Six Problems with Covid 19 Vaccination Mandates

When the Covid 19 vaccine was first authorized for emergency use in December, 2020, President-elect Joe Biden said that he wouldn’t impose national mandates to get vaccinated for Covid 19.

But on September 9, 2021 and in a televised speech, President Joe Biden announced a federal Covid 19 vaccination mandate affecting as many as 100 million Americans “in an all-out effort to increase COVID-19 vaccinations and curb the surging delta variant.”

Calling Covid 19 “a pandemic of the unvaccinated” and that “our patience is wearing thin” with the estimated 80 million Americans who have not been vaccinated, President Biden announced new rules that:

“mandate that all employers with more than 100 workers require them to be vaccinated or test for the virus weekly, affecting about 80 million Americans. And the roughly 17 million workers at health facilities that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid also will have to be fully vaccinated.”

and signed

“an executive order to require vaccination for employees of the executive branch and contractors who do business with the federal government — with no option to test out. That covers several million more workers.” (Emphasis added)

PROBLEM ONE

There are different rules for different groups people, leading to confusion and further divisiveness.

For example, while international travelers visiting the US must provide proof of vaccination before being allowed into the country, the hundreds of thousands of people illegally crossing our southern border and being released into our country are not required to have the Covid 19 vaccine.

What scientific justification is there for this?

PROBLEM TWO

Now the Biden administration just unveiled its new 490 page Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) “emergency temporary standard” that also requires companies with 100 or more employees to mandate that workers get vaccinated, or tested weekly and wear a face mask

But surprisingly, as a November 4, 2021Wall Street Journal editorial article titled “OSHA’s Vaccine Mandate Overkill notes:

“Separately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a vaccine mandate for health-care facilities with no testing option.” (Emphasis added)

and

“According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey last week, 37% of unvaccinated workers said they would leave if their employer required them to get a vaccine or be tested weekly.“(All emphasis added)

PROBLEM THREE

Firing unvaccinated employees in a tight labor market when so many employers are desperate to hire hurts not only employees but also businesses.

In addition, these vaccine mandate rules have led to vaccine refusal by some essential workers like police, garbage collectors and healthcare workers in cities like New York who then lose their jobs. This not only affects these workers and their families but also the delivery of these essential services to the populace.

PROBLEM FOUR

Religious or medical exemptions from taking the vaccine are often difficult to obtain.

For example, a hospital system in Arkansas maintains that the “majority of religious exemption requests cited the use of fetal cell lines in the development of vaccines” but counters that the “practice uses cells grown in labs to test many new vaccines and drugs, including common antacids and cold medications.”

Therefore, the hospital’s religious exemption form “includes a list of 30 common medications that used fetal cell lines during research and development” and asks employees to attest that they:

“truthfully acknowledge and affirm that my sincerely held religious belief is consistent and true” and that they won’t use the medications listed.” (Emphasis added)

PROBLEM FIVE

Now the CDC has announced emergency use authorization of Covid 19 vaccine for children 5-11. If mandated, what will that mean for schools and parental rights to refuse or consent to medical treatment?

PROBLEM SIX

So far, 68% of Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine and 59% are fully vaccinated.

At the same time, at least 27 states so far have decided to take legal action against the new rules, claiming the mandate is an example of federal overreach and both “unlawful and unconstitutional.” And on November 6, 2021, a US federal appeals court temporarily halted President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for businesses, citing potentially “grave statutory and constitutional” issues.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, the Covid 19 vaccination mandates have caused some severe divisions between those who have been vaccinated and and those who refuse to be vaccinated for various reasons.

My husband and I are fully vaccinated but some of our adult children are not. We encouraged them to take the vaccine but we have to respect their decision. We believe that people who refuse or are hesitant about the vaccine should not be vilified or treated as second class citizens.

We are all Americans and we need to work together.

And there may be hope on the horizon as new Covid 19 pills are being developed and showing promise with Pfizer’s pill said to be 89% effective for mild to moderate Covid 19 symptoms. Pfizer now plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to authorize the pill’s use this month. Another Covid 19 pill from Merck & Co. was cleared for use in the U.K. this week.

These pills could be a gamechanger and help heal not only Covid 19 but also our fractured country.

Why “Living Wills” Are Not Working Well

In a stunning October 8, 2021 article titled “What’s Wrong With Advance Care Planning? in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, three prominent supporters of “living wills” and other advance care documents admit that after 30 years of the promotion of such advance care plan (ACP) documents:

“The assumption that ACP will result in goal-concordant end-of-life care led to widespread public initiatives promoting its use, physician reimbursement for ACP discussions, and use as a quality measure by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, commercial payers, and others. However, the scientific data do not support this assumption. ” (Emphasis added)

Drs. R. Sean Morrison, Diane E Meier, and Robert M. Arnold are prominent doctors and ethicists at prestigious institutions who have long promoted the advance care documents that are asked about when people enter hospitals, nursing homes, long care facilities, etc.

I have been writing about such documents and their uses and hazards for decades.

ACPs were promoted as essential to document a person’s healthcare wishes like Do Not Resuscitate orders and forgoing interventions like feeding tubes and ventilators in the event that the person is unable to speak for himself or herself. Many such documents also designate a trusted friend or relative to assist in the potential future decision-making process.

All adults have been encouraged to make such documents regardless of their health status because it was assumed that such ACPs would lead to higher quality care at the end of life.

But, as the authors now admit: “The inability of ACP to achieve its desired outcomes represents the gap between hypothetical scenarios and the decision-making process in clinical practice settings.” (Emphasis added)

After 52 years of experience working in ICUs, oncology (cancer), dialysis, hospice and home health as well as caring for relatives and friends, I wholeheartedly agree with the authors that:

“Treatment choices near the end of life are not simple, consistent, logical, linear, or predictable but are complex, uncertain, emotionally laden, and fluid. Patients’ preferences are rarely static and are influenced by age, physical and cognitive function, culture, family preferences, clinician advice, financial resources, and perceived caregiver burden (eg, need to provide personal care, time off from work, emotional strain, out-of-pocket or noncovered medical costs), which change over time.” (Emphasis added)

WHAT DOES WORK?

The authors point to the patient having a trusted person in advance to act as a surrogate decisionmaker and improving the communication with healthcare providers in real time. They also point to:

“training clinicians and preparing patients and families to engage in high-quality discussions when actual (not hypothetical) medical decisions must be made is needed to achieve the outcomes that ACP has not.” (Emphasis added)

However, pitfalls still remain.

Patients and their decisionmakers do need accurate information about their conditions and potential treatments.

However, as I found as a nurse, patients and their surrogate decisionmakers often have negative preconceptions (often reinforced in the media) about treatments such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilators, feeding tubes, etc.

Unfortunately in hospital situations, the advance care plans with the common DNR (do not resuscitate) directive are sometimes misinterpreted as not wanting to live  or “do not treat” when the person had assumed it would apply only in extreme circumstances. And some healthcare institutions have medical futility policies that allow doctors to overrule the person’s decisionmaker.

In addition, we have well-funded organizations like Compassion and Choices that not only work to get assisted suicide laws passed in every state but also promote their own advance directive to allow the lethal “healthcare option” of VSED (voluntary stopping of food and water) to ensure death.

Particularly in the frail elderly, it can be difficult to determine whether or not a person is truly dying. And while we are never required to accept treatment that is medically futile or excessively burdensome to us, sometimes this can be hard to determine. Far too many times, feeding tubes and other interventions are automatically assumed to be futile and/or burdensome. But there is another alternative that is often ignored: trying an intervention with the option of stopping it if it truly is futile or burdensome.

There are no guarantees in life or death but even finding out that something doesn’t work can be a step forward and can relieve any guilt in the surviving relatives.

CONCLUSION

I was surprised but very pleased to read that the three prominent doctors writing the article “What’s Wrong With Advance Care Planning?” after years of promoting “living wills” and other end of life documents.

But, in the end, the real answer is a return to the traditional medical ethics of “First, do no harm”, a presumption for life and excellent, unbiased information.

That is why my husband and I made our own healthcare directives to require full information about all options, risks and benefits before making medical decisions.

And, most importantly, that we believe that “quality of life” is something to be improved, not judged.

My 2000 Voices Magazine Article: Who Wants a “Defective” Baby?

This month, it was revealed that President Joe Biden “wants Congress to pass a law making abortions legal up to birth” after the US Supreme Court refused to temporarily block the Texas Heartbeat Law.

While talking to a friend about this, I remembered a 2000 Voices magazine article I wrote about why every unborn child deserves protection and she asked that I send it to her. Sadly, this magazine is no longer publishing.

This is the article I wrote that appears on my other blogsite that contains articles, op-eds, etc. that I wrote up to 2014, when I started this blog. The reflection at the end of this article was published by the National Down Syndrome Association and was-to my surprise-eventually reprinted in several other countries.

Voices Online Edition
Summer 2000
Volume XV, No. 2 – Jubilee Year

Who Wants a “Defective” Baby?

by Nancy Valko, R.N.

“Of course, no one wants to adopt a defective baby. ” This was said with much emotion (and not much charm) by an older gentleman in a class at a local university where I was speaking this past April. I had been invited to discuss the legalities and effects of Roe v. Wade from a pro-life point of view to a class of senior citizens studying the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

While several of these senior citizen students defended abortion as a matter of complete privacy for the mother, their arguments centered around the “need” for legalized abortion as a solution for social problems.

Since I had told the story of my daughter Karen, born in 1982 with Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect, the pro-abortion students were extremely vocal about the personal and societal justifications for aborting a baby like Karen. Hence the statement about no one wanting to adopt a “defective” baby.

“Happily, sir,” I told the senior student, “You are wrong. Even back when I had Karen, I found out from the National Down Syndrome Association that there was a list of people waiting to adopt a baby with Down Syndrome. Just the night before, I added, I had found a new website for matching prospective parents with children who had chromosomal and physical defects.”

The student refused to believe that this could be true.

The effects of Roe v. Wade
Life of the mother, incest, rape and fetal defect are the four hard cases usually cited to justify what has now become abortion on demand. All of these are uncommon reasons given in the estimated 1.3 million abortions every year; but the possibility of having a child with a birth defect is a common fear nearly all expectant mothers experience and, not surprisingly, polls show that the majority of the public support abortion in this circumstance.

Although I have always been pro-life, I could understand the fear underlying these poll results — until my own daughter was born.

Just two weeks before the birth of my daughter Karen, I saw a mother trying to pry her young son with Down Syndrome away from a display case at the supermarket. She looked exhausted.

“Please, Lord,” I silently prayed, “Let this baby be ok. I can handle anything but Downs.”

When Karen was born with Down Syndrome, I was stunned. But I was quickly put in touch with mothers from the Down Syndrome Association who replaced my fears with information and realistic hope.

Then a doctor told me the truly bad news. Karen had a heart defect, one so severe that it seemed inoperable and she was not expected to live more than 2 months. That certainly put things in the proper perspective.

What “pro-choice” really means
It turned out later that Karen’s heart defect was not quite as bad as originally thought and could be corrected with one open-heart surgery, but I was shocked when the cardiologist told me he would support me 100% if I decided not to agree to the surgery and allow her to die. This was especially hard to hear because, as a nurse, I knew that the doctor would have been otherwise enthusiastic about an operation offering a 90% chance of success — if my child didn’t also have Down Syndrome. Apparently, even though Karen was now a legal person according to Roe v. Wade by the fact of her birth, this non-treatment option could act as a kind of 4th trimester abortion.

It was then that I realized what pro-choice really meant: Choice says it doesn’t really matter if a particular child lives or dies. Choice says the only thing that really matters is how I feel about this child and my circumstances. I may be “Woman Hear Me Roar” in other areas according to the militant feminists, but I was not necessarily strong enough for a child like this.

I also finally figured out that Roe v. Wade’s effects went far beyond the proverbial desperate woman determined to end her pregnancy either legally or illegally. The abortion mentality had so corrupted society that it even endangered children like my Karen after birth. Too many people, like the student in Supreme Court class, unfortunately viewed Karen as a tragedy to be prevented.

Medical progress or search and destroy?
In the late 1950s, a picture of the unborn baby using sound waves became the first technique developed to provide a window to the womb. Ultrasound in recent years has been used to save countless lives by showing women that they were carrying a living human being rather than the clump of cells often referred to in abortion clinics.

But while expectant parents now routinely and proudly show ultrasound pictures of their developing baby, there is a darker side to prenatal testing. Besides ultrasound, which can show some birth defects, blood tests like AFP testing and the Triple Screen to test for neural tube defects or Down Syndrome are now becoming a routine part of prenatal care. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are also widely available tests to detect problems in the developing baby. It seems that every year, new testing techniques are tried and older ones refined in the quest to find birth defects prenatally.

97% of the time, women receive the good news that their baby seems fine; but the tests are not foolproof, and they can only test for hundreds of the thousands of known birth defects. Relatively few such birth defects can be treated in the womb at the present time. Some women want testing so that they can prepare for a child who has a birth defect, but when the tests do show a possible problem like Down Syndrome, up to 90% of women will abort.

While some hail prenatal testing as a way to prevent birth defects, the effects of such testing has led to what author Barbara Katz Rothman calls the “tentative pregnancy” in her 1993 book of the same name. Although Rothman calls herself pro-choice, her studies of women considering amniocentesis led to her conclude that such testing has changed the normal maternal-child bonding in pregnancy and the experience of motherhood, usually for the worse.

“I might not be pregnant”
I observed this firsthand several years ago when I ran into an acquaintance and congratulated her on her obvious pregnancy. I was stunned when she replied, “Don’t congratulate me yet. I might not be pregnant.”

Diane, the mother of a 5-year-old boy, went on to explain that she was awaiting the results of an amniocentesis and said, “I know what you went through with your daughter but I can’t give up my life like that. If this (the baby) is Downs, it’s gone.”

I reassured her that the test would almost surely show that her baby was ok, but I added that if the results were not what she expected I would like her to call me. I promised that I would give her any help she needed throughout the pregnancy and that my husband and I or even another couple would be willing to adopt her baby. She was surprised, as I later found out, both by my reaction and the information about adoption.

Diane gave birth to a healthy baby girl a few months later and apologized for her comments, saying that she probably would not have had an abortion anyway. But I understood her terrible anxiety. Society itself seems to have a rather schizophrenic attitude towards children with disabilities.

On one hand, people are inspired by the stories of people who have disabilities and support organizations like the Special Olympics; but, on the other hand, many people consider it almost irresponsible to bring a child with disabilities into the world to suffer when prenatal testing and abortion are so available.

But as the vast majority of parents who are either natural or adoptive parents of children with disabilities will attest, all children are born with both special gifts and special limitations. No child should be denied birth because of a disability or even a limited life expectancy.

Women who do abort after a diagnosis of a birth defect are also hurt. Besides depriving themselves of the special joys — which occur along with the difficulties — of loving and caring for such a child, these women often experience unresolved grief, guilt and second-guessing instead of the relief and peace they expect.

A few years ago, a local hospital which performs late-term abortions for birth defects asked a miscarriage and stillbirth counseling group to help with their distressed patients. The group declined, citing the fact that the most reassuring message they give grieving mothers is that there is nothing they did or didn’t do that caused the death of their babies. Obviously, that was not a statement they could make to mothers who abort. There is a very real difference between losing and terminating a child.

How many of these mothers knew before their abortions that, in practical terms, there has never been a better array of services and support for children with disabilities and their parents? Or that their children were dearly wanted by prospective adoptive parents? Such information might have been just the support they needed to choose life for their children.

Final thoughts
Despite the best medical care, my Karen died at the age of 5 and 1/2 months, but the impact of her life has lived on. At her funeral Mass, the priest talked about how this child who never walked or talked had transformed the lives of those who met her.

Especially mine.

After Karen died, I sat down and tried to put into words what Karen and all children with disabilities have to teach the rest of us. The following reflection was published in the National Down Syndrome Association newsletter in May, 1984.

THINGS NO TEACHER EVER TAUGHT
In 1982 my daughter, Karen, was born with Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect. Less than six months later she died of complications of pneumonia. Karen may have been retarded but she taught me things no teacher ever did.

Karen taught me:

That life isn’t fair — to anyone. That self-pity can be an incapacitating disease. That God is better at directing my life than I am. That there are more caring people in the world than I knew. That Down Syndrome is an inadequate description of a person. That I am not “perfect” either, just human. That asking for help and support is not a sign of weakness. That every child is truly a gift from God. That joy and pain can be equally deep. That you can never lose when you love. That every crisis contains opportunity for growth. That sometimes the victory is in trying rather than succeeding. That every person has a special purpose in life.

That I needed to worry less and celebrate more.


Sources:

1. “Prenatal Testing”, by Nancy Valko, R.N. and T. Murphy Goodwin, M.D., pamphlet, Easton Publishing Co.

2. “Doctors have prenatal test for 450 genetic diseases” by Kim Painter. USA Today, 8/15/97

3. Rothman, Barbara Katz. The Tentative Pregnancy. Revised, 1993. WW Norton and Co.

4. “Advances, and Angst, in a New Era of Ultrasound”, by Randi Hutter Epstein. New York Times. May 9, 2000.

Nancy Valko, R.N., a contributing editor for Voices, is a former president of Missouri Nurses for Life who has practiced in St. Louis for more than thirty years. An expert on life issues, Mrs. Valko writes a regular column on the subject for Voices.


**Women for Faith & Family operates solely on your generous donations!

What You Should Know about the New Federal Covid 19 Vaccine Mandate

In my December 17, 2020 blog “Should a Covid 19 Vaccine be Mandatory?, I wrote that “it seems unlikely that there will be a federal mandate for the Covid 19 vaccine.”

But on September 9, 2021 and in a televised speech, President Joe Biden announced a federal Covid 19 vaccination mandate affecting as many as 100 million Americans “in an all-out effort to increase COVID-19 vaccinations and curb the surging delta variant.”

Calling Covid 19 “a pandemic of the unvaccinated” and that “our patience is wearing thin” with the estimated 80 million Americans who have not been vaccinated, President Biden announced new rules that:

“mandate that all employers with more than 100 workers require them to be vaccinated or test for the virus weekly, affecting about 80 million Americans. And the roughly 17 million workers at health facilities that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid also will have to be fully vaccinated.”

and signed

“an executive order to require vaccination for employees of the executive branch and contractors who do business with the federal government — with no option to test out. That covers several million more workers.”

However, it turns out that some groups of people are not required to get the Covid 19 vaccine, including the US Congress and people illegally crossing our southern border.

Even worse and back in an August, 2021, an NBC News article titled “18 percent of migrant families leaving Border Patrol custody tested positive for Covid” stated that:

“More than 18 percent of migrant families and 20 percent of unaccompanied minors who recently crossed the U.S. border tested positive for Covid on leaving Border Patrol custody over the past two to three weeks, according to a document prepared this week for a Thursday briefing with President Joe Biden. (Emphasis added)

MORE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE COVID 19 VACCINE MANDATE

Some hospitals are now telling healthcare workers to get vaccinated or lose their jobs. And in New York, there are now worries that a vaccine mandate “will exacerbate staffing shortages dogging medical facilities.”

And although some U.S. businesses welcome President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate for firms with 100 or more employees, some small businesses are bristling, saying that the order “imposes yet another burden that could intensify historic worker shortages and supply-chain bottlenecks.

Already, legal challenges are looming for the covid 19 vaccine mandate.

WHY VACCINE HESITATION OR REFUSAL?

From the start of the Covid 19 pandemic, the rules seemed to keep changing: first gloves and no mask, then lockdown, mask and social distancing. Different states had different rules about opening and closing businesses and schools.

It was frustrating when the scientific data behind the changing rules was often lacking or contradictory. And some people are concerned about some of the reported rare side effects of the vaccines as well.

However, experts say that few people are medically exempt from getting the Covid 19 vaccine.

Now, there is an emphasis on providing booster Covid 19 vaccines for the fully vaccinated. However, it is concerning to now read in the Business Insider that “18 leading scientists, including 2 outgoing FDA officials, say COVID-19 booster shots lack evidence and shouldn’t yet be given to the general public”.

CONCLUSION

My husband and I received our Covid 19 vaccinations in March without any problems and recommended the vaccinations to our children with the caveat that they check with their doctors first, especially since some of our children and grandchildren have special situations.

We are open to receiving the Covid 19 vaccine booster shot but we would like to see more scientific data and hopefully a consensus among the experts.

The Powerful Effect of the US Supreme Court’s Decision Refusing to Block the Texas Heartbeat Act

When the Texas Heartbeat Act was signed into law by Governor Gregg Abbot in May 2021 to abolish elective abortions as early as six weeks (when the unborn child’s heartbeat is “detectable using methods according to standard medical practice”), abortion rights supporters were furious and began challenges to the law.

But on September 2, 2021 and surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against a request from pro-abortion groups to temporarily block enforcement of the pro-life law.

Pro-abortion groups and almost all mainstream media vigorously denounced the decision and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, Whole Woman’s Health, and other abortion groups were ready to mount more legal challenges to the law.

Most recently, now a Texas Judge has issued a temporary restraining order barring Texas Right to Life and “100 unnamed individuals” from suing Planned Parenthood, writing that the Texas Law creates a “probable, irreparable and imminent injury” to Planned Parenthood if sued by the nonprofit Texas Right to Life and others.

At the same time, pro-life advocates continue to reach out to pregnant women offering resources and emotional support to help them and their babies while Texas lawmakers had already budgeted in the spring for $100 million specifically to help pregnant and parenting mothers and babies

But while even the Wall Street Journal raised legal questions about enforcement of the law by civilians and the exclusion of rape or incest exceptions, the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to block the Texas Heartbeat Act (and the torrent of national publicity surrounding the decision) forces a recognition of the the humanity of the unborn baby and the fact that even the Mayo Clinic recognizes: the heart begins to beat at 6 weeks.

Unfortunately, many people are unaware of this fact and Planned Parenthood continues to deny this fact.

