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label euthanasia. Show all posts

Saturday, January 28, 2012

I have been saying this for a long time...

From Bioedge: Doctors Call for Moratorium on Organ Donation after Cardiac Death

Organ Donation after Cardiac Death (DCD), formerly known as the non-heart beating donation protocol (NHBD) is a misused and deadly form of organ donation. When I was an editorial writer for the St. Louis Review, the Review published an editorial calling for a moratorium on donations following this protocol.  It was criticized by some so-called bioethicists and some who claimed to be Catholic moralists.  Still, to be honest, it remains a questionable practice.  It is interesting that this group of doctors now is calling for the same.

The fact of the matter is that there are doctors on the other side of the issue who argue that we should abandon the dead donor rule for the same reasons that these doctors say that there should be a moratorium on this practice, that is, that the intended donors are not dead.  I think it is embarrassing that those who claim to support organ donation will not deal the practical side of the dead donor rule.  Why stick one's head in the sand?  Isn't it best to get this out in the open?  If you claim to support ethical organ donation, why not allow an open an honest discussion? Why not support full disclosure to potential organ donors?  Shouldn't potential donors know that when the decision is made to take their organs that they, the donors, might not be dead?

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Looking for the Wrong Rights Will End Life and Religious Freedom


Just recently, the Executive Branch of the US Government authorized the Department of Defense to allow its chaplains to celebrate so-called marriages of same sex couples wherever it is allowed by state law.  Archbishop Broglio of the Archdiocese for Military Services said under no circumstances will Catholic chaplains witness so-called same sex marriages.  Archbishop Broglio also noted that he did not see how the administration could authorize such unions when Federal Law prohibits it in the Defense of Marriage Act.

Recently, as well, the executive branch has drafted new guidelines which could require catholic doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, even those working in Catholic hospitals and the institutions themselves, to perform direct sterilizations and abortions. 

You might not think that so-called same sex marriage and these other issues are related, but I can tell you that many people who study these things in our society know they are.

As Rev. Dr. Leonard Childress, writing in BlackNews.com, states:

This generation's elites combat truth with ideology, character assassination, deception, and of course, denial. The two defining issues of the day which will determine the course of our culture, and the destiny of our nation, are abortion and homosexuality... Pro-choice, and homosexual and lesbian activists, all claim their cause is a Civil Rights issue. Yet the "Civil Rights" of the unborn children are being denied, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim a "right" for yourself, and by so doing, deny the rights of someone else, especially when that someone is an unborn infant.”  Writing in an article entitled “Homosexuality, Abortion and Dr. Martin Luther King, he adds, “What probably grieves me the most is that they both claim Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King as an icon for their cause, when essentially nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. King was a chief facilitator of the Civil Rights Movement, and by his death at the hand of an assassin, paid the ultimate price for his cause. Freeing African-Americans from centuries of slavery, bigotry and racism, does not equate with sexual preference, and so in some ways, Dr. King's writings are more relevant, imperative, and apropos today than when he first penned them decades ago… The pimping of Dr. King by the racist abortion industry and by homosexual and lesbian activists, needs to cease.

Frankly, it is difficult to see how these troubling developments in the government do not constitute a direct attack on religion, particularly Christians, and especially Catholics.  There appears to be little effort in these new guidelines to provide for genuine respect of conscience in such a way that we would not be required to participate in these moral evils.  As you may know, already in some major metropolitan areas Catholic Charities has been forced to remove itself from placing babies for adoption because of state laws that require that we place them with same sex couples. 

As we consider these things, we realize that we are speaking of the institution of marriage, the meaning of sexuality, and the freedom of man and woman to fulfill their parental role.  Marriage and child bearing as a holy institution has always been the subject of attack, even in the time of Jesus.  When the Pharisees approach Jesus about the question of divorce, as is reported in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus tells them that Moses allowed divorce due to the hardness of their hearts but it was not so from the beginning when God created man and woman and instituted marriage.  Jesus, of course, makes it clear that what God has joined, no man can separate.

Very early in the Church, St. Augustine defended marriage as a holy institution against those who saw marriage and child-bearing in all sorts of strange ways.  Some of his opponents considered conception of a child as an imprisonment of a divine spirit.  Others thought that men and women ought to be able to engage in every sort of strange act without consequence. 

Later on, the Council of Trent spoke of the importance of marriage as a holy institution.  It was for the sanctification of the spouses through their mutual love.  It was not intended as a remedy for concupiscence as some of the reformers taught. 

In more recent times, marriage has come under attack from the Birth Control League and its successor Planned Parenthood.  This attack has taken place on several fronts, mostly in the attempt to limit the reproduction of persons these groups and persons considered undesirable, although their movement was always grounded in the efforts of population control.  Margaret Sanger, the founder of this group had this to say:  Birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established "in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding…"to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds."