MY EXPERIENCE WITH ROE V. WADE

I was a young nurse working in a critical care unit in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion for any reason in the first trimester of pregnancy.

When other doctors and nurses asked my opinion about the decision, I said I was surprised and horrified. Some of the nurses and doctors angrily disagreed with me and asked what I would do if I were raped and pregnant.

I said I would be upset about the rape but also that I couldn’t deliberately end another human life, born or unborn. That was medical ethics.

A few years after the Roe v Wade decision, I was married and pregnant with my first child. I loved the standard prenatal development pamphlet I was given but I couldn’t help but think about how painful this pamphlet could be for a woman who had aborted before becoming pregnant with a wanted child.

I decided that when I finally had some time, I would volunteer at our local Birthright to help women and their babies.

With my subsequent pregnancies, my older children were obsessed with the development of their unborn brother or sister and asked what the baby had or could do almost every week of the pregnancy. It was touching to see how excited they got with each new phase of the baby’s development.

When one of my daughters became pregnant and unwed at age 18, she said she could never have an abortion because she knew so much about prenatal development.

Recently, I was delighted to view the “Meet Baby Olivia” video, a beautiful and “medically accurate, animated glimpse of human life from the moment of fertilization” produced by Live Action. I highly recommend this video and sharing it widely.

CONCLUSION

Until Texas, other state heartbeat laws have been blocked in court. The Texas Heartbeat Act is facing more legal challenges but it has already changed minds and hearts in Texas: An April poll by the University of Texas-Austin found that 49 percent of Texans support making abortions illegal after six weeks of pregnancy, while 41 percent oppose it.

Education about abortion and outreach to help women struggling with an unexpected pregnancy can save lives!

An Unexpected Recovery and What We Can Learn from It

When 28 year old Jacob Haendel was rushed to an emergency room in Massachusetts four years ago, the doctors thought he was having a stroke but brain scans showed something very different. Instead, his brain scans showed that his “brain seemed to be unplugging itself from the rest of his body”. One doctor described it as “The wires weren’t sending signals from place to place.”

The doctors were unsure what was going on until Jacob revealed that he had been doing drugs, mostly opioids, until he turned to street heroin. The medical team thought he might have ingested a toxin which led to their diagnosis of a very rare condition called: Toxic Acute Progressive Leukoencephalopathy. Only a few dozen people had ever been diagnosed with this.

Six months later, Jacob deteriorated to what the doctors thought was a “vegetative state” and completely unaware of himself or his surroundings. He was sent to an extended care facility on a ventilator to breathe and a feeding tube. Eventually, he was put in hospice and by Christmas, his family told that he probably would die in a couple of days. Jacob’s father whispered to him that it was “ok to let go”.

But Jacob didn’t die and slowly his brain started to sputter back to life.

The first sign was a small twitch in his wrist. Some thought this meant nothing but his family thought otherwise.

A few weeks later, everyone was stunned when Jacob started moving his tongue and his eyes, “almost imperceptibly at first, but enough to use a letterboard to spell out a message he’d been desperately trying to send for almost a year. His message was I can hear you. (Emphasis added)

As Jacob began communicating, the doctors realized that he had not been unconscious but rather awake the whole time. Jacob remembered nurses calling him “brain dead” and that visits slowed over time.

In a July 25, 2021 CBS Sunday Morning tv segment, Jacob told CBS correspondent Lee Cowan that “I couldn’t express anything to anyone. No one knew what was going on in my head, and I just wanted someone to know, like, that I was in there.”

He also said that he talked to himself a lot and felt pain. Jacob also revealed that “he would do math problems in his head just to help keep himself from the guilt that his drug use has caused all of this.”

Jacob’s mother had died of breast cancer and Jacob said he started using drugs to cope.

Jacob’s road to rehabilitation has been long and still ongoing. However, Jacob has “come back with such a profound understanding of what a second chance really means. “I am an improved Jake,” he said. “And I’m a happier Jake. I don’t want to give up.”

Although Jacob still has limitations of speech and movement, he now was a website and writes updates.

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM JACOB’S STORY

Over my years in mostly critical care nursing, I spoke to all my patients patients-regardless of a diagnosis of coma, “vegetative state”, etc.-as if they were totally awake and explained everything I was doing as well as the time and date, visitors who came, etc.

I also closely watched for any sign of voluntary movement or reaction. Like Jacob, even almost imperceptible movement could be a sign of awareness and I encouraged my patients to repeat the movement.

I was often teased and asked if I spoke to my refrigerator too but the teasing stopped when some of these patients started to respond or even recovered. Some of them later related what they heard and/or felt when they were assumed to be unaware. My point was that speaking empathetically to all our patients was a matter of respect that could even help them get better.

Hopefully, Jacob’s story will be an encouragement for all healthcare providers as well as people with severe brain injuries and their families.

CONCLUSION

But Jacob has another big message for every one of us in our daily lives: simplicity.

In Jacob’s own words:

“My life was never a walk in the park, but I never truly appreciated how important the simplicities of life are until I began my journey to recovery. My reasoning for this word is multi-focal just like my case. The only word that can accurately describe my case is “complex” and I am un-ironically striving for just the opposite; simple. After surviving and overcoming locked in syndrome, all I want are the simplicities in life; things like talking, connecting with friends and family, enjoying solid foods, breathing on my own, going outside instead of being locked in a hospital, being able to feed myself and even taking a walk in the park. All of these simple things I took for granted are now goals I am working towards being able to enjoy again”

Especially at a time of such discord in our society now, we all need to remember and celebrate the so-called “little things” that make us grateful for our own precious lives.

Covid 19 Vaccine Refusal?

Last December, I wrote the blog Should a Covid 19 Vaccine be Mandatory? and concluded that:

“It is more likely that only certain groups of people may be required to take the vaccine like healthcare workers, universities and some employers. Even then, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may help people who have a religious objection to a vaccine as well as anti-discrimination laws and exemptions for medical reasons. An employer would have to make a reasonable accommodation as long as it’s not too costly for the business.

It is also possible that airlines, stores and stadiums could also make vaccination a condition of doing business with a person.”

In March 2021, a Monmouth University poll showed that 25% of those polled would refuse the vaccine.

VACCINE REFUSAL NOW

After a concerted public effort to encourage Covid 19 vaccination, about 67 percent of Americans 18 and older had received at least one dose of a vaccine by July 4.

So far, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) recommends that everyone 12 years and older should get a Covid 19 vaccination but has not issued guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for children under 12.

But even though there is no federal requirement for Covid 19 vaccination, there are many colleges that require students have the Covid 19 vaccinations before arriving on campus.

However, according to CNN:

“at least seven states– Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Montana, Oklahoma and Utah — have enacted legislation this year that would restrict public schools from requiring either coronavirus vaccinations or documentation of vaccination status

and

“(a)s of June 22, at least 34 states had introduced bills that would limit requiring someone to demonstrate their vaccination status or immunity against Covid-19″

with

At least 13 states — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — have passed them into law.” (All emphasis added)

In addition, more than 150 staff members at Houston Methodist Hospital were fired or resigned in June after refusing to get vaccinated for COVID-19. They are now appealing a judge’s ruling that sided with the hospital’s right to terminate their employment.

According to an April 27, 2021 American Academy of Family Physicians article, four reasons for some health care workers’ hesitancy to get the vaccine are safety and efficacy concerns, preference for physiological immunity, distrust in government and health organizations and autonomy/ personal freedom.

Some people say they are worried about the reported side effects and adverse events on sites like VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) included on the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) website as “an early warning system used to monitor adverse events that happen after vaccination” and “one of several systems CDC and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use to help ensure all vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, are safe.” (VAERS’ reported adverse events can be found at Open VAERS.)

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The March 5, 2021 National Law Review article Declining a Shot in the Arm: What Employers Should Do When Employees Refuse Vaccines regarding health care workers points out that:

“Remember that we are still under the vaccines’ Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) period. The EEOC has indicated that employers can require that employees get vaccinated, but the EUA statute contains some language saying that people have a right to refuse any vaccine during the EUA period. Courts have not yet decided the issue. So, there’s some legal risk for employers that choose to mandate that employees get vaccinated.

Most health care employers have decided to strongly encourage – but not require – employees to get vaccinated, partly out of concern that mandating the vaccine might lead to staffing shortages if enough employees refuse to get vaccinated and quit or are fired.”

The article also discusses religious and medical exemptions.

CONCLUSION

My husband and I received our Covid 19 vaccinations in March without any problems and recommended the vaccinations to our children with the caveat that they check with their doctors first, especially since some of our children and grandchildren have special situations.

Some received the vaccinations and some didn’t but we ultimately had to leave the decision up to them.

I am pleased that Covid 19 infections appear to be waning and that our family is healthy at present but I know that this is no time for any of us to be complacent about our health or our rights.

The “Population Bomb” Fizzles, but Now There is a Birth Dearth with Grave Consequences in Many Countries

 Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich was an entomologist (a scientist who specializes in the study of insects)  at Stanford University when he published his bestseller “The Population Bomb” in 1968.  Although initially ignored, it incited a worldwide fear of overpopulation and ultimately became one of the most influential books of the 20th century.

In his book, Ehrlich predicted that unless population decreased, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” in the 1970s.

That did not happen but 50 years later in a 2018 interview with Smithsonian magazine writer Charles C. Mann, Paul Ehrlich claimed that the book’s main contribution was to make population control “acceptable” as “a topic to debate.”

However, as Mr. Mann wrote:

” But the book did far more than that. It gave a huge jolt to the nascent environmental movement and fueled an anti-population-growth crusade that led to human rights abuses around the world.” (Emphasis added)

But even 50 years later and with the population declining in many countries, Paul Ehrlich continued to insist that:

“Population will fall, either when people choose to dramatically reduce birthrates or when there is a massive die-off because ecosystems can no longer support us. (Emphasis added)

THE HARSH REALITY TODAY

In 1980, China began a strict one child per married couple policy that even included forced abortions for women who did not comply.

In 2015, China raised the limit to two children, citing a “rapidly aging society and a shrinking working-age population”.

China has now increased the number of children to 3 children but as a June 3, 2021 Wall Street Journal article states “China Delivers Three-Child Policy, but It’s Too Late for Many.

Even with years of declining birthrates, there are fewer young people willing to buck the trend of postponing or forgoing marriage and children.

The result is an aging population with a shortage of children. In one Chinese province almost 40% of the province’s population of 880,000 are 60 or older and there is a surging demand for nursing homes. The local government is looking for private investors to help some 7,000 elderly residents who cannot take care of themselves.

Even beyond China, a May 22, 2021  New York Times article titled Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications recognized that:

“All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.” (Emphasis added)

HUNGARY FIGHTS BACK

A replacement rate of about 2.1 is necessary to sustain a population but the population in Hungary had been declining since 1981. It reached an all-time low of 1.23 in 2011.

Katalin Novák, the Minister for Family Affairs in Hungary, has facilitated a family-friendly approach that has seen birth rates start to rise. The birth rate is now up to 1.56, still low but improving.

As Minister Novak states:

“The government’s measures of the past ten years have evidently moved demographics in the right direction. The number of childbirths, abortions, the infant mortality rate, marriages, and divorces have all moved in a favorable direction. This also proves that we have made the right decision when we made family-centered governance a priority and are now on the right path. Families are enjoying government support, and we are helping our youth by giving them the opportunity to start a family whenever they want.” (Emphasis added)

THE SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES

As of 2019 (the latest year for which data is available), the U.S has the lowest fertility rate on record and the lowest number of births in 35 years.

As the New York Times noted in its article about population decline:

“The change may take decades, but once it starts, decline (just like growth) spirals exponentially. With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did — which is happening in dozens of countries — the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

The “population bomb” theory has had unintended and disastrous consequences, even in the U.S. and despite immigration.

In 2018, a US Census Bureau article predicted “The Greying of America: More Older Adults than Kids by 2035 for the first time in US history-joining other countries with large aging populations.

As the US Census Bureau states:

“With this swelling number of older adults, the country could see greater demands for healthcare, in-home caregiving and assisted living facilities. It could also affect Social Security. We project three-and-a-half working-age adults for every older person eligible for Social Security in 2020. By 2060, that number is expected to fall to two-and-a-half working-age adults for every older person.” (Emphasis added)

A country with more older people than children can unbalance a society socially, culturally and economically.

Even worse, legalizing abortion and assisted suicide/euthanasia will only make the situation more dire the US.

Since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade decision,  more than 62,000,000 abortions have been performed and now the new Biden administration wants to roll back restrictions on abortion  and make abortions taxpayer-funded

And as efforts by groups like Compassion and Choices to legalize assisted suicide throughout the US has now spread to 9 states and the District of Columbia despite pro-life and disability rights opposition, we should not be surprised if there is another US Supreme court case in the future like the 1997 Vacco v Quill Supreme Court case  that attempted to establish physician-assisted suicide as a fundamental right for the terminally ill like the Roe v. Wade abortion decision legalizing abortion for (initially) just women in the first three months of pregnancy. 

Instead of threats to human beings at the beginning and end of life, we should be welcoming new lives and families as well as caring for the elderly, disabled and poor to improve and stabilize ourselves and our country.

Rethinking Brain Death and Organ Donation

I have been writing for many years about the implications of brain death, the lesser known “donation after cardiac/circulatory death”, diagnosed brain death cases like the supposedly “impossible” prolonged survival and maturation of Jahi McMath, the unexpected recoveries like Zack Dunlap’s and even that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery before their ventilators were removed.

Last August, I wrote about the World Brain Death Project and the effort to establish a worldwide consensus on brain death criteria and testing to develop the “minimum clinical standards for determination of brain death”. (Emphasis added)

I also wrote about the current effort “to revise the (US) Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) to assure a consistent nationwide approach to consent for brain death testing” that could otherwise lead to a situation where ”a patient might be legally dead in Nevada, New York, or Virginia (where consent is not required). But that same patient might not be legally dead in California, Kansas, or Montana (where consent is required and might be refused)”. (All emphasis added)

The Uniform Declaration of Death Act (UDDA) was drafted in 1981 by a President’s Commission study to brain death and approved by both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). It was intended to provide a model for states to emulate.

It offered 2 definitions of when a person could be declared legally dead to align the legal definition of death with the criteria largely accepted by the medical community:

“Irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions (the traditional definition of death); or

Irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem (brain death)” (Emphasis added)

The UDDA in some form has since been adopted by all US states and the District of Columbia.

THE PUSHBACK TO REVISE THE US UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT (UDDA)

But now, 107 experts in medicine, bioethics, philosophy, and law, are challenging the proposed revisions to the UDDA. While they admit that they “do not necessarily agree with each other on all aspects of the brain-death debate or on fundamental ethical principles”, they do object to three aspects of the revision to:

“(1) specify the Guidelines (the adult and pediatric diagnostic guidelines) as the legally recognized “medical standard,” (2) to exclude hypothalamic function from the category of “brain function,” and (3) to authorize physicians to conduct an apnea test without consent and even over a proxy’s objection.” (All emphasis added)

These experts’ objections to those proposed revisions are that:

” (1) the Guidelines have a non-negligible risk of false-positive error, (2) hypothalamic function (a small but essential part of the brain helps control the pituitary gland and regulates many body functions) is more relevant to the organism as a whole than any brainstem reflex, and (3) the apnea test carries a risk of precipitating BD (brain death) in a non-BD patient….provides no benefit to the patient, does not reliably accomplish its intended purpose”… and “should at the very least require informed consent, as do many procedures that are much more beneficial and less risky.” (All emphasis added)

And these experts further state that:

“People have a right to not have a concept of death that experts vigorously debate imposed upon them against their judgment and conscience; any revision of the UDDA should therefore contain an opt-out clause for those who accept only a circulatory-respiratory criterion.”

CONCLUSION

Many years ago, I served on a hospital ethics committee when a doctor complained that he could not arrange an organ transplantation from an elderly woman in a coma caused by a stroke because she “failed” one of the hospital’s mandated tests for brain death. He said he felt like he was “burying two good kidneys”.

Although I already knew that the medical criteria used to determine brain death vary — often widely — from one hospital to another, one young doctor checked our area hospitals and came back elated after he found a hospital that did not include the test the elderly woman “failed”. He suggested that our hospital adopt the other hospital’s criteria to allow more organ donations.

When I pointed out that the public could lose trust in the ethics of organ donations if they knew we would change our rules just to get more organ transplants, I was told that I being hard-hearted to people who desperately needed such organs.

Unfortunately, now some countries’ healthcare ethics have degenerated to the point where euthanasia by organ donation is legally allowed.

Personally, I am all for the ethical donation of organs and tissues. Years ago, I volunteered to donate a kidney to a friend and one of our grandsons was saved in 2013 by an adult stem cell transplant.

But I do not have an organ donor card nor encourage others to sign one because I believe that standard organ donor cards give too little information for truly informed consent. Instead, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, skin and bones that can be ethically donated after natural death and will only agree to that donation.

The bottom line is that what we don’t know-or allowed to know-can indeed hurt us, especially when it comes to organ donation. We need to demand transparency and accurate information because good medical ethics are the foundation of a trustworthy healthcare system.

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR SIGNS LATEST US LAW TO LEGALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE AS ARKANSAS GOVENOR SIGNS THE “MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT”

On April 8, 2021, New Mexico became the latest and ninth state (along with Washington D.C.) to legalize “medically assisted suicide”.

Note the new terminology used is no longer called “physician-assisted suicide”. This is no accident but rather reflects the persistent expansion of assisted suicide law to allow even non-physicians like physician assistants and nurse practitioners to determine that a requesting patient has six months or less to live and provide them with the suicide drugs.

Ironically, Medicare benefit rules for certifying a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less to be eligible for hospice states that “No one other than a medical doctor or doctor of osteopathy can certify or re-certify a terminal illness”. (Emphasis added) And having worked as a home hospice, ICU and oncology nurse, I know how difficult it is to predict when a patient is expected to die.

And, like other assisted suicide laws, New Mexico’s law also has unenforceable and easily circumvented “safeguards’ like mental health evaluations that are required for any other suicidal patient.

The law also requires that terminally ill patients has “a right to know” about all legal options including assisted suicide and that healthcare providers who refuse to participate in medically assisted suicide must refer that patient to another willing provider.

Nevertheless, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Grisham said she signed the law HB0047 to secure the “peace of mind and humanity this legislation provides.”

THE MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT

In a striking contrast to New Mexico’s assisted suicide law, Governor Asa Hutchison signed the “Medical Ethics and Diversity Act” just days earlier on Friday, March 26, 2021 which expanded conscience rights in the state.

As the statute eloquently states:

“The right of conscience is a fundamental and unalienable right.

“The right of conscience was central to the founding of the United States, has been deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States for centuries, and has been central to the practice of medicine through the Hippocratic oath for millennia … The swift pace of scientific advancement and the expansion, of medical capabilities, along with the notion that medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers are mere public utilities, promise only to exacerbate the current crisis unless something is done to restore the importance of the right of conscience.

It is the public policy of this state to protect the right of conscience of medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers. It is the purpose of this subchapter to protect all medical practitioners, healthcare institutions, and healthcare payers from discrimination, punishment, or retaliation as a result of any instance of conscientious medical objection.”

However, opponents of the law like the Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union, have argued that it would allow doctors to refuse to offer a host of services for LGBTQ patients.

In response to this criticism, Governor Hutchinson stated:

“I have signed into law SB289, the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act. I weighed this bill very carefully, and it should be noted that I opposed the bill in the 2017 legislative session. The bill was changed to ensure that the exercise of the right of conscience is limited to ‘conscience-based objections to a particular health care service.’ I support this right of conscience so long as emergency care is exempted and conscience objection cannot be used to deny general health service to any class of people. Most importantly, the federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, and national origin continue to apply to the delivery of health care services.”

CONCLUSION

As a nurse myself, I would not and never have refused to care for any patient. Discrimination has no place in healthcare.

However, I have been threatened with termination when I have refused to follow an order that would cause a patient’s death. It wasn’t the patient I objected to but rather the action ordered.

Conversely, I would not want a healthcare provider caring for me who supports assisted suicide, abortion, etc. This is why I ask my doctors about their stands on such issues before I become their patient.

Our country and our healthcare systems need laws, healthcare providers and institutions that we can trust to protect us. Conscience rights protections are a critical necessity for that to happen.

Share this:

The Assisted Suicide Juggernaut Continues in the U.S.

Since Oregon passed the first physician-assisted suicide law in 1997, 8 more states and the District of Washington, D.C. passed assisted suicide laws by 2020. They are:

  • California (End of Life Option Act; approved in 2015, in effect from 2016)
  • Colorado (End of Life Options Act; 2016)
  • District of Columbia (D.C. Death with Dignity Act; 2016/2017)
  • Hawaii (Our Care, Our Choice Act; 2018/2019)
  • Maine (Death with Dignity Act; 2019)
  • New Jersey (Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act; 2019)
  • Oregon (Death with Dignity Act; 1994/1997)
  • Vermont (Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act; 2013)
  • Washington (Death with Dignity Act; 2008)

So far in 2021, 13 more states have new proposed assisted suicide bills and 4 states with assisted suicide laws are facing bills to expand their assisted suicide laws.

These 13 states are  Arizona , Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota and Rhode Island. Most of these states have been repeatedly hounded for years to pass an assisted suicide law.  

The 4 states with bills expanding their assisted suicide laws are California , Hawaii , Vermont, and the state of Washington.

The expansions range from expanding “qualified medical providers” from doctors to a range of non-doctors including nurses to eliminating so-called “safeguards” such as 15 day waiting periods, in person requests and even to allow electronic prescribing and shipping of lethal overdoses. Compassion and Choices (the former Hemlock Society) and other assisted suicide supporters have long portrayed assisted suicide “safeguards” as “burdensome obstacles”.

CONSCIENCE RIGHTS AND CENSORSHIP

Conscience rights for health care providers has been a very real problem since the 1974 Roe V. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in the U.S. The legalization of assisted suicide in several states has made this even worse for nurses, doctors, pharmacists and other healthcare workers. Even healthcare institutions have faced discrimination problems.

The Christian Medical and Dental Association even compiled a long list in 2019 of “Real-life examples of discrimination in healthcare” .

Now, we are seeing censorship. A March 28, 2021 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Big Tech Censors Religion, Too stated that:

“In January, Bishop Kevin Doran, an Irish Catholic, tweeted: “There is dignity in dying. As a priest, I am privileged to witness it often. Assisted suicide, where it is practiced, is not an expression of freedom or dignity.” Twitter removed this message and banned Bishop Doran from posting further. While the company reversed its decision after public opposition, others haven’t been so lucky.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Back in 2014, I wrote a blog “Should a Pro-Life person Become a Nurse” about a worried pro-life student nurse who wrote me asking “what area of nursing can I move into that does not demand that I do things that I absolutely will not do?”

I wrote her back and told her that I had that challenge in several areas I worked in over 45 years but was able to live up to my ethics despite some difficult situations and that I never regretted becoming a nurse.

However, conscience rights are a not a luxury but rather a necessity.

That is why some of us nurses in Missouri worked so hard to get a conscience rights law passed in 1992 after the Nancy Cruzan starvation and dehydration death that, although not as strong as we wanted, is still in effect today. And I was thrilled when the Trump administration announced a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division  in 2018 to enforce “federal laws that protect conscience and the free exercise of religion and prohibit coercion and discrimination in health and human services”.

Society has long insisted that health care professionals adhere to the highest standards of ethics as a form of for society. The vulnerability of a sick person and the inability of society to monitor every health care decision or action are powerful motivators to enforce such standards. For thousands of years doctors (and nurses) have embraced the Hippocratic standard that “I will give no deadly medicine to any one, nor suggest any such counsel.” Should that bright line to separate killing from caring now be erased by legislators or judges?

Without a strong resistance movement, the assisted suicide movement will only keep expanding. So far, much of the public has been shielded from the real truth by euphemisms and false reassurances from assisted suicide supporters, a mostly sympathetic mainstream media and often spineless professional and health care organizations.

We all must educate ourselves to speak out before it is too late.

A Light at the End of the (Covid 19)Tunnel?

My husband and I just returned from a trip to Florida where we were happily surprised to find the closest place to normal since the Covid 19 pandemic started. Everyone wore masks (except one young man we saw at a distance) and everyone was careful about social distancing. Hand sanitizers were everywhere.

Best of all, people seemed happy and we saw very few stores closed.

When we returned home, we both finally received the first of our 2 Covid 19 vaccination doses.

Is it possible that there is a light at the end of the Covid tunnel?

I am cautiously optimistic but aware that Covid 19 may still be a problem in the long term, especially since some younger family members-including children-contracted Covid despite precautions. Thankfully, they all had mild cases with no hospitalizations. My husband and I will continue to follow Missouri’s guidelines of masks, social distancing, etc. even after we receive our next dose of vaccine.

IS FLORIDA A HARBINGER OF GOOD NEWS?

Florida was among the last states to go into lockdown and one of the first states to ease restrictions.

Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis was vilified by many of the media for adopting something similar to Sweden’s strategy of protecting the vulnerable while keeping businesses and schools open but a year after the pandemic hit the US, that strategy seems to be working.

Despite having the second largest number of elderly people by state, Florida’s Covid death rate numbers are better than New York’s and California’s. And, unlike so many other states, Florida’s economy is thriving.

Now, Governor Abbott of Texas and Governor Reeves of Mississippi have announced that they would be lifting their states’ mask mandates and rolling back many of their Covid-19 health mandates.

WHAT HAPPENED?

It has been almost a year since the U.S. went on lockdown for Covid 19 when President Trump declared Covid 19 a national emergency on March 13, 2020.

At first, the lockdown was only supposed to be for a few weeks to “flatten the curve” of infections and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed by Covid patients.

However, as the lockdowns wore on for months, some doctors and other experts started warning about the emotional and health damage occurring.

Although it received little media notice, a May 19, 2020 letter to President Trump signed by over 600 doctors detailed the physical and mental impact of the lockdown in the US due to Covid 19, calling it a “mass casualty incident” with “exponentially growing negative health consequences” to millions of non-COVID patients. 

The doctors’ letter also stated that:

“Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenager and young adults for decades to come.”

Then on October 4, 2020, the Great Barrington Declaration was written and released and eventually signed by thousands of doctors and experts from around the world. The Declaration encouraged governments to lift lockdown restrictions on young and healthy people while focusing protection measures on the elderly, stating:

“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. “

Unfortunately, Covid 19 rules and lockdowns have become a political football in many states, especially with school and small business reopenings.

CONCLUSION

We know a lot more about Covid 19 now than when the pandemic started, especially from watching U.S. states and other countries use various strategies to try to contain the virus. And now, of course, it appears we have several promising vaccines.

Although there is much more to learn, we indeed might be seeing a light at the end of the Covid 19 tunnel.

Can You Tell “Fake News” from Real News?

In 2019, Nick Sandmann, a Catholic high school teenager in a MAGA hat from Covington, Kentucky was filmed allegedly showing the teen confronting an elderly Native American man after a big pro-life rally in Washington, D.C.

The tape was shown on mainstream media outlets and the young man and his classmates were then vilified in the media.

Later, a longer version of the video instead showed that it was the Native American man who confronted the teen, chanting and banging a drum in his face.

But by July 2020, after Mr. Sandmann sued several news outlets for defamation, both CNN and the Washington Post settled the cases for undisclosed amounts.

The rush to judgment by so many of the mainstream media over such an arguably small but politically potent news item was eventually exposed as “fake news”.

What caused this and how can we tell the difference between trustworthy news and so-called “fake news”?

An advanced practice nurse friend of mine recently revealed that she had studied journalism in college for three years before dropping out in 1990s. She felt that her professors were enforcing their viewpoints on students’ writings rather than promoting non-biased news reporting. She is happy now that she changed her major to nursing but said she is sad and appalled to see the biased state of journalism now.

Getting trustworthy information from news outlets can be a daunting and time-consuming effort now with the great political and cultural divide that has been occurring in the US, especially in the last few years. Even worse, we now see the rise of an Orwellian-like “cancel culture” that is enforcing new speech codes and concepts with the threat of silencing other views and even people.

WILL THE NEWS LITERACY PROJECT HELP OR HURT?

Recently, I read about the News Literacy Project (NLP) that states it is:

“a nonpartisan national education nonprofit, provides programs and resources for educators and the public to teach, learn and share the abilities needed to be smart, active consumers of news and information and equal and engaged participants in a democracy. ” It declares that “The lack of news literacy is a threat to our democracy. (Emphasis added)

NLP says it plans to build:

“By 2022, a community of 20,000 news literacy practitioners who, using NLP and resources, will teach news literacy skills to 3 million middle and high school students each year. NLP will also lead efforts to increase public awareness of news literacy and to equip people of all ages with the ability to discern fact from fiction.” (emphasis added)

NLP also has a “Theory of Change” with four pillars that will:

“Pillar One: Increase the use and the measurable student impact of NLP programs and resources (Change educator behaviors),

Pillar Two: Develop a national community of news literacy practitioners as advocates of systemic change (Change general will),

Pillar Three: Raise awareness of NLP and increase news literacy among the general public. (Change public mindsets),

Pillar Four: Build the infrastructure and fiscal sustainability to realize this plan in the short term and our vision in the longer term.” (Emphasis added)

NLP also states that since its start in 2008 ,  “More than 30 news organizations across the United States, from local outlets to internationally known print and digital publications, support NLP in a variety of ways “. NLP also states that it “has a role to play assisting others around the world who are working to expand news literacy in their countries.

This was news to me and rather concerning because so many of these same news organizations have been involved in “fake news” stories like Nick Sandmann’s. If the NLP so concerned about this, why doesn’t it also work to enforce the standard of accurate, non-biased reporting with its own news outlets instead of trying to teach children and the public how to differentiate between trustworthy news and “fake news”?

MY JOURNEY AND WHY I AM SO CONCERNED

I grew up in a mixed political family. My mother was a passionate Democrat, and my father was an equally passionate Republican. Their arguments were epic, but they spurred my interest in understanding local and national news, even as a child.

I wanted to know what was true and spent lots of time reading different viewpoints in magazines, newspapers and our local library. Back in the 1960s, there was no internet.

Not surprisingly, I wound up as an independent.

My parents and teachers wanted me to go into journalism, but I chose nursing and never regretted it.

However, I began writing again when my late first husband asked me to help him write his medical research papers. I learned a lot but was shocked by the politics of publishing medical research. Certain projects and results were taboo. I learned to have a degree of skepticism when evaluating medical research and I am no longer surprised when many papers are retracted after publication.

After my daughter Karen was born with Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect, I started researching and writing again, first in a journal and then eventually for other publications including a national newspaper.

My newspaper editor was superb, and he enforced strict journalistic principles such as reporting different viewpoints without bias and with meticulous sourcing.

I found I was not immune from occasional mistakes, but I was expected to correct them as soon as possible. Accuracy was paramount. I doubt any journalism school back then could have been better than my experience writing for that newspaper.

Today, I become immediately skeptical when I read or hear sensational news items or intense personal attacks, especially on social media sites.

And with the NLP teaching millions of students every year, I am also concerned about the power of schools and how they educate our children.

Years ago, when my children were in public high school, mandatory school sex education with the promotion of “safe sex” was a concern for many of us parents but dismissed by the school. Now, Planned Parenthood boasts it is the single largest provider of sex education in the United States.

Now, many younger parents are worried about what their children are learning and believing when their schools teach the “1619 Project” and “Critical Race Theory”.

CONCLUSION

We must and should be able to have a high amount of trust in our media, especially with the current Covid 19 pandemic, but now polls show the public’s trust in media has “hit a new low”.

“Fake news” can take many forms from bias and distortions to ignoring major news stories for political reasons. This kind of manipulation is very harmful and even dangerous to achieving a safe and well-informed society. I personally have eliminated most social media.

I also recommend keeping an open mind rather than just reading or watching news outlets with which you agree. Take the time to really try to understand and use critical thinking about contentious issues. Be skeptical when reading shocking news items and check the sources and other verification.

And just as important, we still need to stand up for what we believe and explain our positions without hostility towards those who disagree and without fear of reprisals for our convictions.

Correction to “How Missouri Became the First Abortion-free State in the U.S.”

CORRECTION: It appears that this blog and articles about “How Missouri Became the First Abortion-free State in the U.S.” are premature and inaccurate. My apologies.

Now, according an article in the January 21, 2021 St. Louis Review:

“The archdiocesan Respect Life Apostolate recently issued a statement responding to reports circulating that Missouri may be the first “abortion-free” or “abortion clinic-free” state. However, the apostolate noted that the last freestanding abortion facility in the state, Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, is still a legally licensed abortion facility by the state of Missouri, with many Missouri women being referred to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Fairview Heights, Illinois. Abortions also continue to be offered by at least one health care system in the St. Louis area.”

How Missouri Became the First Abortion-free State in the U.S.

Although the pro-life movement has faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the U.S., the movement continues to make legal and cultural gains.

This is one of the latest.

In July 2019, I wrote the blog “The Last Planned Parenthood Clinic in Missouri Again Evades Closure” about how the lone Planned Parenthood clinic in my home state of Missouri received multiple court-ordered reprieves from closure after the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) decided not to renew the facility’s license because of dozens of serious health and safety violations.

Public records showed numerous problems at the clinic including unreported failed abortions, life threatening complications, an illegal abortion at 21 weeks, insufficient supervision of medical residents (students) performing abortions and inaccurate medical records among the many other violations.

Yet the St. Louis abortion clinic continued to get court-ordered reprieves.

But this month, Operation Rescue confirmed that now no abortions have been performed there for months.  Instead, all abortion appointments are now being referred to the Fairview Heights Planned Parenthood facility across the Mississippi River in Illinois.

How could this happen?

While Missouri has long been a strongly pro-life state with legislation like the 2019 “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act” and many active pro-life organizations, Defenders of the Unborn president Mary Maschmeier, who has led a peaceful, prayerful and life-saving ministry outside the St. Louis Planned Parenthood clinic for many years, wrote an email also giving credit to the:

“ordinary citizens who would not take no for an answer. Who persevered day after day, year after year, decade after decade. Ever present on the front lines. In the streets. In the halls of our state legislature. Sidewalk counseling. Prayer warriors…Manning pregnancy aid centers. Staffing Ultra Sound vans. Rain, snow, heat, cold- ever vigilant.”

Mary also wrote that “We will not stop until the that unjust practice is banished from our land and encourage our fellow citizens to end abortion in their respective states. “

CONCLUSION

In 1989, I had just started working as an RN on an oncology (cancer) unit when we discovered that one of our patients had CMV (Cytomegalovirus).

One of our nurses was pregnant and tested positive for the virus. Her doctor told her how her baby could die or have terrible birth defects from the virus and he recommended an abortion.

“Sue” (not her real name) was frantic. She had two little girls and worked full time. She said she didn’t know how she could manage a child with serious birth defects.

I told her that it was usually impossible to know if or how much a baby might be impaired before birth. I also told her about my Karen who was born with Down Syndrome and a critical heart defect and died at 5 months. I told her that I treasured the time I had with her and later babysat children with a range of physical and mental difficulties. Most importantly, I also told her that I would be there to help her and her baby.

“Sue” decided against abortion and told the other nurses what I said.

The other nurses were furious with me and said if the baby was born with so much as an extra toe, they would never talk to me again.

But slowly, the other nurses came around and also offered to help Sue and her baby.

In the end, we all celebrated when Sue had her first son who was perfectly healthy!

My point is that what many people don’t understand is that pro-life doesn’t mean just being against abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. What being pro-life really means is truly caring about all lives, born or unborn.

When Can We End Lockdowns for Covid 19?

When the Covid 19 pandemic hit the U.S. early last year, little was known about this new infection.

But as the highly contagious Covid 19 virus was spreading around the world, President Trump issued a proclamation on March 13, 2020 declaring a national emergency with “preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those affected” and state lockdowns began.

Regular healthcare became virtually suspended as states went to lockdown with rules to shelter in place except for essential errands or work. Schools and many businesses were closed. 

On March 18, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recommended that hospitals cancel all elective surgeries and nonessential medical, surgical and dental procedures to prepare for the expected deluge of patients with Covid 19 and the health system complied.

Then, although it received little media notice, a May 19, 2020 letter to President Trump signed by over 600 doctors detailed the physical and mental impact of the lockdown in the US due to Covid 19, calling it a “mass casualty incident” with “exponentially growing negative health consequences” to millions of non-COVID patients. 

The doctors’ letter stated that:

“Suicide hotline phone calls have increased 600%,” the letter said. Other silent casualties: “150,000 Americans per month who would have had new cancer detected through routine screening.”

“Patients fearful of visiting hospitals and doctors’ offices are dying because COVID-phobia is keeping them from seeking care. One patient died at home of a heart attack rather than go to an emergency room. The number of severe heart attacks being treated in nine U.S hospitals surveyed dropped by nearly 40% since March. Cardiologists are worried “a second wave of deaths” indirectly caused by the virus is likely.

“The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.

“It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown,” the letter says. “Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a person’s health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million [now 38 million] other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come.” (All emphasis added)

Then on October 4, 2020, the Great Barrington Declaration was written and released by three public health experts from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford. The Declaration was eventually signed by thousands of doctors and experts from around the world. The Declaration encouraged governments to lift lockdown restrictions on young and healthy people while focusing protection measures on the elderly.

These experts surmised that this would allow COVID-19 to spread in a population where it is less likely to be deadly, encouraging widespread immunity that is not dependent on a vaccine.

The Declaration stated:

“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. “

The Declaration was swiftly met with intense criticism from other medical experts who called the plan “practically impossible and highly unethical”.

As the numbers of people with Covid 19 and who died from Covid 19 went up and down over the months, various U.S. states and counties ordered different degrees of lockdown and now many states seem to be guided more by politics than science when it comes to lockdowns.

HOPE ON THE HORIZON

We now have more people with Covid 19 surviving and leaving the hospital sooner due to a better understanding of what treatments work best in comparison to what was known when the pandemic started in the US.

And although seemingly impossible at first, new vaccines have been developed for Covid 19 and began being distributed in December 2021 due to Operation Warp Speed. Despite the controversy about some Covid 19 vaccines, it is hoped that the widespread use of vaccines may help the U.S. end the lockdowns.

In addition, the FDA (food and Drug Administration) approved the use of several rapid Covid 19 tests, some that can even be done at home. This can be a gamechanger with some experts saying that the massive distribution of rapid self-tests for use in homes, schools, offices, and other public places could replace harmful sweeping lockdowns with knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Lockdowns have caused enormous economic, physical, social and mental upheaval in the US.

When lockdowns are intermittent in intensity and duration in some states without clear scientific evidence that the lockdowns are working, it seems we need a reevaluation of their usefulness as we evaluate other measures to help end the Covid 19 pandemic.

Should a Covid 19 Vaccine be Mandatory?

As the first Americans are receiving a Covid 19 vaccine, a December 5 2020 Gallup poll reports that 63% of Americans say they are willing to take the vaccine. 37% are less willing, including some groups like non-white people and Americans age 45-64. But the percentage of Americans currently willing to get vaccinated may still be below where public health experts want it.

Now, there is a proposed bill in New York to make getting the vaccine mandatory to get sufficient immunity if not enough people are voluntarily getting them.

Why are some people unwilling to get the vaccine?

As I wrote in my last blog “Ethics and the Production of Covid 19 Vaccines”, many people are concerned about the use of aborted fetal cells in some vaccines. I also included two lists of vaccines and whether or not such fetal cells were involved in their production. One list is from the Charlotte Lozier Institute and one is from the Children of God for Life organization. (The Charlotte Lozier Institute does disagree with the Children of God for Life organization on the Moderna vaccine.)

Other potential concerns are about the safety, side effects and the effectiveness of the vaccines.

EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY

A December 3, 2020 MedPage investigative article “Want to Know More About mRNA Before Your COVID Jab? states that “While an mRNA vaccine has never been on the market anywhere in the world, mRNA vaccines have been tested in humans before, for at least four infectious diseases: rabies, influenza, cytomegalovirus, and Zika.”

The Covid 19 vaccines use a synthetic mRNA, which is genetic information used to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. When injected, the body produces a strong response to that protein to produce an immune response.

How long that response lasts is still unknown.

But, especially for certain groups of people, there are also concerns about safety.

According to the CDC (the U.S. Center for Disease Control) regarding immunocompromised patients such as those with HIV or who take immunosuppressive medications or therapies may take the vaccine but should be counseled about:

“– Unknown vaccine safety and efficacy profiles in immunocompromised persons
– Potential for reduced immune responses
– Need to continue to follow all current guidance to protect themselves against COVID-19″

Also according to the CDC, “There are no data on the safety of Covid 19 vaccines in pregnant women” but “Animal developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies are ongoing” and more studies are planned.

Regarding breastfeeding, the CDC states that “There are no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in lactating women or the effects of mRNA vaccines on the breastfed infant or milk production/excretion”

SIDE EFFECTS

In a Nov. 23, 2020 CNBC article “Doctors say CDC should warn people the side effects from Covid vaccine shots won’t be ‘a walk in the park, a group of doctors told the CDC to warn people that the Covid 19 vaccine shots now being rolled out may have “some rough side effects so they know what to expect and aren’t scared away from getting the second dose.”

And a December 9, 2020 article in the Wall Street Journal “Covid-19 Vaccines Pose Potential Side Effects, Doctors Say” reported that “U.K. authorities warn people with severe allergies against receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech shots, after two Britons experience allergic reactions.”

But a STAT news article a few days later on December 13, 2020, now reports that the CDC has changed its position from Persons who have had a severe allergic reaction to any vaccine or injectable therapy (intramuscular, intravenous, or subcutaneous) should not receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at this time(emphasis added) to that people who had “severe reactions to prior vaccines or injectable drugs can still get the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for Covid-19, but should discuss the risks with their doctors and be monitored for 30 minutes afterward”.

Another concern is that although states rely on the percentage of positive Covid 19 tests for lockdown and other orders, there are many kinds of tests and both false positive and false negative results have been reported.

No wonder many people are confused and anxious!

SHOULD COVID 19 VACCINES BE MANDATORY?

Now we are seeing Covid 19 vaccines being rapidly distributed and more Covid 19 vaccines are coming, including a Johnson and Johnson single dose Covid 19 vaccine that is in testing and the results may be known by January.

Currently, the health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities have first priority for a Covid 19 vaccine.

Although states have the authority to regulate public health and they have in the past mandated vaccines for diseases like smallpox and some mandatory vaccines are required by states before children can attend school, it seems unlikely that there will be a federal mandate for the Covid 19 vaccine.

It is more likely that only certain groups of people may be required to take the vaccine like healthcare workers, universities and some employers. Even then, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may help people who have a religious objection to a vaccine as well as anti-discrimination laws and exemptions for medical reasons. An employer would have to make a reasonable accommodation as long as it’s not too costly for the business.

It is also possible that airlines, stores, stadiums could also make vaccination a condition of doing business with a person.

CONCLUSION

The Covid 19 pandemic has taken a serious toll on everyone and we will not get back to “normal life” anytime soon, even with the Covid 19 vaccine.

But we still must make sure that any Covid 19 vaccines we take are ethical, effective and safe.

Ethics and the Production of Covid 19 Vaccines

I am hopeful that the new Covid 19 vaccines that are being approved soon will help stop Covid 19 but, like many people, I only want to take a vaccine that does not use cell lines from aborted babies.

But that information can be hard to find, confusing and the facts are sometimes disputed.

For example, a November 18, 2020 article from the Associated Press titled “Lung tissue from aborted fetus not used in AstraZeneca vaccine development” disputes an online video that claims tissue from an aborted baby was used. I discovered later that this AP headline was inaccurate.

And there are disputes even in Catholic and other religious circles.