The website blackgenocide.org reports this important information:  At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood. (Life and Education Resource, blackgenocide.org)

The rise of the push for birth control was completely tied up with the attempts by various racist and elitist organizations to root out of society people they considered to be undesirable. 26 states in the United States, because of the efforts of such groups, drafted legislation that forced certain people to be sterilized.  These laws were upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1920’s. In one important case, Buck v. Bell, a case from Virginia in which the state’s eugenics officer wanted to sterilize a young woman, Justice OW Holmes Jr. upheld the law saying that “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

It is not surprising that we do not learn about these things in our history books.  They are just kept quiet because they arose out of the Progressivist Movement that is so popular today.  We would still be dealing with these things out in the open but for one terrible group and their deeds—the Nazis.  You see, the Nazis and the people like the Birth Control League and Planned Parenthood in the United States are born of the same ideas.  The Nazi’s thought that they should purify the race of undesirables.  It started with what were called “useless eaters.”  And it began with the doctors, the scientists, not the politicians.

I would encourage you to visit websites like blackgenocide.org to learn more about the birth control movement, abortion and the devastating effects these things are having in our society.

The roots of the evil of abortion and the holocaust are ideas that spread hatred and death like the plague.  It takes many forms and the greatest threat to any of these horrors is the truth of Jesus Christ and his Church.   So-called same-sex marriage is the latest front in the attack on the definition of marriage and the procreation and education of children.  The efforts to silence the Church will increase all the more as these evils march forward.


Monday, November 10, 2008

Doctors Who Almost Dissected Living Patient Confess Ignorance about Actual Moment of Death

Another story from LifesiteNews about a person who revived before having organs removed.

"Brain Dead" Man Saved from Organ Harvesting - "Brain Death is Never Really Death"

This man's relatives recognized life in him and stopped the process of organ harvesting before it was too late.

Organ Donation and the Dead Donor Rule

Recently, Pope Benedict has been teaching on the issue of organ donation. Since the advent of the Non-heartbeating donor protocol, the certainty of the death of the donor has been seriously compromised. The issue of the death of the donor is an important one for Catholic morality. Put simply, it is immoral to bring about the donor's death by removing organs.

In an editorial from the St. Louis Review of May 23, 2003, a form of organ donation is brought into question.

Uncertainty about the moment of death has resulted in a hotly
debated organ donation protocol known as Non-Heart-Beating Organ Donation
(NHBD). (The editorial indicates that the determination of death is not based upon the so-called brain death criteria, but when the patient is removed from a respirator even though there is still brain function. Then the doctors wait to see if the heart stops beating for a time).

....
In NHBD some patients will be pronounced dead because their hearts did not begin to beat on their own or they were not given CPR within the 2 to 5 minutes determined by the protocol. A do not resuscitate order or a living will to that effect will prevent the CPR, of course. But because there is no sure bet that the patient's heart will stop after removal from the machine, the "death watch" begins -- a process that is aborted after 60 minutes if, indeed, the blood pressure and pulse continue. This means, of course, that the patient who was abandoned to death an hour earlier by the attending physician was, in fact, quite alive.

(The editorial next calls for a reconsideration of this protocol).


The NHBD protocol is cruel and dangerous and does not meet standards of respect for human life. Even the action of removal of the ventilator from a patient destined to become a donor could constitute a grave injustice against human life if the intention in doing so is to cause or hasten death. All hospitals should impose an immediate moratorium upon the procedure until such time as clearer, objective moral standards of determination of death are enacted. The conscience rights of all medical personnel who object to these procedures should be respected and protected.

Is assisted suicide the easy way out for Medicine?

A couple of recent stories on Lifesite News discuss the developments on the Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia front. This is a growing phenomenon that shows how inconstant and foolish our society as a whole can be.

While one can easily understand the pain of suffering which would make persons want to escape the suffering which becomes seemingly intolerable, more and more, people are asking for suicide even when they do not have a terminal condition.

Those who support assisted suicide are doing more than providing an "out" from the hardships of living, however. Certainly, our medicine is truly remarkable and what wonderful care-givers we have. Discoveries abound. Many resources are put into treating the sick with great success. But with success comes a trap. There is a tendency on the part of our society to adopt an attitude that those who have incurable conditions are burdens to the rest of us. Some ask why should we waste resources on someone who is going to end up dying anyway? (Who isn't?)

I do not attribute this attitude as much to the medical professionals as to the whole of our culture. We have taught ourselves to value the lives of others more for what they can do than for the fact that they are human beings. If more and more of the sick and infirm take the suicide route, will this work against encouraging doctors and researchers treating similar patients and finding new treatments?