For example, some Catholic bishops and priests questioned the use of some vaccines before Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Rhoades from the USCCB (the US Catholic bishops conference) wrote a memo citing three Vatican documents and stating that:

“Neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccine involved the use of cell lines that originated in fetal tissue taken from the body of an aborted baby at any level of design, development or production. They are not completely free from any connection to abortion, however, as both Pfizer and Moderna use of a tainted cell line for one of the confirmatory lab tests of their products.”

“There is thus a connection, but it is relatively remote,” they continued. “Some are asserting that if a vaccine is connected in any way with tainted cell lines, then it is immoral to be vaccinated with them. This is an inaccurate portrayal of Catholic moral teaching.”

and

“Most importantly, they all make it clear that, at the level of the recipient, it is morally permissible to accept vaccination when there are no alternatives and there is a serious risk to health.”

However, other articles like the National Catholic Register’s Nov. 25, 2020 Measuring Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine: Now’s the Time to Press Hard for Ethical Options” by Stacy Trasancos, PhD, MA and Children of God for Life’s Nov. 16, 2020 article “Moderna Covid-19 Vaccine – Facts – Not Fiction say that kidney cells from aborted babies were used in the development of the Moderna Vaccine but also adds that there are plenty of other ethical vaccines being developed.

CONCLUSION

After weeks of investigation, I found the simplest explanation of the vaccine production process and its’ potential problems at The Charlotte Lozier Institute website.

I also found the most expansive list of current potential vaccines at the Institute’s Update: COVID-19A Vaccine Candidates and Abortion-Derived Cell Lines. (The Institute does disagree with Dr. Trasancos and the Children of God for Life organization on the Moderna vaccine.)

For myself, I do want the Covid 19 vaccine when it is available but I will make sure that I am given one of the ethically uncontroversial vaccines. I will also insist on adequate information on the safety of such vaccines before I take the vaccine.

ADDENDUM:

I am adding this addendum to my latest blog after I discovering some new information from both a medical and a pro-life website (LifeSiteNews December 4, 2020 article “Pfizer COVID jab warning: “No breastfeeding, avoid pregnancy for 2 months, unknown fertility impacts” about the possible effects of the Pfizer Covid 19 vaccine on pregnant and breastfeeding moms.

This disturbing news and another link from a blog reader made me realize that we must have confidence that any Covid 19 vaccine will be safe as well as ethically produced.

Therefore, I have added a final line to my blog:  “I will also insist on adequate information on the safety of such vaccines before I take the vaccine.”

Nancy Valko, RN ALNC

Caring for an Elderly Relative who Wants to Die

I was disturbed but not really surprised when I read the October 21, 2020 New England Journal of Medicine article by Scott D. Halpern, M.D, Ph.D., titled “Learning about End-of-Life Care from Grandpa”.

Dr. Halpern, a palliative care doctor and ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote about his elderly grandfather who had been widowed for the third time and wrote “My life was over too, only existence remained,” in a memoir for his family.

As Dr. Halpern writes, “It was downhill from there” as his grandfather coped with challenges like blindness, deafness and arthritis.

Family members offered to care for him but the grandfather chose to go into an assisted living facility where family members could visit him frequently. But then, Covid 19 visitations cut him off entirely from the outside world.

Eventually, the grandfather was allowed to see relatives one at a time outdoors at the facility.

Nearing his 103rd birthday, the grandfather started asking Dr. Halpern about “any plausible option to hasten death”.

New Jersey had recently approved physician-assisted suicide, but Dr. Halpern was “ambivalent” about that option. In addition, his grandfather did not have a terminal illness but rather was “dying of old age, frailty, and more than anything else, isolation and meaninglessness”.

Alarmingly, Dr. Halpern found that the medical code for this diagnosis called “adult failure to thrive” was being used not only used to access hospice but also to access physician-assisted suicide in some states.

Unable to find a New Jersey doctor willing to use physician-assisted suicide on his grandfather anyway, Dr. Halpern offered his grandfather the option of VSED (voluntarily stopping of eating and drinking) to hasten or cause death that the pro-assisted suicide group Compassion and Choices touts as “natural” and legal in all states.

THE TRUTH ABOUT VSED

Dr. Halpern wrote that his grandfather had trouble refusing food and water on his own. He started and stopped the process a few times.

Dr. Halpern was not surprised, writing that:

“ For people with a consistent desire to end their life, unencumbered by mental illness or immediate threats to their survival, the only alternative — to stop eating and drinking — is just too challenging. Hospice experts around the country had warned me that less than 20% of people who try to do so “succeed,” with most reversing course because of vicious thirst.” (Emphasis added)

Finally, Dr. Halpern’ write that his grandfather said “I just want it over with. Scott, do whatever you need to do.”

Dr. Halpern writes that he consulted his hospice team and began treating his grandfather’s thirst “as I treat other forms of discomfort — with morphine and lorazepam” (Emphasis added)

Even then, it took 12 long days for his grandfather to finally die.

The lessons that Dr. Halpern says he finally learned were that:

“despite many problems with physician-assisted dying, it may provide the most holistic relief possible for people who are not immediately dying, but rather are done living.”

And

stopping eating and drinking is largely impossible without knowledgeable family members and dedicated hospice care.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Dr. Halpern obviously loved his grandfather and tried to meet his grandfather’s emotional and physical needs before telling him about the VSED option and eventually adding terminal sedation. And it seems that the imposed isolation because of potential Covid 19 infection was especially devastating for his grandfather.

But his justification for physician-assisted suicide as “the most holistic relief possible for people who are not immediately dying, but rather are done living” is chilling.

Unfortunately, that is an attitude seen all to often in medical professionals that has led to the expansion of some assisted suicide laws from terminal illness to non-terminal conditions like “completed life” and disabilities.

Both personally and professionally as a nurse, I know how difficult it can be on families when caring for a family member-especially an older relative-who says he or she wants to die.

But I also know that while we all can have sympathy for someone who says they want to die, the word “no” can be a powerful and loving response. The real answer is to help make living as good and meaningful as possible until death.

For example, I became the only caregiver when my elderly aunt developed diabetes and late-stage pancreatic cancer in 2000.

I went to doctor visits with her and went over the options with her. My aunt rejected chemo and radiation that had only a small chance of even slowing the cancer. She also refused hospice.

I offered to care for her in my home with my 15 year old daughter who also wanted to help. However my aunt felt it would cramp my daughter’s lifestyle so she decided to stay in her own home until she died.

So I helped her at home and purchased my first cell phone so that she could contact me at anytime. At that time, I was a single parent and worked full time nights in an ICU.

However, one day my aunt asked me about stopping her insulin to die faster. I told her how that could put her at risk for a heart attack or stroke from high blood sugar with no one there to help.

So she changed her mind and then even began opening up about her condition with others. She was stunned when people told her how inspiring she was and offered to help her in any way.

My aunt became happier than I had ever seen her.

Eventually, my aunt did accept hospice care at a facility she knew. I visited and called often. My aunt was physically comfortable and alert.

One day when my daughter and I went to visit her, we found that she had just died quietly in her sleep. The nurses had just stepped out to call me.

My daughter later wrote a beautiful essay about her first experience with death for her high school and received an A+. Her essay was later published on a nursing website.

In the end, causing or hastening death does not really solve anything but rather can be seen as an abandonment of the suffering person and a destroyer of the necessary trust we all must have in the ethics of our healthcare system.

We must never discriminate when it comes to helping anyone contemplating suicide.

.

Shout Your ADOPTION!

The National Association of Pro-life Nurses (NAPN) has loved to feature stories about adoption and wants to feature more such stories on our website.

As our president Sue Meyers has written:

“We have named the program, “Shout Your Adoption.”

We would like to include more stories of adoption in our newsletter. Pro-Life people are all about offering alternatives to abortion and many adopt babies, children with disabilities and hard-to-place children. As a grandmother to a three-year-old, adorable (just ask me) grandson, I cannot imagine life without Andrew.

Please send your stories to me at lmeyers@nethtc.net .Don’t worry about getting it written perfectly, we will polish it, if necessary. We won’t use names unless you give us permission. Thank you so much! I can’t wait to read your stories!”

When a new life is unexpected and in difficult circumstances, women are often encouraged or even coerced into an abortion and not considering the adoption option.

I saw this myself when my 18 year old daughter became pregnant in 1998.

But when my daughter received help and support, she chose adoption and never regretted knowing her daughter was in loving hands.

These stories may not only help future mothers and babies but also their families and other loved ones. And, especially today, with Planned Parenthood’s “Shout Your Abortion” promotion, our society really needs to hear these pro-life stories.

In 2012, I wrote an article about my my daughter’s and our family’s adoption story for Voices magazine titled “Open Adoption: A Love Story” in the hope that other women and their families would be helped by our story.

I hope you will consider writing yours!

Protecting Premature Babies and Abortion Survivors

On September 25, 2020, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children” that states:

“Every infant born alive, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, has the same dignity and the same rights as every other individual and is entitled to the same protections under Federal law. “

This executive order came after Speaker NancyPelosi and House Democrats refused to allow a vote on the “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” over 80 times.

ELLIOT AND EMERY

The new executive order protects not only babies who survive abortions but also those babies born prematurely like twins Emery and Elliot who were denied medical treatment after being born at 22 weeks and 5 days, despite a doctor’s prior assurances and despite the parents’ desperate pleas for treatment after the boys were born.

In an interview, the twins’ mother Amanda told me that the doctors predicted the babies would be stillborn or die shortly after birth because of their prematurity. However, the doctors were wrong: one of the boys lived for 45 minutes and the other for 2.5 hours.

Amanda and Shaun Finnefrock, the twins’ parents, have been active ever since their boys’ deaths in 2017 , advocating for “equal protection, equal treatment, the equal opportunity for survival — whether they survived an abortion or their mothers wanted them to live, like I did mine.”

They have been working on an Elliot and Emery’s Law for their home state of Ohio to protect other prematurely born babies.

Unfortunately, a 2015 University of Iowa study found that infants born at 22 weeks received potential lifesaving treatment at fewer than one in four hospitals. Almost all hospitals, the researchers found, will treat infants born at 25 weeks, but there is substantial variation among hospitals on whether they actively treat infants born at 23 or 24 weeks.

One obstacle is the fear that premature babies will be at an increased risk of disability as a result of the prematurity. But it is impossible to know at birth if the newborn will have disabilities because of prematurity. 

The good news is that studies are now finding that the majority of premature babies born at 22 weeks survive if given care.

CONCLUSION

When I started my nursing career over 50 years ago, babies more than 3 months premature routinely died because of breathing problems. But when ventilators and especially surfactant to protect the babies’ lungs were developed, “preemies” started to be saved at earlier and earlier stages with good results.

But most importantly, this progress was made because of the willingness of both parents and doctors to try to save these babies that made all the difference.

Think the Political and Cultural Divisions in Our Country are Bad? The Divisions in Medical Ethics Could Cost Your or a Loved One’s Life!

I wanted to be a nurse since I was 5. I was drawn to nursing not only because I wanted to help people but also because medical ethics standards were so high, especially in contrast to some of the corrupt business practices that I saw.

I graduated from a Catholic nursing school in 1969 and spent the next 50 years working mostly in intensive care but also in home health and hospice, oncology (cancer), kidney dialysis, volunteer work and on ethics committees.

I first noticed the change in medical ethics when the US Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 legalized abortion for the first three months of pregnancy. I was working in intensive care at the time and found that my fellow medical professionals who supported the abortion decision angrily rebuked those of us who were shocked that the first rule of medical ethics we were taught-First, Do No Harm-was eroding.

Then in 1982, my doctor husband and I were shocked by the Baby Doe case where the parents received a judge’s approval to let their newborn son with Down Syndrome die instead of repairing an easily correctable hole between the tube that leads from the throat to the stomach and the  tube that leads from the throat to the windpipe and lungs.  While lawyers were appealing his case and many parents (including my husband and me) wanted to adopt Baby Doe, the newborn starved and dehydrated to death without the desperately needed surgical repair.

My husband asked “What has happened to medical ethics??” but we both knew the answer: babies with Down Syndrome are often unwanted and aborted.

Five months after Baby Doe died, our third child Karen was born with Down Syndrome and a reparable heart defect but the heart doctor gave us a choice to “let” our baby die without surgery. We refused but my former trust in the medical system was shattered.

After I suddenly became a single parent in 1988, I had to return to a paid nursing job to support my three children but found a drastically different medical ethics system.

I found that during the 1970s, medical ethics began to evolve into the newer “bioethics”, even in Catholic hospitals.

This new bioethics has essentially four principles:

1. Respect for autonomy (the patient’s right to choose or refuse treatment)

2. Beneficence (the intent of doing good for the patient)

3. Non-maleficence (not causing harm)

4. Justice (“fair distribution of scarce resources, competing needs, rights and obligations, and potential conflicts with established legislation”) Emphasis added.

Unfortunately, those principles are malleable and then used to justify actions and laws that would have been unthinkable when I graduated from nursing school. That bioethics mindset changed not only medical and nursing education but also the principles that informed our work.

Even the Hippocratic Oath, the oldest and most widely known treatise on medical ethics that forbade actions such as abortion and euthanasia that medical students routinely took upon graduation, has now been revised or dropped at many medical schools.

SOME MEDICAL ETHICS DIVISIONS THAT CAN COST YOU OR A LOVED ONE’S LIFE

Abortion

The American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Nurses Association and other healthcare organization that used to condemn abortion are now supporting “abortion rights”.

Abortion on demand and taxpayer-funded has now been deemed a “civil right” by Planned Parenthood and many Democratic politicians throughout pregnancy to birth and even beyond. Alternatives to abortion such as free pregnancy tests, counseling, ultrasounds, maternity and baby clothes, diapers, car seats, bassinets, etc. are not options at Planned Parenthood but rather at non-profit crisis pregnancy centers.

As a parent of an unwed teenage daughter, I support these services and give thanks for my now 22 year old granddaughter.

Assisted suicide/euthanasia

In the early 1970s when I was a young ICU nurse, none of us medical professionals had even heard of a “living will”. There was a universal presumption for life and “quality of life” was something to be improved, not judged.

Nevertheless, sick people could and did refuse treatment and even check themselves out of the hospital against medical advice. When patients appeared to be dying, they or their families could agree to a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order. Treatments could be ethically refused when such measures were considered medically futile or excessively burdensome for the patient. But one thing we didn’t do was offer to withhold or withdraw medical care like tube or even spoon feedings to cause or hasten a patient’s death. And it was unthinkable that medical professionals could assist even a dying patient’s suicide.

Unknown to us, all this began to change after Louis Kutner, a Chicago lawyer, wrote a 1969 article in the Indiana Law Journal titled Due Process of Euthanasia: The Living Will, A Proposal” in 1969. (emphasis added).

By 1970, The Euthanasia Society of America (later renamed the Society for the Right to Die) distributed 60,000 living wills. In 1976, California passed the nation’s first “living will” law and in 1990, The US Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act that requires information to be given to patients about their rights under state laws governing advance directives (commonly called “living wills), including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatments.

Now, 8 states and the District of Columbia have assisted suicide laws and Compassion and Choices, the largest advocacy group for medically assisted suicide, is using the Covid 19 pandemic to push for telehealth (the provision of healthcare remotely by means of telecommunications) for medically assisted suicide.

Infanticide

In my nursing school 50 years ago, we were taught medical ethics and one example used was the case of a newborn with Down Syndrome who needed life-saving surgery but whose parents refused, choosing to let him die. We were told that the law would protect such children from medical discrimination-even by the parents.

Now we have cases like Charlie Gard and Simon Crosier and others whose parents chose life for their babies with disabilities but were thwarted by doctors and courts.

Organ donation

When I started working in an ICU in 1971, I had questions about the brain death diagnosis for organ harvesting but was told not to worry because there were strict rules.

However and over subsequent years, I discovered that the rules for organ donation have been changing from brain death to other criteria including severe brain injury. There have even been proposals for “presumed consent” state laws where people would have to register an “opt-out” or be automatically presumed to consent to organ donation.

I do not have an organ donor card nor encourage others to sign one. Instead, I once offered to give a friend one of my kidneys as a living donor. Although I was not able to donate then, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, bone, etc. that can be ethically donated after natural death and will only agree to that donation

Conscience rights

Doctors and nurses used to be protected when asserting their conscience rights when refusing to deliberately hastening or causing a patient’s death.

Now, even that protection-which protects both patients and medical professionals-is under attack.

I discovered this personally several years ago when I was almost fired for refusing to increase a morphine drip “until he stops breathing” on a patient who didn’t stop breathing after his ventilator was removed.

CONCLUSION

The bottom line is that everyone must remain vigilant when they or a loved one becomes seriously ill, regardless of the hospital or institution. It is also important not to be afraid to ask questions.

There are also non-denominational, non-profit groups like the National Association of Pro-life Nurses, the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization and state and national pro-life organizations that have much useful information and resources for patients, families and the public.

The bottom line is that what we don’t know-or allowed to know-can indeed hurt us. We need to demand transparency and the highest ethical standards from our doctors and healthcare system before they can earn our trust.

And without a change in laws, policies and attitudes promoting deliberate death as an answer to human suffering, those of us medical professionals who believe we should never cause or hasten anyone’s death may become an endangered species-as well as our medically vulnerable patients.

Surprising New Test for Predicting Recovery after Coma

An April 29, 2020 Nature Journal article titled “Olfactory sniffing signals consciousness in unresponsive patients with brain injuries” found that nasal response to odors (sniffing) by 43 severely brain-injured patients predicted the likelihood of recovery and long-term survival.

According to Noam Sobel, PhD, of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, one of the authors of the article and speaking to MedpageToday:

“If you sniff at an odorant, then it’s 100% you will regain consciousness to at least a minimal level, and you will likely live for years,” he told MedPage Today. “If you don’t sniff at an odorant, that is a bad sign, but not all hope is lost.” (Emphasis added)

Amazingly, he said that 37.5% of the unresponsive patients who didn’t sniff did eventually regain consciousness.

Dr. Giacino, PhD of Harvard Medical School who helped write the 2018 American Academy of Neurology guidance on disorders of consciousness told Medpage that this study is “a cleverly and carefully designed study that adds another much-needed tool to the consciousness-detection toolbox” even though “Between 30% and 60% of patients who sustain severe TBI (traumatic brain injury) have diminished or complete loss of smell due to the mechanics of the injury.”)

He also noted that, based on available evidence, about four in 10 patients who are deemed unconscious on bedside examination actually retain conscious awareness and that “A significant portion of these patients have covert consciousness — preserved cognitive function that cannot be expressed through speech or movement.” (Emphasis added)

WHY IS THIS STUDY SO IMPORTANT?

As Dr. Giacino said in the Medpage article:

“Published evidence from Canada in a large cohort of ICU patients with traumatic brain injury [TBI] found that approximately 70% of the deaths were due to withdrawal of treatment and in about 60% of cases, the decision to stop treatment was made within 72 hours,” he said. “It’s possible that a positive sniff test might delay this decision, which is important since we know that about 20% of TBI patients who survive what appears to be catastrophic injury recover to a functionally-independent level by 5 years post-injury.” (Emphasis added)

As we have seen over the past decades, whether or not a severely brain-injured person is or can become conscious has become a life and death matter. We have seen this in the cases of Nancy Cruzan, Terri Schiavo and Zach Dunlap even though, as I wrote in my August 18, 2018 blog, “Medical Experts Now Agree that Severely Brain-injured Patients are Often Misdiagnosed and May Recover”.

THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CLOSE TO MY HEART FOR DECADES.

Just before Drs. Jennet and Plum invented the term “persistent vegetative state” in 1972,  I started working with many comatose patients as a young ICU nurse. Despite the skepticism of my colleagues, I talked to these patients as if they were awake because I believed it was worth doing, especially if it is true that hearing is the last sense to go. And why not do it to respect the patient as a person?

Then one day a 17 year old young man I will call “Mike” was admitted to our ICU in a coma and on a ventilator after a horrific car accident. The neurosurgeon who examined him predicted he would be dead by morning or become a “vegetable.” The doctor recommended that he not be resuscitated if his heart stopped.

But “Mike” didn’t die and almost 2 years later returned to our ICU fully recovered and told us that he would only respond to me at first and refused to respond to the doctor because he was angry when heard the doctor call him a “vegetable” when the doctor assumed ‘Mike” was comatose!

After that, every nurse was told to treat all our coma patients as if they were fully awake. We were rewarded when several other coma patients later woke up.

Over the years, I’ve written about several other patients like “Jack”“Katieand “Chris in comas or “persistent vegetative states” who regained full or some consciousness with verbal and physical stimulation. I have also recommended Jane Hoyt’s wonderful 1994 pamphlet “A Gentle Approach-Interacting with a Person who is Semi-Conscious  or Presumed in Coma” to help families and others stimulate consciousness. Personally, I have only seen one person who did not improve from the so-called “vegetative” state during the approximately two years I saw him.

CONCLUSION

But I never even thought to give any of my patients a sniff test. What a simple test for medical professionals to do!

And even though this study is small and needs to be replicated and validated, I believe it is further evidence that we need to reevaluate our current medical ethics and laws that allow life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from people with severe brain injuries on the premise that such brain-injured people have no “quality of life” and that such injuries are routinely hopeless.

And I hope that the sniff test can become a standard part of all medical evaluations of people with severe brain injuries.

The World Brain Death Project: What It Means

THE HISTORY OF BRAIN DEATH

In December of 1967, the first successful heart transplant was performed in South Africa by Dr. Christian Barnard. At that time, there were no guidelines for the diagnosis of death for beating heart donors.

In September of 1968, the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death was published with the purpose of defining irreversible coma as a new criterion for death.

This was done for two stated  reasons:

  1. “Improvements in resuscitative and supportive measures have led to increase efforts to save those who are desperately injured. Sometimes these efforts have only partial success so that the result is an individual  whose heart continues to beat but whose brain is irreversibly damaged. The burden is great on patients who suffer permanent loss of intellect, on their families, on the hospitals and on those in need of hospital beds already occupied by these comatose patients.
  2. “Obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation.” (All emphasis added)

This report was quickly accepted by many and in 1968, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was passed in the US  as a regulatory framework for the donation of organs, tissues and other human body parts. The Act allowed the donation of whole or part of a human body to take effect upon or after the death of the donor.

The Uniform Declaration of Death Act (UDDA) was drafted in 1981 by a President’s Commission study to brain death and approved by both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). It was intended to provide a model for states to emulate.

It offered 2 definitions of when a person could be declared legally dead to align the legal definition of death with the criteria largely accepted by the medical community:

  1. “Irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions (the traditional definition of death); or
  2. Irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem (brain death)” (Emphasis added)

The UDDA in some form has since been adopted by all US states and the District of Columbia.

However, in the June 2020 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics,  the well-known lawyer/ethicist Thaddeus  Mason Pope wrote about a current effort “to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) to assure a consistent nationwide approach to consent for brain death testing.” (Emphasis added)

Why just consent to brain death testing?

According to Mr. Pope:

“Right now, a patient might be legally dead in Nevada, New York, or Virginia (where consent is not required). But that same patient might not be legally dead in California, Kansas, or Montana (where consent is required and might be refused). (Emphasis added)”

Instead, Mr. Pope proposes adding this to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA):

“Reasonable efforts should be made to notify a patient’s legally authorized decision-maker before performing a determination of death by neurologic criteria, but consent is not required to initiate such an evaluation”. (Emphasis added)

Mr. Pope states that typically, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) follows a four-step process to change a law but notes that the Healthcare Law Committee has already skipped the first three steps and is ready for drafting the new language in the fourth step.

Ironically, there was a case last year in Michigan where the parents of a teenager  pushed for a Bobby’s Law after their son was taken off life support after being declared brain dead despite their objections. The law would “require a minor’s parents to consent to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment or to give do-not-resuscitate orders before medical professionals could end life support for a juvenile” and also allow the parents to defer an apnea test (taking the person off a ventilator to see if the person is able to breathe on his or her own) required to determine brain death. (Emphasis added)

THE WORLD BRAIN DEATH PROJECT

In an August 3, 2020 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) titled “Determination of Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria- The World Brain Death Project” , the authors state that due to “inconsistencies in concept, criteria, practice, and documentation of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) both internationally and within countries”, there is a need to “formulate a consensus statement of recommendations on determination of BD/DNC”. (Emphasis added)

In a August 3, 2020 Medpage article “Brain Death: What Does It Mean?” on the World Brain Death Project, the writer notes that the “guidelines recommend that consent not be required for apnea testing because of concerns over prolonged somatic support” while quoting a doctor who disagreed:

“Ostensibly, families should be asked to provide consent because the apnea test may lead to cardiovascular collapse in some patients, classifying it as procedure with risk,” (All emphasis added)

MY JOURNEY TO DISCOVER THE FACTS ABOUT BRAIN DEATH

Back in the early 1970s when I was a young intensive care unit nurse, no one questioned the new innovation of brain death organ transplantation. We trusted the experts and the prevailing medical ethic of the utmost respect for every human life.

However, as the doctors diagnosed brain death in our unit and I cared for these patients until their organs were harvested, I started to ask questions. For example, doctors assured us that these patients would die anyway within two weeks even if the ventilator to support breathing was continued, but no studies were cited. I also asked if we were making a brain-injured patient worse by removing the ventilator for up to 10 minutes for the apnea test to see if he or she would breathe since we knew that brain cells start to die when breathing stops for more than a few minutes.

I was told that greater minds than mine had it all figured out so I shouldn’t worry.

It was years before I realized that these doctors did not have the answers themselves and that my questions were valid.

I discovered that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery before their ventilators were removed and that there were cases of “brain dead” people like Jahi McMath living for  years after a diagnosis of brain death or even recovering like Zack Dunlap

If the legal definition of brain death is truly “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem”, these cases would seem to be impossible.

CONCLUSION

The World Brain Death Project is riddled with potential problems in establishing a worldwide consensus on brain death criteria and testing using a “set of criteria that satisfies the lowest acceptable standard for practice”. (Emphasis added) And changing the US Uniform Determination of Death Act to supersede states requiring consent before brain death testing will not inspire trust in the healthcare system or the law.

Personally, I will not sign an organ donor card or allow my organs to be taken by donation after cardiac death (DCD), a new category of severely brain-injured people who are not brain dead but who are on ventilators (breathing machines) and considered hopeless in terms of survival or predicted “quality of life”. The ventilator is removed and the patient’s heart is expected to stop. (However, a 2016 study showed that 27% of potential donors did not die within the window specified for organ recovery.)

Instead, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, skin, bones, etc. that can be ethically donated after natural death.

It is vitally important that everyone understands all the facts before signing an organ donor card.

And we all should demand transparency and rigorous medical ethics from our healthcare system.

 

 

 

Strongest “Simon’s Law” Yet is Passed in Iowa

When baby Simon Crosier was born with Trisomy 18  and a heart defect in 2010, his parents and brothers fell in love with him despite his life-threatening diagnosis and the medical community’s opinion that Trisomy 18 is “incompatible with life”.

However, just days before three month old Simon was scheduled to see a cardiac surgeon, his parents begged for help at the Catholic hospital treating Simon when his condition started to deteriorate. They were shocked when the staff did not intervene. They did not know that the hospital had made their baby a Do Not Resuscitate and that Simon was given only so-called “comfort feeds” due to a secret futility policy. They had to helplessly watch as Simon died in their arms.

Heartbroken and outraged but determined that this would not happen to another child, the Crosiers went to legislator Bill Kidd who formulated Simon’s Law. After five long years of frustration even getting the bill out of committee, Simon’s Law was finally and unanimously passed in the Missouri legislature and signed by Governor Mike Parson last year.

The law prohibits “any health care facility or health care professional from instituting a do-not-resuscitate or similar order without the written or oral consent of at least one parent or legal guardian of a non-emancipated minor patient or resident.”

I testified on Simon’s Law myself because when my own daughter Karen was born in 1982 with Down Syndrome and a heart defect, I was tipped off that my pediatrician had secretly given Karen a Do Not Resuscitate order against my expressed wishes because she felt I “was too emotionally involved with that retarded baby”. I protested and the order was withdrawn.

During the fight for Missouri’s Simon’s Law, other states passed similar laws. Some require only that parents be informed that doctors plan to write a DNR order for a child while others prohibit writing the order over parental objections. Hospital ethics committees are usually involved, especially when such cases go to court. And some states like Texas have problematic laws that give objecting parents 10 days to find a new healthcare facility if they disagree with doctors and ethics committees who decide to take a child off life-sustaining treatment.

However, the strongest type of “Simon’s Law” yet was just signed into law in Iowa on June 29, 2020 by Governor Kim Reynolds.

The law states that:

A court of law or equity shall not have the authority to require the withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures from a minor child over the objection of the minor child’s parent or guardian, unless there is conclusive medical evidence that the minor child has died and any electronic brain, heart, or respiratory monitoring activity exhibited to the contrary is a false artifact.” (Emphasis added)

This is stunning, especially since it requires conclusive medical evidence that the child has died using the most stringent criteria of no brain, heart or respiratory activity. (As one legislator explained in a video, the “false artifact” provision would prevent a “crooked parent” from keeping the child on life support indefinitely in a felony murder situation.)

In recent years, we have seen court cases like the teenager Jahi McMath who lived for years and even seemed to improve after a diagnosis of brain death and now the case of Baby Tinslee with heart and lung problems whose doctors want to remove her ventilator against the parents’ wishes.

At the very least, this new Iowa law illustrates the necessity of better legal protections for both medically vulnerable children and their parents.


 

Palliative Care and Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Death

Working in areas like critical care, oncology (cancer) and hospice for over 45 years, I know that it is often hard to predict how long someone may live or when that person may die.

I have seen very ill or injured people with an optimistic prognosis  unfortunately die and I have seen people expected to die very soon who recovered and went on to live for years. Back then, we used pain and other specialists, social workers, ministers, etc. for all our patients when needed. Some of our patients went into hospice.

In recent years, a new specialty called palliative care was developed to improve the quality of life for patients who have a serious or life-threatening disease with the goal of preventing or treating as early as possible, the symptoms and side effects of the disease and its treatment, in addition to any related psychological, social, and spiritual problems.

So I was very interested to read a July 1, 2020 article in StatNews titled “An experiment in end-of-life care: Tapping AI’s cold calculus to nudge the most human of conversations about using cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) models in palliative care that scan patient hospital medical records and generate emails to doctors about their patients considered most likely to die within a year.

In the case of one doctor who received such an email,  she “was a bit surprised that the email had flagged” her patient who was in his 40s and seriously ill with a viral respiratory infection and too sick to leave the hospital. She thought “Why him? And should she heed the suggestion to have that talk?”

As the article states, those kinds of questions are increasingly cropping up among health care professionals at the handful of hospitals and  clinics around the country using such AI models in palliative care, stating that:

The tools spit out cold actuarial calculations to spur clinicians to ask seriously ill patients some of the most intimate and deeply human questions: What are your most important goals if you get sicker? What abilities are so central to your life that  you can’t imagine living without them? And if your health declines, how much are you willing to go through in exchange for the possibility of more time? (Emphasis added)

Some clinicians and researchers defend this AI by saying that doctors are “stretched too thin and lacked the training to prioritize talking with seriously ill patients about end-of-life care”.

Not surprisingly, the leaders of this palliative care AI discourage doctors from mentioning to patients that they were identified by an AI system because, as one doctor put it, ”To say a computer or a math equation has predicted that you could pass away within a year would be very, very devastating and would be really tough for patients to hear.”

Shockingly, while this AI is built around patients’ electronic health records, this article admits that some AI models also “sample from socioeconomic data and information from insurance claims.” (Emphasis added)

CAN AI RELIABLY PREDICT DEATH?

As the article admits, AI predictions of death “are often spotty when it comes to identifying the patients who actually end up dying” and that there has not been “a gold-standard study design that would compare outcomes when some clinics or patients are randomly assigned to use the AI tool, and others are randomly assigned to the usual strategies for encouraging conversations about end-of-life care.” (Emphasis added)

Nevertheless, using AI death predictions for earlier palliative care interventions is now also being tried for conditions like dementia. And last year in Great Britain, AI was touted as “better than doctors” in analyzing heart tests to determine which patients would die within a year.

ARE THERE OTHER AGENDAS?

The idea of basing medical decisions on a computer program to predict death is disturbing enough but there may be other agendas involved.

For example, in a May, 2020 Cancer journal article titled  “Leveraging Advances in Artificial Intelligence to Improve the Quality and Timing of Palliative Care”, the authors called palliative care “a discipline of increasing importance in the aging population of the industrialized nations.”  (Emphasis added

And according to a Hospice News article last year:

“Studies have found that palliative care saves health plans, health systems, and accountable care organizations close to $12,000 per person enrolled, as well as reducing hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and hospice lengths of stay. “

Now Compassion and Choices (the former Hemlock Society) is not only fighting to legalize medically assisted suicide throughout the US, it has also been active in promoting training and expansion of palliative care with federal funding and now calls assisted suicide “one option in the palliative continuum” and that knowing assisted suicide “is an option is in itself palliative care.” (Compassion and Choices already maintains that VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking) is already an ethical and legal means of ending life in the US.)

Even worse, a large and growing number of medical organizations-including the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM)-have endorsed or taken a neutral position on the issue of physician-assisted suicide.

CONCLUSION

An artificial intelligence program predicting death cannot replace the importance of an ethical healthcare provider who knows and truly respects the lives of his or her patients.

Good palliative care can be wonderful but, as I have written before, palliative care can go horribly wrong when misused.

We need to know the difference before we are able to trust that our own healthcare providers will  give all of us the care we need and deserve, especially at the end of our lives.

 

Home Health Care and Safety in the Age of Covid 19

In the 1990s, I reluctantly had to leave my hospital position in oncology after an  operation on my right foot surgery that left me unable to stand on my feet for even just a few hours. I decided to go into home health  to support my children and possibly help my foot heal.

Surprisingly, I found that I loved home health nursing and I learned a lot that even helped my patients when I was finally able to resume hospital nursing some years later.

Home health nursing wasn’t an easy job even back then. I drove up to 200 miles some days to care for just about every kind of patient from medical patients just needing blood work to hospice patients and even a young man unable to move below his neck after a diving accident. But I loved the independence and really getting to know my patients and helping them in their own environment.

In May, I wrote a blog “Covid 19 and Nursing Homes” about friends of mine who refused to go to extended care nursing facilities because of the outbreaks of Covid 19 which are especially dangerous to the elderly. Instead, these friends chose to stay home with help from home health caregivers, family and/or friends.

I wondered how home health nursing was now coping with the pandemic.

HOW COVID 19 IS CHANGING HOME HEALTH CARE

A May 18, 2020 article written by 3 geriatricians and titled “How coronavirus could forever change home health care, leaving vulnerable older adults without care and overburdening caregivers” reveals how Covid 19 is now changing a sector of health care that has received little attention during the pandemic.

According to the article, over 5 million people in the US are currently receiving paid home care from personal care assistants, home health aides, nurses and therapists. But even before Covid 19, there were not enough of these health care workers.

As the geriatricians write:

 “(N)ow, not only must home care continue for older adults, and for those with disabilities, but many people with COVID-19 will need it too”.

While home health care reduces the stress on hospital systems, Covid 19 means that home health care is facing new challenges.  Because home health workers travel to multiple homes and people, this increases the risk of possible Covid 19 transmission both for the workers and their often frail and older patients. How can health care workers and their patients both stay safe during the pandemic?

The geriatricians researched the problem and came up with 10 recommendations to  deal with Covid 19 and also improve home health care.

These recommendations include access to personal protective equipment (PPE), regular COVID-19 testing for both staff and patients,  Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanding the definitions of “home health” and “homebound” to include “personal care” to help more patients, as well as increasing federal funding for community health workers.

They also recommend more flexibility using options like telehealth which has been particularly useful for one of my older friends.

ONE BIG REASON WHY I LEFT HOME HEALTH NURSING

Although this article did not address this issue, one of the big reasons I finally left home health when my foot improved was the danger of working in a large city like St. Louis that has several high-risk areas as well as the roving packs of wild dogs  that were a problem at the time.

I often saw patients in these areas and sometimes even during the night when I was on call for the agency. On occasion, even the police stopped some of us nurses when were going in to see a patient in these high-risk areas and they offered to wait outside until we returned. I especially appreciated this because as a single mother, I was concerned about what could happen to my children if anything happened to me.

Personally, I saw guns in some households, was cut off by some young men trying to stop my car, dealt with some suddenly psychotic patients, tried to mitigate domestic disturbances, etc. Some areas were so high-risk that I took the fire escape for safety reasons rather than use the elevator to get to my patients’  apartments.

It took many attempts before we nurses finally got our agency to help us get pepper spray and provide a security person to accompany us nurses to high-risk areas when we felt it was necessary.

But sadly, I could never consider going back to home health now with the protests, riots and escalating violence we are seeing in many cities like St. Louis and other areas.

I fervently hope and pray that the important issues that are tearing our country apart will soon be resolved for the safety of all of us.

Especially because I am a nurse, I do know how much every life matters.

Sweden and Covid 19: Families Complain That “Palliative Care” Instead of Treatment Is Being Given to the Elderly

A June 18, 2020 article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Coronavirus is taking a high toll on Sweden’s elderly. Families blame the government”  starts with a disturbing story:

“When 81-year-old Jan Andersson fell ill with Covid-19 at a nursing home in the Swedish town of Märsta, a doctor consulted by phone ordered palliative care, including morphine, instead of trying to help him fend off the infection.

Mr. Andersson’s son, Thomas Andersson, says he was told his father was too frail for other treatment. The younger man disagreed and, after arguing with the physician, summoned journalists and insisted his father be given lifesaving care. Mr. Andersson has since recovered.

The county that runs Mr. Andersson’s nursing home said all decisions on medical treatment for the residents were made by doctors employed by a company that provides medical services. (All emphasis added)

The Wall Street Journal reports that cases like this have sparked a public outcry from not only relatives but also from some doctors and nurses. There is now an investigation by Swedish national health-care authorities into the treatment of older patients in nursing homes and Stockholm hospitals. There are now 5,041 people in Sweden who have died from Covid 19 with about half being nursing home residents.

“Many people have died unnecessarily,” said Yngve Gustafson, a geriatric-medicine specialist in Sweden, who looked into more than 200 cases in which people were denied care. He said that doctors were too quick to put patients on palliative care. He also said that he believed many would have survived and lived year longer had they been provided basic care.

Furthermore, a June 12, 2020 British Medical Journal article “Has Sweden’s controversial covid-19 strategy been successful?” stated that Dr. Gustafson also spoke to the Svebsja Dagbladet newspaper and “expressed concern about the increasing practice of doctors recommending by telephone a “palliative cocktail” for sick older people in care homes.

He also was quoted as saying:

“Older people are routinely being given morphine and midazolam, which are respiratory-inhibiting,” … “It’s active euthanasia, to say the least.”

Thomas Linden, chief medical officer of Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, said the triage guidelines for Covid 19 were developed to prepare the health-care system for a potential crisis while ensuring best-possible treatment for all patients.

However, the Wall Street Journal article reports that Swedish critics say these guidelines have too often resulted in older patients being denied treatment, even when hospitals were operating below capacity.

“Dr. Cecilia Söderberg-Nauclér, a physician at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, said that “the ICU wards were comparatively empty “because elderly people were not taken to hospitals—they are given sedatives but not oxygen or basic care.”

The Wall Street Journal article also notes that “About 90% of nursing-home residents who succumbed to Covid-19 in Sweden were never admitted to a hospital, according to official estimates. ” (Emphasis added)

Most poignantly, Latifa Löfvenberg, a nurse  for a company providing medical services to several nursing homes, said she sought treatment for residents with Covid-19 and was told by company physicians to administer morphine and a sedative.

She  described what happened:

People suffocated, it was horrible to watch. One patient asked me what I was giving him when I gave him the morphine injection, and I lied to him,” said Ms. Löfvenberg, who is now working at a hospital in the Swedish capital. “Many died before their time. It was very, very difficult.” (Emphasis added)

COULD-OR HAS-THIS HAPPENED IN THE US?

As I wrote in my May 20, 2020 blog “Covid 19 and the Culture of Death” about the dangerous and unethical responses to Covid 19 in the US:

“(T)he National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) has a new resource for Crisis Standards of Care for the “ethical allocation of scarce medical resources during a disaster” that:

‘provides a framework for healthcare professionals to utilize a predetermined framework to determine which individuals will receive life saving care during an emergency event or disaster and which ones will not.’ With the event of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE), it is important for palliative and hospice care providers to be familiar with Crisis Standards of Care.” (Emphasis added)

However, access to the actual crisis standards is restricted to NHPCO members only.

But transparency is not the only  problem.

Unfortunately, I have also personally and professionally seen cases of deliberate overdose sedation. I have written about this, most recently in my 2019 blog When Palliative Care goes Horribly Wrong”.

CONCLUSION

While Sweden has not yet legalized physician-assisted suicide, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare did authorize passive euthanasia in 2010, whereby “patients may request the termination of their treatment knowing that this will lead to their death”. This ruling came in response to a request by a 32 year old woman who was totally paralyzed and dependent on a ventilator since the age of six. She requested it be shut off when she was asleep. Whether or not she received a “palliative cocktail” beforehand is unknown.

Now, Swedish officials seem to have forgotten the part about “patient request” when it comes to Covid 19 and the elderly.

In the US, we started down a similar path when “right to die” groups focused on “living wills” and withdrawal of even basic treatment before outrightly promoting physician-assisted suicide.

The bottom line for any country is that we must not lethally discriminate against anyone, regardless of age or condition like Covid 19 and we must hold palliative care to the high standards set by the late Dame Cicely Saunders,  founder of hospice movement (1918 – 2005) who said:

“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.” (Emphasis added)

 

 

 

Over 600 Doctors Send Powerful Letter to President Trump Calling the Covid 19 Lockdown a “Mass Casualty Incident”

Although it received little media notice, a May 19, 2020 letter to President Trump signed by over 600 doctors detailed the physical and mental impact of the lockdown in the US due to Covid 19, calling it a “mass casualty incident” with “exponentially growing negative health consequences” to millions of non-COVID patients. 

As the highly contagious Covid 19 virus was spreading around the world, President Trump issued a proclamation on March 12, 2020 declaring a national emergency with “preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those affected”.

On March 18, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recommended that hospitals cancel all elective surgeries and nonessential medical, surgical and dental procedures to prepare for the expected deluge of patients with Covid 19 and the health system complied.

Regular healthcare became virtually suspended as states went to lockdown with rules to shelter in place except for essential errands or work. Schools and many businesses were closed. 

Ironically,  except for New York and other hotspots that received massive federal help including ventilators and emergency field hospitals, US hospitals wound up with many empty beds and even emergency room visits dramatically declined

Many hospitals are now facing a financial crisis and health care professionals are being furloughed.

THE IMPACT OF THE LOCKDOWN ON AMERICANS’ PHYSICIAL AND MENTAL HEALTH

The doctors’ letter to President Trump focused on the devastating impact on Americans’ physical and mental health of the lockdown and why the months-long lockdowns should be ending. 

Here are some excerpts:

“Suicide hotline phone calls have increased 600%,” the letter said. Other silent casualties: “150,000 Americans per month who would have had new cancer detected through routine screening.”

“Patients fearful of visiting hospitals and doctors’ offices are dying because COVID-phobia is keeping them from seeking care. One patient died at home of a heart attack rather than go to an emergency room. The number of severe heart attacks being treated in nine U.S hospitals surveyed dropped by nearly 40% since March. Cardiologists are worried “a second wave of deaths” indirectly caused by the virus is likely.

“The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.

“It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown,” the letter says. “Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a person’s health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million [now 38 million] other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come.” (All emphasis added)

But while nearly all 50 states are starting to relax lockdown rules to some extent, some officials are threatening to keep many businesses closed and other draconian measures in place until August or even later. Many schools and universities now say they may remain closed for the remainder of 2020.

But as Dr. Marilyn Singleton, a California anesthesiologist and one of the signer of the letter said, “Ending the lockdowns are not about Wall Street or disregard for people’s lives; it’s about saving lives.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

We know a lot more about Covid 19 now. The US Center for Disease Control’s new ‘best estimate’ implies a COVID-19 Infection fatality rate below 0.3% with an estimated 35% of people with Covid 19 never having symptoms. 

States have rescinded orders that forced long term care facilities with our most vulnerable people to admit Covid 19 patients after hospital discharge resulting in lethal outbreaks.

But as more states are slowly opening, Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute writes:

“Will patients come back? COVID-phobia is deathly real.

Patients still are fearful about going to hospitals for heart attacks and even for broken bones and deep lacerations. Despite heroic efforts by physicians to deeply sanitize their offices, millions have cancelled appointments and are missing infusion therapies and even chemotherapy treatments. This deferred care is expected to lead to patients who are sicker when they do come in for care and more deaths from patients not receiving care for stroke, heart attacks, etc.”

While still observing social distancing, sanitizing and other common sense measures to protect ourselves and others, it is my opinion that the more than 600 doctors writing to President Trump are right when they urge ending the Covid 19 shutdown as soon as possible for all Americans’ physical and mental health.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covid 19 and the Culture of Death

“Ironically, the Covid 19 pandemic has pulled back the curtain on how far our healthcare ethics has fallen from the ideal of  respecting every life to the dangerous notion that some lives are expendable-even our own.”

I have written about how the Covid 19 pandemic has resulted in dangerous and unethical responses like ventilator rationing,  unilateral DNRs, and some states ordering nursing homes and other long-term care facilities to accept coronavirus patients discharged from hospitals.

But now,  the Covid 19 crisis has also spawned new ideas such as the American Clinicians Academy On Medical Aid in Dying’s policy recommendations on medically assisted suicide requests by telemedicine in the context of Covid 19  and Covid 19 advance directives aimed at refusing potentially life-saving treatment.

Compassion and Choices, the former Hemlock Society that promotes assisted suicide, voluntary stopping of eating and drinking (VSED) and terminal sedation, now has a Covid 19 toolkit with a special Covid 19 addendum  to add to an existing advance directive to refuse care if a person gets Covid 19. The addendum even contains the question:

“Do you want your healthcare proxy to have the ability to override any of these orders if he or she believes you have a reasonable chance of living a life consistent with your values and priorities based on the information provided by the doctor? Or, do you want these orders followed no matter what?” (Emphasis added)

Another organization “Save Other Souls”, headed by an MD and an ethicist, has an “altruistic” advance directive for Covid 19 that states:

“In the event of shortages during the period of a declared emergency related to COVID-19, and in order to direct resources to others, I am willing to receive palliative care instead of: Critical medical equipment (ventilator, ECMO, etc.), Medication (other than palliative), Placement in a hospital care unit that provides critical care.” (Emphasis added)

Even more disturbing, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO) has a new resource for Crisis Standards of Care for the “ethical allocation of scarce medical resources during a disaster” that:

“provides a framework for healthcare professionals to utilize a predetermined framework to determine which individuals will receive life saving care during an emergency event or disaster and which ones will not. With the event of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE), it is important for palliative and hospice care providers to be familiar with Crisis Standards of Care.” (Emphasis added)

The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), founded in 1978, is the nation’s largest membership organization for providers and professionals who care for people affected by serious and life-limiting illness”. NHPCO states that it “represents the interests of its members and the general public with legislative advocacy that helps to enhance and expand access to care that addresses holistic health and the well-being of communities.” (Emphasis added)

Not surprisingly, the NHPCO has supported  the problematic Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act, currently still in the US Congress awaiting passage.

CONCLUSION

The Covid 19 pandemic is especially terrifying to many people but we must realize that just like any other serious or terminal illness, we must act responsibly and ethically in caring for people with Covid 19.

While medical treatment that is medically futile or unduly burdensome to the person can be ethically refused or withdrawn, refusing or removing ordinary medical treatment or deliberately oversedating a person in order to cause or hasten death is unethical. Even when we think it may help another person get care.

We need to know the difference, especially when it comes to making out living wills” or other advance directives.

Ironically, the Covid 19 pandemic has pulled back the curtain on how far our healthcare ethics has fallen from the ideal of  respecting every life to the dangerous notion that some lives are expendable-including our own.

 

 

Covid 19 and Nursing Homes

Recently, two good friends of mine with physical limitations who had been waiting for over a year to enter a carefully chosen assisted living/long term healthcare facility changed their minds about going. They found out that the facility had at least one resident with Covid 19. They are now staying at home with help from their sons, friends and a paid caregiver.

And my 97 year old friend Melissa with heart and mobility problems is adamant about staying at home to be cared for, primarily by her wonderful family. Recently, she developed a disturbing symptom but instead of going to her doctor as usual, her doctor was able to come to her via a telehealth visit by computer. Melissa is happy at home and knows that other options like home hospice are available if necessary.

Are these three people overreacting about nursing homes?

In my opinion, the answer is probably no at this time.

Unfortunately, long-term health facilities for the elderly have become hotbeds for Covid 19 despite those residents being the most at risk during the pandemic. A number of  staff at those facilities have also caught Covid 19 and some have also died.

Even worse, as NBC News reported April 25, 2020:

“Three states hit hard by the pandemic — New York, New Jersey and California — have ordered nursing homes and other long-term care facilities to accept coronavirus patients discharged from hospitals.” (Emphasis added)

On May 6, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that New York nursing homes may have nearly 5,000 Covid-19 related deaths and the next day, the California Mercury News  reported that  “at least 41 percent of all known coronavirus deaths in California have occurred among residents and staff of nursing homes and assisted living facilities.” (Emphasis added)

And, unfortunately, these same people are usually dying alone due to restrictions for even family members in hospitals and nursing homes. Sadly, even funerals are changing with new restrictions for ceremonies and mourners.

According to an April 21, 2020 article “Nursing Homes Balk at COVID Patient Transfers From Hospitals” by the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP):

“The American Health Care Association says discharged hospital patients should return only to nursing homes with separate COVID-19 units. Ideally, those units are staffed with employees with access to personal protective equipment. The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which regulates nursing homes, endorsed the idea of separate COVID units this month.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

I was personally shocked to discover that  only  23 states publicly reported data for cases and deaths due to COVID-19 in long-term care facilities  as of April 23, 2020.

However, the Trump administration has recently announced upcoming new regulatory requirements that:

“will require nursing homes to inform residents, their families and representatives of COVID-19 cases in their facilities. In addition, as part of President Trump’s Opening Up America, CMS will now require nursing homes to report cases of COVID-19 directly to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” (Emphasis added)

When my mother with Alzheimer’s disease was dying from cancer in 1988, there was no pandemic and we cared for her at home as long as possible before placing her in a nursing home nearby for safety reasons. So I do know that nursing homes and other long-term care facilities can be wonderful and even necessary options.

But until this pandemic dissipates, we need all the essential information  necessary to protect and advocate for the most vulnerable among us.

CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) in the age of Covid 19-What You Need to Know

Several years ago, a nurse friend was with her boyfriend at a concert hall when he collapsed with no heartbeat or breathing. She called for 911, started CPR and asked for an AED (automatic external defibrillator) , which is located in most offices and public buildings. An AED is a sophisticated, yet easy-to-use (even for a lay person with training), medical device that can analyze the heart’s rhythm and, if necessary, deliver an electrical shock, or defibrillation, to help the heart re-establish an effective rhythm.

However, the concert staff didn’t know where it’s AED was.

My friend continued to deliver mouth to mouth an chest compressions while a crowd gathered, some of whom were physicians who told her to stop because it was hopeless.

Finally, an ambulance arrived and took the boyfriend to a local hospital. He not only survived but was discharged 3 days later in good condition and determined to start a healthier lifestyle.

So I was stunned to read an April 21, 202 New York Post article “NY issues do-not-resuscitate guideline for cardiac patients amid coronavirus” (Covid 19) that said New York state had just issued “a drastic new guideline urging emergency services workers not to bother trying to revive anyone without a pulse when they get to a scene, amid an overload of coronavirus patients.” (Emphasis added)

While paramedics were previously told to spend up to 20 minutes trying to resuscitate a person in cardiac arrest, the new guideline was deemed “necessary during the COVID-19 response to protect the health and safety of EMS providers by limiting their exposure, conserve resources, and ensure optimal use of equipment to save the greatest number of lives.’’

First responders were outraged and their union leader said “Our job is to bring patients back to life. This guideline takes that away from us.”

Earlier this month, the Regional Emergency Services Council of New York had issued a new guideline that said cardiac arrest patients whose hearts can’t be restarted at the scene should no longer be taken to the hospital for further life-saving attempts because the city hospitals had been “inundated with dying coronavirus patients to the point where there are frequently no ICU beds.”

One paramedic acknowledged that only a small percentage of people in cardiac arrest-3 or 4 out of 100-are brought back to life through  CPR and other aggressive interventions such as drugs and hospitalization but insisted that “for those three or four people, it’s a big deal.”

On April 22 and just hours after the initial New York Post article was published, the new guidelines were rescinded. New York City’s Fire Department and first responders never adopted the no-revival directive from the state and kept using the traditional 20-minute policy.

WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO IF SOMEONE COLLAPSES WITH NO HEARTBEAT OR BREATHING?

When I started as a nurse in many decades ago, we were trained in CPR and taught how to use AMBU bags (mask, valve and self-inflating bag) to breathe for patients in arrest or distress in place of mouth to mouth resuscitation. AMBU bags are now standard equipment on ambulances and other rescue services.

Over the years, techniques for CPR changed especially in 2008 when the American Heart Association released new recommendations that bystanders can skip mouth to mouth resuscitation and use “Hands-Only CPR” to help an adult who suddenly collapses:

“In Hands-Only CPR, bystanders dial 9-1-1 and provide high-quality chest compressions by pushing hard and fast in the center of the victim’s chest.”

Now, the Covid 19 pandemic has changed CPR guidelines.

As the April 16, 2020 Notre Dame Fire Department concisely explains on pandemic-modified CPR guidelines for bystanders:

“Bystander CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) improves the likelihood of an individual’s survival from cardiac arrest occurring outside of the hospital. However, coronavirus is spread through respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks. If a rescuer breathes into a cardiac arrest individual’s mouth, there will likely be an exchange of respiratory droplets. Household members who have been exposed to the individual at home should not hesitate to attempt life-saving rescue measures.

A non-household bystander who attempts to rescue a cardiac arrest individual should wear a face mask or cloth over his/her mouth and nose and place a face mask or cloth over the mouth and nose of the individual to reduce the risk of transmission.

In the case of an adult in cardiac arrest, lay rescuers should perform at least hands-only CPR. For children, lay rescuers should perform chest compressions and consider mouth-to-mouth ventilation, if willing and able, given the higher incidence of respiratory arrest in children.

To perform Hands-Only CPR, you place your hands in the center of the chest and pump hard and fast at a rate of 100 to 120 compressions per minute.

If an AED (automated external defibrillator) is available, please proceed with opening the AED and following the automated prompts to initiate life-saving intervention. Defibrillation is not expected to be a highly aerosolizing procedure. If an AED is not available, please proceed with Hands-Only CPR.

For all cardiac related emergencies, EMS (911) should be called…For more information, refer to the American Heart Association’s interim CPR guidance.

CONCLUSION

As a nurse, I have participated in many instances of cardiac or respiratory arrest and it’s always stressful. However, the joy of participating in saving someone’s life is indescribable. And even when we were unsuccessful, we had the consolation of knowing that we did everything we could for that person.

I encourage everyone to take a course to learn CPR. To find such a course, you can contact your local hospital or go to the American Heart Association’s Find A Course  or to the Red Cross website.

And I personally thank the courageous New York Fire Department and first responders for upholding the standards of care for all their patients.

 

Health Care Rationing, Covid 19 and the Medical Ethics Response

While the key medical model in the US for Covid 19 deaths has just again been revised from 240,000 to 100,000 to now just 60,000 by August along with concerns about the possible overuse of ventilators in Covid 19, there is still a push for medical health care rationing guidelines.

As the April 8, 2020 Wall Street Journal article As Coronavirus Peaks, New York City’s Hospitals Prepare ‘Live or Die’ Guidance” notes, some hospitals and health care systems are coming up with guidelines and scoring systems to allocate ventilators. At the same time, New York lawmakers have recently passed a measure to protect hospitals and clinicians from certain medical malpractice lawsuits while the Covid 19 virus strains the health system.

Disability groups are complaining about discrimination in health care rationing plans that would “illegally deprive people based on age, mental cognition or disability”. In addition, a recent Center for Public Integrity analysis shows that policies in 25 states would ration care in ways disability advocates have denounced.

While such rationing plans are usually said to be based on determining which patients have little if any chance of a good outcome, i.e.  medical futility, even the American Medical Association has admitted in its Code of Ethics that “However, physicians must remember that it is not possible to offer a single, universal definition of futility. The meaning of the term “futile” depends on the values and goals of a particular patient in specific clinical circumstances.” (Emphasis added)

THE CATHOLIC MEDICAL ETHICS PERSPECTIVE

Medical ethics in Catholic health care institutions are often considered the most stringent in terms of protecting human life from conception to natural death. So what do Catholic ethics authorities say about rationing?

On April 3, 2020, the US Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) issued a powerful statement “Bishop Chairmen Issue Statement on Rationing Protocols by Health Care Professionals in Response to Covid-19” that stated:

“Every crisis produces fear, and the COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. However, this is not a time to sideline our ethical and moral principles. It is a time to uphold them ever more strongly, for they will critically assist us in steering through these trying times.”

and

“Good and just stewardship of resources cannot include ignoring those on the periphery of society, but must serve the common good of all, without categorically excluding people based on ability, financial resources, age, immigration status, or race.” (Emphasis added)

The statement cited other Catholic health care groups like Catholic Medical Association, the National Association of Catholic Nurses and the National Catholic Bioethics Center that all issued helpful statements.

However another Catholic group mentioned, the Catholic Health Association, has also issued a problematic statement on the rationing issue titled “Code Status and COVID-19 Patients “ stating that:

“CPR may be medically inappropriate in a significant portion of elderly, critically ill patients with COVID-19 and underlying comorbidities. As per Parts 3 and 5 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, if it is shown that the burdens exceed the benefits, it is morally acceptable to withhold such procedure.” (Emphasis added)

And even worse:

“If treating clinicians, including more than one physician, determine that CPR is not medically appropriate, a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation Order (DNR) may be written without explicit patient or family consent.” (All emphasis added)

In a separate April 7, 2020 statement from the  National Catholic Partnership on Disability titled “Rights of Persons with Disabilities to Medical Treatment During the COVID-19 Pandemic , the NCPD states “As The Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has recently reminded us, America’s basic civil rights laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, prohibit discrimination:

“[P]ersons with disabilities should not be denied medical care on the basis of stereotypes, assessments of quality of life, or judgments about a person’s relative ‘worth’ based on the presence or absence of disabilities. ”  (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Over my many decades as a nurse, I have seen the question of “quality of life” deteriorate from what can we do to improve the quality of life for every patient to judging whether or not a patient has sufficient quality of life to justify treatment or care like a feeding tube.

During that time, Alzheimer’s and major CVAs (strokes) in advanced age have come to be seen as fates worse than death that should not be a burden on people and their families or a waste of health care resources.

Before my own mother developed Alzheimer’s and a terminal cancer, she often told me that she never wanted to be a “burden to her family”. I never considered her a “burden” when I cared for her and she was comfortable and fed to her last day. I will never tell my children what my mother told me.

And especially with assisted suicide polls showing much public support, we cannot afford to play into the idea that some people are “better off dead” regardless of whether or not they “choose” a premature death or someone else “chooses” it for them.

We should also remember the lethal legacy of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster. Flooding caused the New Orleans mayor to issue an unprecedented mandatory evacuation of the city with the exception of major hospitals. But when conditions worsened at the large Memorial Medical Center and evacuation efforts were slow, some medical staff allegedly euthanized some of the patients.

However and despite strong evidence, a massive PR campaign portraying those patient deaths as “compassionate” resulted in the 2007 grand jury refusing to indict the doctor and 2 nurses charged.

As we see this debate over medical ethics in crisis situations continue today, we must continue to insist that every person deserves a natural lifespan without discrimination.

Ventilator Rationing, Universal DNRs and Covid 19 (Coronavirus)

As a nurse myself, it is hard to watch my fellow nurses bravely fighting on the front lines of this pandemic without being able to be there with them.

Nurses are a special breed. In my over 50 years as a nurse, I found that most of us chose nursing because we want to help people and alleviate suffering. We work the long hours on our feet, skip meals, hold hands and listen, cry when our patients die, etc. because we truly do care.

But the health care system has been changing. A dark new ethics movement is infecting our system and telling us not only that our patients have a right to choose to end their lives but also that some of our patients even “need” to die and that we can’t care for all of them during the Covid 19 pandemic.

Worst of all, we are being told that we can now know how to decide which patients are “expendable”.

VENTILATOR RATIONING

A 71 year old man with a heart condition arrives at a hospital is diagnosed with Covid 19. His condition worsens and he is placed on a ventilator to help him breathe. Then the infection rate spikes in the city and the hospital is overrun with severely ill patients, many between 20 and 50 years old and otherwise healthy.

The health care team is forced to decide which patients should they focus on and care for.

This is the scenario posed in a March 20, 2020 Medpage article “Ethics Consult: Take Elderly COVID-19 Patient Off Ventilator?— You make the call” along with an online survey with 3 questions:

1. Would you prioritize the care of healthier and younger patients and shift the ventilator from the elderly man to patients with a higher probability of recovering?
2. Would you change your decision if the elderly patient had been in intensive care for a non-COVID-19-related illness?
3. Would you prioritize the older man over college students who had likely been
infected during spring break trips?

After almost 4000 votes, the survey showed 55.65% voting yes on prioritizing the care of the healthier and younger patients, 78.11% voting no on changing their decision about the elderly patient if he didn’t have Covid 19 and 71.12% voting no on prioritizing the elderly man over college students likely to have been infected on a spring break trip.

So while most people fear becoming infected with Covid 19, less well-known ethical dangers may also affect us-especially those of us who are older or debilitated.

Every day, we hear about the shortage of ventilators needed for Covid 19 patients and the overworked and understaffed health care professionals providing the care. Now both mainstream media and medical journals are publishing articles about the ethical dilemma of denying CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) or a ventilator to older patients or those with a poor prognosis with Covid 19 in a triage situation.

Triage is defined as “A process for sorting injured people into groups based on their need for or likely benefit from immediate medical treatment. Triage is used in hospital emergency rooms, on battlefields, and at disaster sites when limited medical resources must be allocated.” (Emphasis added)

But this definition does NOT include deciding how to triage people based on age or “productivity”.

UNIVERSAL DNRs

A March 25, 2020 Washington Post article “A Framework for Rationing Ventilators and Critical Care Beds During the COVID-19 Pandemic” posed the question: “how to weigh the ‘save at all costs’ approach to resuscitating a dying patient against the real danger of exposing doctors and nurses to the contagion of coronavirus.”

This is not just an academic discussion.

As the article reveals, “Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago has been discussing a do-not-resuscitate policy for infected patients, regardless of the wishes of the patient or their family members — a wrenching decision to prioritize the lives of the many over the one.” (Emphasis added) And Lewis Kaplan, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a University of Pennsylvania surgeon, described how colleagues at different institutions are sharing draft policies to address their changed reality.

Bioethicist Scott Halpern at the University of Pennsylvania is cited as the author of one widely circulated model guideline being considered by many hospitals. In an interview, he said a universal DNR for Covid 19 patients was too “draconian” and could sacrifice a young person in otherwise good health. He also noted that the reality of health-care workers with limited protective equipment cannot be ignored. “If we risk their well-being in service of one patient, we detract from the care of future patients, which is unfair,” he said.

The article notes that “Halpern’s document calls for two physicians, the one directly taking care of a patient and one who is not, to sign off on do-not-resuscitate orders. They must document the reason for the decision, and the family must be informed but does not have to agree.” (Emphasis added)

This could not only upend traditional ethics but also the law as “Health-care providers are bound by oath — and in some states, by law — to do everything they can within the bounds of modern technology to save a patient’s life, absent an order, such as a DNR, to do otherwise.”

Both disability and pro-life groups have condemned such health care rationing with Covid 19, especially for older people and people with disabilities.

However, this and more is apparently already happening.

In an April 1, 2020 Wall Street Journal article “What the Nurses See: Bronx Hospital Reels as Coronavirus Swamps New York” a co-worker told the nurse interviewed that the nurses were no longer doing chest compressions to resuscitate Covid 19 patients because “it uses lots of protective gear and puts workers at greater risk than chemical resuscitations”. This was corroborated by other nurses who said this has become an “unspoken rule.”

CONCLUSION

How can we protect ourselves and our loved ones in these circumstances?

At the very least and whether or not we are older or have disabilities, we should consider or reconsider our advance directives.

As the Life Legal Defence Foundation  writes in their “SPECIAL MESSAGE ABOUT COVID-19 AND ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVES”:

As COVID-19 spreads around the globe, the public is learning about the importance of mechanical ventilators in providing temporary breathing support for many of those infected. Ventilators are saving lives!

A false understanding of respirators and ventilators has become commonplace in recent years. Many people think that these and similar machines’ only role is prolonging the dying process. The widely publicized treatment of COVID-19 patients is helping to dispel that myth. Many patients rely on machines temporarily every day for any number of reasons and go on to make full recoveries.

Unfortunately, many individuals have completed advance health care directives stating or suggesting that they do not wish to receive breathing assistance through mechanical ventilation.

Please take the time to review any advanced medical directives (including POLST forms) signed by you or your loved ones to make sure they are clear that mechanical ventilation is not among the forms of care that are refused. If there is any ambiguity, you may want to consider writing, signing, and dating an addendum specifying that mechanical ventilation is authorized. (Emphasis in original)

I would add that other treatments or care such as DNRs and feeding tubes also not be automatically checked off. I believe it is safer to appoint a trusted person to insist on being given all information concerning risks and benefit before permission is given to withdraw or withhold treatment.

Even as the nation is racing to get more ventilators and staff as we cope with this terrible pandemic, we all must continue to affirm the value of EVERY human life.

 

Coping in the Time of the Covid 19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic

Although we are in a time of national crisis that is causing disruption in all of our lives, we need to avoid panic and foster realistic optimism and resolve in ourselves and others. We are all in this together.

As a semi-retired nurse, I have been following the Covid 19 situation closely. We and our extended family and friends keep up with and strictly follow the sanitary and social isolation recommendations. If we all follow these precautions, this crisis may begin to abate in hopefully weeks or months.

There is cause for cautious optimism. Although the numbers of people infected will increase with more testing now available, most people will not die from Covid 19 and many will have no or mild symptoms. And a promising experimental vaccine against the Covid 19 virus has been developed in record time and is now being tested on humans. However it may take a year or more to prove its effectiveness. We must be patient.

Even better, a FDA drug long used to treat malaria has shown promise in treating Covid 19 patients in other countries and a clinical trial of the drug will start here.

However, the Covid 19 virus has and will continue to have an enormous impact on our lives for the foreseeable future not only in our homes but also in our work lives, education, the economy and the health care system.

But, as frightening as this crisis is now, in the end it may help us reorder our priorities from materialism and political/social divisions to a new appreciation for our families, our country and our ability to work together for the greater good.

One of the advantages of being older is that I am old enough to remember the polio virus epidemic in the 1950s that struck so many children and caused panic in my own parents until Dr. Jonas Salk developed a vaccine. As a nurse, I also remember the terrible AIDS virus epidemic in the 1980s and 1990s that killed so many people and even became the “poster child” for legalizing physician-assisted suicide until an effective treatment was developed in 1997. And I remember the relief and joy when the polio vaccines and AIDS treatments were found.

Like AIDS, polio and other deadly infections in the past, the Covid 19 crisis will also eventually pass. I recently asked my wonderful 97-year-old friend “Melissa” who lived through World War II about how people got through those terrible years of turmoil and sacrifice. She seemed surprised by the question and said, “We just did what we had to do”. No wonder she is one of those people now celebrated as the “Greatest Generation”  with the values of  “personal responsibility, duty, honor and faith.”

Those values are just as important today.

FIGHTING WORRY AND FEAR WITH GRATITUDE

In our current crisis, one way we can help ourselves cope is by being grateful for the often unrecognized blessings we do have. Gratitude is a potent antidote to the panic, worry and fear that can infect us, our loved ones and others.

So I am grateful that we live in a time when computers, smartphones (especially with text and FaceTime) and other devices that are available to most people now. How much worse would social isolation and access to critical information be in the past without these devices?

Personally, I am grateful that our grandchildren have access to online learning after their schools closed and that some of our adult children are now able to work by computer from home.

I am also grateful for my religious faith that encourages trust in God, prayer, hope and helping the less fortunate in times of crisis. And I am grateful that even though churches and other places of worship are closing, religious services and inspiration are easily available online or on television. And I am inspired by the efforts of religious groups like the St. Vincent DePaul Society that never stop caring for the less fortunate no matter what the crisis.

I am also grateful that I am healthy enough to help my more elderly or infirm neighbors by picking up items from the store or even just calling them on the phone to chat. We can all look for ways to help our community without endangering ourselves or others such as ordering take-out food from small businesses that had to close their dining rooms and lay off workers. I have always found that helping others promotes happiness and optimism in both the person receiving help and the person giving the help.

I am grateful for my husband and family, especially now that we are grandparents who can help care for our grandchildren-particularly those who are out of school and have (thankfully) working parents. In times of crisis, we have a great opportunity to get closer to all our loved ones and the entertainment value of family alone is worth it.

All of us should remember that it’s the tough times that strengthen us most. We have a duty to set a good example for our families and our nation so that when the crisis is behind us, we all will be kinder, wiser and better people in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

Is Abortion More Important than Safety? The Case Now Before the US Supreme Court

In 1986, Missouri became the first state to pass an abortion law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital “in the community” to ensure the health and safety of women undergoing abortion.

Later, I was horrified to find out that a doctor was doing abortions just a few miles from my home in St. Louis. It turned out that his admitting privileges were in another country! The abortion clinic was closed.

As I wrote last August in “Pro-abortion Desperation in Missouri” :

“the last abortion clinic in Missouri lost its license because of numerous health and safety violations. The Planned Parenthood abortion clinic continues to operate only because of several temporary injunctions by a judge.”

While the Missouri case is still ongoing, now the US Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the June Medical Services v. Russo case concerning whether Louisiana’s law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Court’s 2016 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision along with a second issue about “whether abortion providers can legally represent the interests of women seeking an abortion when those providers sue to overthrow laws protecting those women’s health and safety.”

IS ABORTION MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAFETY?

In a powerful commentary titled “The OB-GYNs Who Play Politics With Women’s Lives-Abortion is more important than safety to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists” in the March 3, 2020 Wall Street Journal, Dr. Christina Francis calls out the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for “offering a medically unsound recommendation in the furtherance of its extreme position on abortion”.

Dr. Francis, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and the chairman of the board of the American Association of Prolife OB/GYNS, refutes ACOG’s friend of the court brief arguing that the admitting privileges requirement for abortionists is not “‘medically justified’ and therefore constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on a woman’s right to abortion'” by stating:

“Yet every second counts in an obstetric emergency. A pregnant woman experiencing severe uterine hemorrhage can bleed to death in as little as 10 minutes. That’s why its essential that anyone performing an abortion have the ability to admit a patient to a nearby hospital—preferably one closer than 30 miles away.”

ACOG routinely puts politics ahead of medicine by adopting the most extreme positions on abortion. It has lobbied and briefed against parental notification of minors and informed-consent laws, and in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion. It has advocated for laws restricting speech around clinics and compelling pro-life pregnancy centers to tell women where they can go to obtain state-subsidized abortions. ACOG’s work has gotten so political that in 2008 it added a lobbying arm. I was refused when I asked if I could direct our dues only to the organization’s nonlobbying arm.

Eighty-six percent of OB-GYNs don’t perform abortions, but ACOG’s position is that you either support the most extreme abortion lobbying or you’re off the island. Most of ACOG’s abortion advocacy is undertaken free of consultation with its almost 60,000 members. Physicians who’ve left the organization, like me, support its general work but don’t want to support abortion lobbying, especially when it comes to watering down or eliminating safety standards. (Emphasis added)

Dr. Ford also notes that:

“In any practice area other than abortion, a doctor performing an operation would have hospital-admitting privileges. In the case of complications that doctor would, at a minimum, call ahead to fast-track the patient to the appropriate emergency care. Abortion-clinic patients, on the other hand, are frequently kicked to the curb and told to make their own way to the emergency room.”

CONCLUSION

Those of us in Missouri have seen the problems and attempted coverups at the hopefully last Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis.  Just last year, it was reported that:

“Operation Rescue, with the help of Missouri pro-life activists, has documented 74 medical emergencies that have occurred at RHS Planned Parenthood in the past ten years, including three emergencies that required ambulance transport for women to a local hospital within a 22-day period ending on May 15, 2019.” (Emphasis added) 

The Supreme Court decision is not expected until June and is likely to have an enormous impact on the state of abortion in our country, especially since pro-abortion groups have now abandoned the old rhetoric about keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare'” in favor of tax-payer funded abortion on demand up to birth and even leaving babies to die after failed abortions.

In the meantime, considering choosing and supporting pro-life health care professionals and their professional organizations such as the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and the National Association of Pro-life Nurses (NAPN).

Can a POLST be Hazardous to Your Life?

First, we had the “living wills” developed in the 1970s by the Euthanasia Society US (later renamed the Society for the Right to Die) to allow people to states their wishes for or-most importantly-against certain medical treatments in case they become unable to communicate their decisions. By 1991, The Patient Self-Determination Act was passed and every health care facility was required to ask every patient if they had such a document.

Today, we have many types of such documents including the newest one called the “Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment” (POLST)  that was developed in Oregon (the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide) in 1991.

A POLST is a short document that people can carry with them with checkoffs for CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and tube feedings. And if the person is still alive but unable to communicate, the POLST has checkoffs for whether the person wants “Comfort measures only”, “Limited Interventions” like antibiotics and IV fluids, or “Full treatment”.

Although efforts to pass a national POLST law have failed so far, many states have passed their own versions that lead to serious concerns.

Most recently, Illinois is now considering a POLST bill SB 3524 that amends and expands the previous Health Care Surrogate Act.

Among the changes in the Illinois bill are changing “qualified physician” to “qualified health care practitioner” which  “means an individual who has personally examined the patient and who is an Illinois licensed physician, advanced practice registered nurse, physician assistant, or licensed resident after completion of one year in a qualified graduate medical education program”. (Emphasis added)

The bill also removes the requirement of a witness to the signature of the person, legal guardian or health care surrogate on the POLST form. This is an important requirement to be reasonably certain that the POLST reflects the person’s wishes.

The bill  defines a person’s “qualifying conditions” for a POLST as “Terminal condition”, “Permanent unconsciousness”, or “Incurable or irreversible condition” (a definition that alarms many disability groups).

The bill also defines “Life-sustaining treatment” as “any medical treatment, procedure, or intervention that, in the judgment of the attending physician, when applied to a patient with a qualifying condition, would not be effective to remove the qualifying condition or would serve only to prolong the dying process“. (Emphasis added)

Also, the bill states that the health care provider acting on the POLST in “good faith” is not “subject to any criminal or civil liability, except for willful and wanton misconduct, and may not be found to have committed an act of unprofessional conduct.” (Emphasis added)

A February 16, 2020 editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association titled “Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment and Limiting Overtreatment at the End of Life” had this chilling observation about physicians’ attitudes and POLSTs:

Even with the best of counseling, some patients will refuse any limitations of treatment—36% of the patients in the study by Lee et al1 had POLSTs that indicated “full treatment,” presumably including admission to the ICU, mechanical ventilation, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, if necessary. While receipt of these therapies would be considered POLST-concordant care, clinicians sometimes object to providing care that they perceive will be unbeneficial or even harmful. These conflicts between clinicians and patients or their surrogates are a common problem in ICU care and are seen as a major contributor to distress and frustration among clinicians.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

A 2013 article “The Problem with POLST – Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment” succinctly describes the problems with POLST and what we should instead be striving for:

“POLST only makes sense in cases of patients with terminal illnesses, in end stage disease with no real options. By that point in time there are no therapeutic treatment decisions to be made. Yet, a patient who is under treatment who is living with a disease, there are alternative treatment decisions to be made. There are risks to weigh and an up to date informed consent required. It cannot be left up to a patient to research new literature and evidenced based medical standards.

POLST even precludes an assessment by a paramedic to make any decisions on overall survivability at the time of emergency care in the field. Surrogate decision makers are not consulted, advance health directives are not read or considered, and second opinions are not sought. Intelligent and experienced assessments are precluded by POLST. In cases of non-terminal patients POLST does not respect society’s moral mandate to respect life and instead treats life cavalierly by simply pinning a card on a person’s chest with life and death decisions of timely and clear origin.” (Emphasis added)

As a former hospice, oncology and ICU nurse, I wholeheartedly agree!

Euthanasia: Canada, Conscience and Coercion

A January 22, 2020 CNA article titled Perform Euthanasia or Lose Government Funding”, Canadian Hospice Told” revealed that a secular Canadian hospice was at risk of losing its government funding over its refusal to euthanize patients who request an “assisted death.”

How could this happen?

First of all, Canadian health care (known to Canadians as “medicare”) is 69% publicly funded for “medically necessary” care administered by the 13 provinces and territories with different rules. 31% of Canadian health care costs are paid by the private sector for services not covered or only partially covered by medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry.

The problems started when the Canadian Supreme Court legalized MAiD (Medical Assitance in Dying” in 2015.

Soon after, the province of Quebec drew up guidelines for MAiD and made “euthanasia kits” for lethal injections available to every doctor in Quebec. Now most MAiD deaths in Canada are done by lethal injection.

In September 2016, about three months after euthanasia became legal in Canada, British Columbia’s Fraser Health Authority ( the publicly-funded organization responsible for administering healthcare in British Columbia) introduced a new policy which required all hospices receiving more than 50% of provincial funding for their beds to offer euthanasia to their residents. However, the hospice was operated by the non-profit organization the Delta Hospice Society, which is opposed to Canada’s MAiD

One doctor said that there are “‘strong lobbies’ backing this new effort to expand MAiD into additional institutions which receive provincial funding, including faith-based hospitals or hospices.(Emphasis added)

HOW ONE CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE FACILITY RESPONDED TO MAiD

Unfortunately and in 2018, the Catholic Covenant Health system in the province of Alberta, Canada released a revised MAID policy:

“after consultations with more than 100 individuals and groups including doctors, Catholic bishops, Alberta Health Services, the Alberta government, patient advisers, families, ethicists and community members.
Under the policy, witnessing and signing of legal documents and assessments of eligibility can take place on Covenant Health sites. Patients deemed eligible for MAID would still be transferred to other facilities.” (Emphasis added)

A current check of the Covenant website on MAiD shows no change in policy.

THE CANADIAN “SLIPPERY SLOPE” ALSO CONTINUES

In January, 2020 the Halifax Group, published “MAiD Legislation at a Crossroads: Persons with Mental Disorders as Their Sole Underlying Medical Condition” that supported MAiD not only for non-dying persons ” experiencing enduring, intolerable and irremediable suffering from physical conditions” but also for persons who have “a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition.” (Emphasis added)

This month, The Expert Advisory Group responded to the Halifax group, warning that the Canadian medical suicide law is the “most permissive in the world”.

THE EFFECT OF MAiD ON DOCTORS AND NURSES

Last year, The Canadian Catholic Nurses joined the National Association of Catholic Nurses in opposing the American Nurses Association’s draft position for neutrality on physician-assisted suicide (unfortunately later approved) and gave a chilling look at what may be our future if legalized assisted suicide is not opposed:

“Our association formed in 2018 primarily in response to Canadian nurses’ moral distress regarding the nation-wide legalization of medically induced death.

Professional associations and licensing bodies across Canada endorsed the legal changes, requiring conscientious objectors to participate in “Medical Assistance in Dying” by “effective referral” to facilitate access at the patient’s request. Faith-based health care facilities are pressured to participate. Nurse practitioners are trained and qualified to prescribe and administer lethal doses of medication to patients that they or others deem eligible for euthanasia.”

and

The Canadian experience with assisted suicide and euthanasia provides evidence for your continued resistance to the practice.

Unlike Oregon, Canada has not experienced a growth in palliative care along with the rapid expansion of induced death. Instead, we experience ongoing demands for access to lethal injections for new categories of patients, including “mature minors;” those who write advanced directives; and those whose mental illness is the sole condition underlying their request.”

A 2018 study “Medical assistance in dying (MAiD): Canadian nurses’ experiences” stated that:

“It is vital to understand how MAiD is influencing nurses in the Canadian context to ensure a smooth transition of this end‐of‐life care option across settings and communities. ” (Emphasis added)

The study acknowledges some nurses’ “moral distress” but describes “how participating in, or declining to participate in MAiD is shaping the participants’ perceptions of nursing as a profession“. The authors suggest promoting concepts like “Providing holistic care without judgment, Advocating choice, Supporting a good death” to positively reinforce  that MAiD was “not a significant departure from their professional goals”. (Emphasis added)

(Ironically, 77% doctors in Laval, Canada refused to provide MAiD 18 months after legalization with the most common reason that MAiD was “too much of an emotional burden to bear”.)

CONCLUSION

Last year it was reported that More than one in every 100 deaths in Canada is administered by a doctor but that even this number is likely higher because parts of Canada currently do not report such deaths.

The numbers are also likely to get higher as the Canadian euthanasia laws expand the eligibility criteria and health care professionals worry about losing their jobs if they refuse to participate.

Unfortunately, most of the US mainstream media ignores the Canadian euthanasia experience while approvingly reporting on the increasing number of US states legalizing physician-assisted suicide.

What all of us need to understand is that the legalized killing of any patient ultimately leads to the destruction not only of the patient but also of a trustworthy health care system and a truly safe and civilized society.

Is there a “New” Catholic Medical Ethics?

A few years ago, a middle-aged prolife nurse friend of mine had a sudden cardiac arrest after her mother died but was resuscitated. She was taken to the same Catholic hospital where I received my nursing education. She wound up sedated and on a ventilator to help her breathe, along with a feeding tube. Her 24 year old son wanted all efforts made to save her and several of us volunteered to help if and when she returned home.

Instead and after a week or  two, her son was urged to remove her ventilator but, even then, she kept breathing even with the sedation medication used to control her tremors. But the son was horrified to see that her feeding tube was removed at the same time as the ventilator and against his wishes. The staff insisted that he agreed to this and that it was documented in the computer. He insisted he never agreed to this and demanded that the feeding tube be reinserted but the staff said they could not without a doctor’s order.

The son stayed for hours waiting for a doctor but the staff said the doctor was busy. A nurse from hospice came in and pushed for hospice but the son said he wanted to take his mother home eventually so he and the volunteers could care for her. The hospice nurse then told him that his mother was dying and her organs were failing.

I happened to be there at the time and, as a critical care nurse myself, I told the hospice nurse that I saw that my friend’s vital signs were normal and her kidneys were obviously functioning. I also questioned the dangerous increase in her sedation medication after her ventilator was removed because it could suppress her breathing. I was ignored. With a heavy heart, I lhad to leave to work my night nursing shift at another hospital but I told the son to call me if the doctor did not come.

The next morning, the son called me to tell me that the hospital just called to tell him his mother was dead.

He had stayed for several hours after I left but finally went home to get some sleep, thinking his mother was stable. He was devastated to later learn that his mother had been transferred to hospice against his wishes after he left. My friend then died a few hours later. She never got her a feeding tube or her sedation lowered or stopped. And she tragically died alone.

I still have nightmares about this.

THE “NEW” CATHOLIC MEDICAL ETHICS

While medically futile treatment has long been accepted as medically useless or gravely burdensome to the person, we now see a new bioethics with “quality of life”, economics, societal and family burdens, etc. included in the determination of medical futility.

This January, I was horrified to find that the influential Catholic magazine Commonweal published an article titled “Giving Doctors a Say-Futility and End-of-Life Ethics”  that also injects “respect for physicians as moral agents” to defend the rationale behind the (often secret) futility policies in Catholic hospitals  by citing cases like the Charlie Gard and Simon Crozier cases where medical care was removed from two infants with life-threatening conditions against the parents’ wishes.  In Charlie Gard’s case, the medical care was withdrawn by court order and in Simon Crozier’s case the medical care was withheld without the parents knowledge. Both boys died.

Tragically, the outrageous Simon Crosier case occurred in the same Catholic hospital where I once worked and where my daughter with Down Syndrome and a critical heart defect was made a Do Not Resuscitate behind my back and against my expressed wishes.

As a nurse and a mother, I was shocked by the Commonweal article but not surprised.

I have been writing about the deterioration in medical ethics even in Catholic institutions for many years.

In the Commonweal article, Michael Redinger (co-chair of the Program in Medical Ethics, Humanities at Western Michigan University , and Law} defends medical futility and criticizes the Simon’s Law passed in the Missouri legislature last year to prohibit “any health care facility or health care professional from instituting a do-not-resuscitate or similar order without the written or oral consent of at least one parent or legal guardian of a non-emancipated minor patient or resident”.  (Emphasis added)

Instead, Professor Redinger writes that “These efforts, collectively referred to as ‘Simon’s Law’ legislation, are well-intentioned but misguided”.

His Commonweal article concludes that:

“Given the coordinated efforts of Right to Life groups across the country and their ties to the Catholic Church, it is necessary to begin a broader conversation about the incompatibility of such laws with church teaching. Such a conversation would help guide individual Catholics at the end of life, and support Catholic bishops in their oversight of Catholic hospitals. Even better, it would relieve the medical staff at Catholic hospitals from the immense moral distress that comes from violating our oath to do no harm.” (Emphasis added)

 

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?

After years of research and my own experiences with Catholic hospitals and staff, I have seen the tremendous influence of the Catholic Health Association which boasts that it’s health care ministry comprises more than 600 hospitals and 1,600 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states,  When I received my nursing education in a Catholic hospital in the late 1960s, rigorous ethics were an important part of our nursing education with “do no harm” to patients, report our mistakes, never lie, advocate for our patients regardless of age, socioeconomic status or condition, etc. incorporated as standard requirements. We happily took the Nightingale Pledge as our standard of excellence.

But now, as Catholic Health Association ethicists Fr. Patrick Norris and the late Fr. Kevin O’Rourke have stated in 2007 regarding futility :

“end-of-life decisions exemplify the principle of double effect, (wh)erein the withholding/withdrawing of life support is either morally good or neutral, the intention of the act being to remove either an ineffective or gravely burdensome treatment. The evil effect of the death is not a means to achieving the good effect (avoiding an inappropriate treatment), and, given appropriate circumstances, the good achieved is commensurate with the harm that occurs as a foreseen but unintended effect of a good action. The invocation of the principle of double effect in these cases properly distinguishes between physical causality and moral culpability.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

I have been called by many distraught relatives who have said they thought their loved one was “safe” in a Catholic hospital but saw problems. One case involved an older woman who had a stroke (cerebral vascular accident) and was in a coma and expected to imminently die but continued to live several days later with normal vital signs. The woman had a pro-life living will to reject life-sustaining treatment, including a feeding tube, if she had a “terminal event” and was imminently dying. The relative wanted to know if this was indeed a “terminal event”.

I asked if the woman was on a morphine infusion. She was and hadn’t seemed to be in pain. I explained that the sedation could account for her coma and suggested that they ask the doctor about trying to slow or stop the morphine to see.

The relative called back to say that the morphine was stopped and that the woman started to wake up and even seemed to recognize them. However, the Catholic chaplain told the woman’s sister who was her power of attorney for health care that her apparent response was only a reflex. The sister ordered the morphine turned back on.

The family was upset and considered legal action but decided that this would split the family so they gave up. Not surprisingly, the woman eventually died 2 weeks later.

After this case, I later wrote a blog “Living with ‘Living Wills’ about the little-known pitfalls of advance directives and how they could work against what a person wants.

The bottom line is that everyone must remain vigilant when they or a loved one becomes seriously ill, regardless of the hospital or institution. It is also important not to be afraid to ask questions.

There are also non-denominational, non-profit groups like Hospice Patients Alliance  and the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization (I am on the advisory board) that have much useful information and resources for patients, families and the public.

But without a change in policies and attitudes, those of us medical professionals who believe we should never cause or hasten death may become an endangered species as well as our medically vulnerable patients.

Roe v Wade 47 Years Later

Like everyone else I knew, no one expected the US Supreme Court’s case Roe v Wade to legalize abortion in 1973. I was shocked when the Court legalized abortion with virtually no restrictions during the first trimester stating:

“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.” (Emphasis added)

It wasn’t until much later that I learned about the Doe v Bolton case (decided at the same time as Roe) that expanded the definition of “health”, stating that the “medical judgment (for abortion) may be exercised in the light of all factors–physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age–relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.” (Emphasis added)

That redefinition of a woman’s health opened the expansion of abortion.

Unfortunately, those of us who expressed horror about these decisions were quickly derided by those who supported legalized abortion. Even those of us who were medical professionals and knew better felt intimidated.

MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH ABORTION AND ITS EFFECTS

When I became a mother a few years after the Roe v Wade decision and read the prenatal development pamphlet given to expectant mothers, my heart ached for those mothers who chose abortion without such crucial information.

Eventually, I had a daughter born with Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect as well as another daughter who became pregnant at 18. I could understand the fear and desperation underlying an abortion decision and I was determined to help in some way by joining the pro-life movement.

Because of the pro-life movement, I have been better able to help desperate mothers, children with disabilities and their families as well as other people in danger of being seen as “inconvenient”, “unwanted” or “better off dead”.

THE ABORTION TRAJECTORY AND HOW IT IS CHANGING

After the Roe decision, it didn’t take long before “abortion rights” to begin expanding and now we have at least 8 states legislating abortion on demand throughout pregnancy  as well as at least 19 states allowing abortionists to leave babies to die who survive abortion.

Most recently, pro-abortion Democrats have blocked efforts to get Congress to vote on the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” and in my home state of Missouri, the last Planned Parenthood clinic is still fighting closure over its health violations.

But despite all this activity on the pro-abortion side, many states have enacted strong protections for mothers and their unborn babies. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that:

“In 2019, conservative state legislators raced to enact an unprecedented wave of bans on all, most or some abortions, and by the end of the year, 25 new abortion bans had been signed into law”

And an encouraging new Marist/Knights of Columbus poll  shows that a majority of Americans (65%) would vote for candidates who back abortion restrictions and nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose abortion if the child will be born with Down Syndrome.

In addition, there are more pregnancy help centers than abortion clinics to help women and their unborn babies.

CONCLUSION

As abortions are decreasing and the abortion movement is exposed for its radical goals, it appears that more and more people are seeing the truth about abortion and the pro-life movement. Personally, I have never felt more encouraged since the Roe v Wade decision 47 years ago and especially by the inspiring words of President Donald Trump, the first sitting president to address the annual March For Life in Washington, D.C.:

“We cannot know what our citizens yet unborn will achieve. The dreams they will imagine. The masterpieces they will create. The discoveries they will make. But we know this: every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting….

Together, we will defend this truth all across our magnificent land. We will set free the dreams of our people. And with determined hope, we look forward to all of the blessings that will come from the beauty, talent, purpose, nobility, and grace of every American child.”

Lethal Problems with Medical Futility and Disability Bias

In 2018,  Chris Dunn survived a freak diving accident that left him paralyzed, mostly blind and on a ventilator to breathe.  He spent most of the next year in an ICU in rural Maine.

Unable to see, eat, breathe or move on his own, the 44 year old father and concrete work spent his days in bed listening to the History Channel and hoping for a chance to show he could do more.

Efforts to find a rehab center failed. Even worse, hospital administrators and others were encouraging Chris’s mother Carol to put him in hospice to die.  As the article states:

“Drugged up and confined to bed, Chris waited while dealing with a hospital staff that didn’t know what to do with him. ‘There would be nurses that would come in and tell me, ‘You know you’re making your son suffer,’ says Carol. ‘I mean, what’s a mother to do with that?’”  (Emphasis added)

However, Carol refused to give up trying to find help for Chris and after 7 months, finally contacted the United Spinal Association. Jane Wierbicky, a longtime nurse and a member of the Association’s Resource Center team worked to help find a rehab center in Atlanta.

Now Chris only uses the ventilator a few hours a night, got outdoors to catch a fish, and returned home to spend Thanksgiving with his mother and girlfriend.

With the help of his mother and a team of advocates, Chris hopes to eventually live in an accessible apartment.

Medical care for Chris was not futile.

MEDICAL FUTILITY

The National Council on Disability defines “medical futility” as

“an ethically, medically, and legally divisive concept concerning whether and when a healthcare provider has the authority to refuse to provide medical care that they deem ‘futile’ or ‘nonbeneficial’. A “medical futility decision” is a decision to withhold or withdraw medical care deemed “futile” or “nonbeneficial.” (Emphasis added)

Because of my professional and personal experiences with disability bias as well as my volunteer work with people with disabilities, I have seen firsthand the potentially lethal effects of medical futility decisions based on disability. I have been writing on this topic for years, most recently on Missouri’s Simon’s Law enacted after the parents of a baby with Trisomy 18 and a heart defect who died later found out that doctors had ordered a “Do Not Resuscitate” and withheld life-sustaining treatment without their knowledge due to a secret medical futility policy at the Catholic hospital treating their son.

Recently, I found out that the National Council on Disability just published a 82 page comprehensive report titled “Medical Futility and Disability “  as part of a five-report series on the intersection of disability and bioethics.

In a letter to President Trump, the Council chairman states that the series:

“focuses on how the historical and continued devaluation of the lives of people with disabilities by the medical community, legislators, researchers, and even health economists, perpetuates unequal access to medical care, including life-saving care.

and notes that:

“In recent years, there has been a push to regulate medical futility decisions on the state and institutional levels. State laws, which vary greatly in their content and approach, define the protections, or lack thereof, of a patient’s wishes to receive life-sustaining treatment. Hospitals have turned to process based approaches, utilizing internal ethics committees to arbitrate medical futility disputes. Despite the increased attention, however, disability bias still finds its way into futility decision making.” (All emphasis added)

The Council identifies four factors that are influencing the futility debate today: “Advanced life-saving medical technology, Changes in healthcare reimbursement, Evolving concepts of patient autonomy and the Rise of the right-to-die movement”.

The report also extensively explores the legal issues  and several court decisions involving medical futility like the Terri Schiavo and Haleigh Poutre cases.

STATE LAWS

The Council report also evaluated current state laws regarding medical futility decisions and found only 11 with strong patient protections, 19 without patient protections, 19 with weak patient protections, and 2 with time-limited patient protections.

Further complicating the state laws is the lack of transparency for patients or other family members regarding an institution’s medical futility policies. Hospitals are rarely transparent with their medical futility policies, as in the Simon’s Law case. The report is right when it states that “the disclosure of medical futility policies is essential to providing patients, their surrogates, and their families with the information they need to protect their rights and ensure accountability”.

The Council also notes that “Disability nondiscrimination laws, including the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, provide a viable, yet largely unexplored vehicle for enforcing the rights of people with disabilities in the medical futility context.”

The report ends with recommendations for Congress, the executive branch, medical and health professional schools, professional accreditation bodies, healthcare insurers and state legislatures to combat the problem of disability bias in healthcare.

CONCLUSION

One of the reasons I chose to become a nurse decades ago was the strong ethical principles in medicine. We were educated to treat all patients to the best of our ability regardless of race, disability, socioeconomic status, etc.  “Quality of life” was something to improve, not judge. The traditional hospice philosophy was to neither hasten nor prolong dying.

But over time, I saw ethics change. As the report itself notes, the advances in technology, changes in health care reimbursement, evolving concepts of patient autonomy and the rise of the right-to-die movement led to radical changes in both law and medical ethics.

The concept of medical futility was no longer limited to medically certain circumstances of treatment ineffectiveness but, all too often, also to the patient’s (and sometimes the family’s) perceived “quality of life”.

Such disability bias is often unrecognized, even by the medical professionals caring for the person, but it is a real bias that must be eliminated in our society.

I admire people like Chris Dunn and his determined mother who show us the possibilities when people with even severe disabilities get a chance to have the best life possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Down Syndrome, the Gift of Innocence, and Abortion

In a beautiful op-ed in the December 23, 2019 Wall Street Journal titled “Down Syndrome and the Gift of Innocence” , William McGurn writes about a small group of contemplative nuns called the Little Sisters Disciples of the Lamb who reside in France.

The order was founded in 1985 by Mother Line, now prioress, and Sister Véronique, who felt a vocation but could not find an order to accept her because she has Down syndrome. Now there are 10 sisters (eight with Down syndrome) who exist so that “those who are in last place in the world”—women with Down syndrome—can “hold in the church the exceptional role of spouses of Christ. In practice this means that able-bodied sisters devote their lives to ensuring their fellow sisters with Down syndrome can live their vocations.”:

“The smiling faces of our little sisters with Down syndrome are a great message of hope for many injured families,” Mother Line tells me. “Our smallness will also say that we are made for very great things: to love and to be loved.”

And while the rest of the world dismisses innocence as naïve or childish, Mr. McGurn writes that:

“the nuns choose to cherish and exalt innocence—and the unconditional love and trust that comes with it—as an example of how we are meant to live with one another.”

DOWN SYNDROME AND ABORTION

In contrast to these wonderful nuns, a federal judge recently reversed his own ruling on a hard-fought pro-life abortion law passed in my home state of Missouri by blocking a provision that prohibits discriminatory abortions on unborn babies with Down syndrome.

Missouri was set to join several other states that passed such laws until U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs reversed his decision.

It is hoped that this decision will be appealed. As Justice Clarence Thomas has previously written about such laws that protect unborn babies from eugenic discrimination:

“… this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.”

and

“Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope.” (All emphasis added)

AN “ACCEPTABLE” PREJUDICE?

A few days ago, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)  Disability Rights Project Susan Mizner defended abortion for unborn babies with Down Syndrome writing that:

“There is no question that stigma, prejudice, and misconceptions about people with disabilities are widespread. But forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term against their will does nothing to tackle underlying and systemic ableism and discrimination against people with disabilities.

“On the contrary, forced pregnancy threatens a person’s physical, mental, and emotional health, as well as the stability and wellbeing of their family, including existing children.” (All emphasis added)

As an RN and mother who had to fight medical discrimination against my daughter Karen who had both Down Syndrome and a heart defect as well as a past board member of the St. Louis Down Syndrome Association, I take great exception to this dangerously inaccurate statement. We can never eliminate prejudice by eliminating people with disabilities before or after birth.

CONCLUSION

I applaud the Little Sisters Disciples of the Lamb in France who cherish their sisters with Down Syndrome who have so much to give to the world and I am horrified by the several states that have now passed laws that allow abortion for any reason at any time during pregnancy or even after birth.

Although unborn babies with Down Syndrome are especially at risk, we must remember that ALL children enter the world with the “gift of innocence” and none deserve to be killed before birth.

 

Are We Witnessing the Coming Extinction of Conscience Rights?

Last month, Wesley Smith, the well-known writer and lawyer who opposes assisted suicide and abortion, wrote an article titled “Bioethicist Wants to Morally Cleanse Medical Schools”  about plans to weed out pro-life potential doctors and nurses from even entering medical and nursing schools:

“Make no mistake. Schuklenk and his ilk — such as the adamant opponent of medical conscience, Ezekiel Emanuel — are deadly serious about crushing all dissent within the medical professions to emerging cultural paradigms, and plan to morally cleanse the ranks of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and institutions of all  wrong thinkers, particularly of the religious and pro-life kind.”

As Wesley warns after speaking with such prospective medical and nursing students, “such culling already occurs outside of official policy”.

CONSCIENCE RIGHTS FOR HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS

Now health care institutions that forbid their employees from participating in abortion and euthanasia are at risk.

As an October 29, 2019 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) titled “Colorado End-of-Life Options Act-A Clash of Organizational and Individual Conscience” explains, a new court case may result in conscience rights being legally upheld when a doctor agrees to help a patient commit assisted suicide against a religious healthcare institution’s policy.

This came about when the Colorado legislature could not pass a physician-assisted suicide in 2014 and 2015 but a new, problematic referendum was introduced and passed by Colorado voters in 2016.

While hospitals and clinics in other states with assisted suicide laws are allowed to prohibit their employees from participating, the Colorado, the referendum added a little-noticed provision in the 2016 Colorado referendum that stated:

“A health care facility may prohibit a physician employed or under contract with the facility from prescribing medication to an individual who intends to use the medication on the facility’s premises. The facility must provide advance written notice of its policy to the physician and its patients. A health care facility may not discipline a physician, nurse, pharmacist, or other person for actions taken in good faith or for refusing to participate in any way.” (Emphasis added)

As the JAMA article notes,This provision virtually guaranteed the Colorado law would eventually be challenged”.

This set up the current case Mahoney et al v. Centura Health Corporation” involving Neil Mahoney, a Colorado man with advanced cancer, who wanted physician-assisted suicide and found geriatrician Barbara Morris, MD. Dr. Morris was willing to write the lethal overdose prescription. However, the religiously based Centura Health System where she was employed forbade participation in assisted suicide. Mr. Mahoney and Dr. Morris filed a lawsuit on August 21, 2019 and the doctor was fired on August 26 for violating the ethical directives provided for Catholic health care services.

The article concludes that:

“the case seems destined to have a potentially significant effect on national policy. If the courts rule that the Constitution allows hospitals to exert control over individual physicians’ claims of professional conscience, it will be a victory for corporate medicine.

But if the state law is upheld, the case could establish that physicians’ professional conscience claims hold or take precedence over the ethical and religious directives of religiously affiliated hospitals. It is possible that at least some religiously affiliated health systems might rather close than allow that outcome.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

As Wesley Smith writes, eliminating pro-life health care providers and institutions is  becoming part of an utilitarian agenda in the bioethics movement where “legalized euthanasia, free and unfettered abortion at all stages of gestation, infanticide, eugenic embryo engineering, invidious forms of health-care rationing based on ‘quality of life,’ etc., are all part of the mainstream bioethics agenda, or at the very least, are seen as respectable advocacy memes.”

With the current support of a predominantly sympathetic mainstream media, well-funded and politically active groups like Planned Parenthood and Compassion&Choices are also putting pro-life health care providers and their supportive institutions in grave danger of becoming an endangered species in law, politics and health care.

If this happens, our health care system will radically change-especially for the unborn, the elderly and people with disabilities.

When dedicated and compassionate people are denied entry into the health care professions because they refuse to deliberately end lives, harassed and/or fired when they refuse to participate in a deliberate death decisions and religiously based healthcare institutions are forced by law to allow lives to be ended by “choice” or close their doors, will any of us be able to trust our healthcare system when we need it the most?

We need to educate ourselves and the public before it’s too late.

Can Getting a DNR Tattoo be Hazardous to Your Health?

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a lifesaving technique developed in the 1960s  for emergencies such as a heart attack or near drowning when a person’s breathing or heartbeat has stopped. Even non-medical people can be trained in basic CPR. However, not every person can be saved with CPR and some who do survive can have some brain damage.

In the early 1970s when I was a young ICU nurse, patients who appeared to be dying or their families could agree to a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order.

But the 1991 Patient Self-Determination Act, along with the so-called “right to die” cases like Nancy Cruzan and Karen Quinlan, resulted in  the widespread use of DNR orders in hospitals.

So now after years of concern with rising health care costs, older people worried about becoming a “burden” to their adult children, and the push for people to sign “living wills” to refuse certain treatments if they become incapacitated,  it should not be a surprise that a growing number of people-including young, healthy people-are getting DNR (do not resuscitate) tattoos.

But what does that mean when an unconscious person is rushed to an emergency room?

Recently, there was a serious discussion of an actual case and a poll on ethics and DNR tattoos in MedPage, a newsletter for health care professionals.

The case involved a patient who arrived in an emergency room and unconscious after suffering a heart attack while jet skiing on vacation. He had ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ tattoo on his chest. There was a signature under the tattoo. However, the ambulance crew called restarted his heart with a defibrillator. The man was stabilized but hours later he has another heart attack.

The poll question and results from the 1580 votes were:

“Do you comply with the DNR tattoo or not?

Yes: 43.04%

No: 56.96%”

I was appalled that 43% would treat a DNR tattoo as the equivalent of a legal document and I agree with the reasoning of the lawyer/doctor reviewing this case who wrote that “the legally correct course of action would be to temporarily ignore the tattoo unless and until evidence that the tattoo reflects the patient’s current thinking is brought forth.”

PROBLEMS WITH DNR ORDERS

Unfortunately in hospital situations, DNR orders are sometimes misinterpreted as not wanting to live  or “do not treat” when the person had assumed it would apply only in extreme circumstances.

For example, a new nurse was taking care of a young girl with mental retardation who was eating when she suddenly started choking. The new nurse ran to her head nurse in a panic and was told that, because the parents agreed to a DNR order, the nurses could only just hold her hand!

Obviously, relieving the choking by removing the food should have been done.

CONCLUSION

The results of not understanding  DNR orders can be tragic but too many people-including medical professionals-don’t realize the legal and ethical ramifications.

Personally, I chose to make a durable power of attorney for health care naming my husband as the decision maker if I could not speak for myself rather than a “living will” or other advance directive with various treatments to check off if I can’t speak for myself.

I want all the options, risks and benefits of treatments fully explained to my decision maker based on my current condition so that he make an informed decision. This would include the use of a DNR if or when I am dying.

What we all desperately need now is more awareness and common sense when it comes to asking for or allowing a “Do Not Resuscitate” order, especially a DNR tattoo.

 

Accidental Oversight or Deliberate Omission in new Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act?

With the enthusiastic support of Compassion and Choices (which promotes legalizing assisted suicide throughout the US), the first Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (PCHETA) was introduced in Congress in 2016  to allow millions of dollars in federal grants to, in the bill’s words, “increase the number of permanent faculty in palliative care at accredited allopathic and osteopathic medical schools, nursing schools, social work schools, and other programs, including physician assistant education programs, to promote education and research in palliative care and hospice, and to support the development of faculty careers in academic palliative medicine.”

While palliative care has been traditionally defined as “compassionate comfort care that provides relief from the symptoms and physical and mental stress of a serious or life-limiting illness” and hospice care as “compassionate comfort care (as opposed to curative care) for people facing a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less, based on their physician’s estimate”, the PCHETA bill may radically change such care.

I started writing  about the potential dangers with the PCHETA bill in Congress in 2018 when it was passed by the US House of Representatives and sent to a Senate Committee for approval. The PCHETA stalled there, thought to be at least partially due to concerns by some U.S. senators about the bill’s potential problems with hastening of death and legalized assisted suicide  despite a “clarification” in the bill that that “None of the funds made available under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to provide, promote, or provide training with regard to any item or service for which Federal funding is unavailable under section 3 of Public Law 105–12 (42 U.S.C. 14402)” such as assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing.

So after the bill stalled, a second “clarification” was added to the Senate bill (now S. 2080) in July, 2019 that states “Sec. 5(b) ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION.—As used in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), palliative care and hospice shall not be furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, a patient’s death, for any reason.” (Emphasis added)

This second clarification is critical because, as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops representative Greg Schleppenbach, has written:

“This provision is important because for the first time anywhere in federal law or regulations it explicitly states that palliative and hospice care cannot be furnished for the purpose of causing or assisting in causing death.  These protective provisions were added as a condition of our support for this bill.” (Emphasis added)

But on October 28, 2019, the House PCHETA (HR 647) bill that does NOT contain the second clarification was reintroduced and quickly passed by the US House of Representatives on a voice vote  and sent to the Senate for approval. That bill is now in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Senators can now be contacted by even email.)

OPPOSITION TO THE PCHETA BILL CONTINUES

Even with the second clarification, many groups continue to voice concern about the PCHETA bill because many of us nurses and doctors are seeing unethical practices such as assisted suicide, terminal sedation, voluntary stopping of eating, drinking (VSED) and even spoon feeding, etc. being used to cause or hasten death but often called palliative or “comfort care” for such patients.

We worry that the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (2019) can allow federal funding to teach and even institutionalize such unethical practices without sufficient oversight, safeguards or penalties.

Julie Grimstad of the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization (HALO) also voices concerns about funding new palliative care and hospice programs, citing the 2019 Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General report titled Vulnerabilities in Hospice” that documented serious problems.

She also cites Dr. Farr A. Curlin, a palliative medicine specialist at Duke University, who warns that:

“When the goal of HPM (Hospice and Palliative Medicine) shifts from helping patients who are dying to helping patients die, practices that render patients unconscious or hasten their death no longer seem to be last-resort options,” [emphasis added]

HALO is joined by other groups who officially oppose PCHETA S.2080 such as the National Association of Pro-life Nurses  and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA

CONCLUSION

Whether or not the omission of the second clarification in the bill sent to the Senate was intentional, the omission validates the genuine concern many of us have that the traditional end of life care ethic to neither hasten nor postpone dying is rapidly being replaced by “quality of life” judgments, economic concerns and patient “choice” to die.