Year: 2015

IF I KNEW MY DAUGHTER HAD DOWN SYNDROME…

nancyvalko abortion, disability, grief, medical ethics

IF I KNEW MY DAUGHTER HAD DOWN SYNDROME….
September 6, 2015
Recently I read a Yahoo news article titled  “If I Knew My Daughter Had Down Syndrome, I Would Have Aborted Her – All Women Should Have That Right”  that broke my heart.
Beautiful pictures of this mom and her daughter accompanied her harsh words:

“Ohio is poised to become the second state in this country to ban abortion because of a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome this fall. As a pro-choice woman who has a 7-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, I find this absolutely appalling.”
“This is an issue that hits close to home for me: If I had had a prenatal diagnosis, I would have obtained an abortion. Today, I am beyond grateful that I didn’t. But I cannot ever in any circumstances imagine insisting others not have that right.”

Here is what I wrote back in the comments section of this article:

I am an RN whose third child Karen was born in 1982 with both Down Syndrome and a heart defect. I was given a “choice” of whether or not to allow a surgery even though there was an up to 90% chance of success. I was outraged because that “choice” would not have been offered if my daughter did not have Down Syndrome. I knew then that I had to fight this medical discrimination not only for my daughter but for other children with disabilities.
Years later, a nice woman asked that, if I knew my daughter had Down Syndrome before birth, would I have chosen abortion. Instead of talking about how people with Down Syndrome were defying old, pessimistic predictions or how there was actually a waiting list of prospective adoptive parents for children with Down Syndrome, I asked the woman if she knew how abortions were done.
She said no so I asked her if she wanted to know. When she consented, I simply and clinically described how first, second and third trimester abortions were done. The woman responded with horror and said “You couldn’t do that to your child!”
That is exactly the point. It is not about what challenges a child may have but rather about deliberately killing an innocent child at any stage of life.
I would like to reassure the mom in this article that, while her feelings are understandable, she has apparently been a great mother to her daughter and should be proud of herself.
I would also like to encourage her to let go of any guilt over what she might have done, celebrate her beautiful daughter and please don’t discourage other mothers from choosing life for their child. Nancy V.

THE TRAGEDY OF SO-CALLED “THERAPUETIC ABORTION FOR FETAL DEFECT”

A friend of mine I will call “Mary” (not her real name) had an ultrasound of her unborn baby at 5 months that appeared to show anencephaly.  Anencephaly is a serious birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull. Most babies born with this condition die soon after birth.

However, Mary was also told that this pregnancy would kill her and, in a panic, she quickly endured 28 hours of hard labor with a prostaglandin-induced abortion before her baby was delivered. She never saw her baby.

Mary tried hard to put the tragedy behind her and decided to tell most of her friends that she had a miscarriage rather than an abortion. However, as she confided later, she half-expected to be somehow punished when she later had a son and it took several months after his birth before she could truly believe that her new son was healthy. But every Christmas she also secretly hung an ornament for her dead first child.

What Mary didn’t know was that her obstetrician apparently lied to her. First of all, she was not in any special physical danger from her pregnancy.

I later ran into an old friend who happened to be the doctor (not Mary’s obstetrician) who read her ultrasound. Since he also knew I was a friend of Mary’s, he asked how she was doing. He turned white and had to sit down when I told him about the abortion. It turns out that not only was Mary healthy but the ultrasound suggested only  the possibility of anencephaly. Such initial testing is too often wrong and should not be used as a definitive diagnosis.

I felt Mary had a right to know all this but she rebuffed my offer to tell her what I learned. However, five years later, she called and  said that although she didn’t want a lecture, she had a question that continued to haunt her: What did the hospital do with her baby’s body?

Abortion claims many victims because there is an enormous difference between dying and being killed no matter what the reason.

Pope Speaks on Forgiveness, Excommunication and Abortion; Confusion Ensues

nancyvalko abortion, faith, grief

POPE SPEAKS ON FORGIVENESS, EXCOMMUNICATION AND ABORTION, CONFUSION ENSUES

By Nancy Valko, RN ALNC

September 2, 2015

A recent Reuters news article  “Pope to allow all priests to forgive abortion during Holy Year“, stated that

In Church teaching, abortion is such a grave sin that those who procure or perform it incur an automatic excommunication. Usually only designated clergy and missionaries can formally forgive abortions.

That was news to many of us like Carol who wrote in a comment on the article:

Catholic priests have forgiven abortion for years! The Catholic church has always been concerned for the souls of women who have abortions! There are many Catholic programs for counseling and healing women who have had abortions. Check out Rachel’s Vineyard, one of many. This is just not news.

However, to many in the public and even some devout Catholics, the article seemed to show that Pope Francis and possibly the Catholic Church were softening on the issue of abortion.

THE TRUTH ABOUT FORGIVENESS, EXCOMMUNICATION AND ABORTION

As Cardinal Chaput of Philadelphia explains simply in an article “Chaput Praises Pope’s Abortion Stance“:

“For many years now, parish priests have been given permission to absolve the sin of abortion here in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia,” Chaput said in the statement. “But the practice has not been common in various other regions of the world.” (emphasis added)

Chaput added: “This action in no way diminishes the moral gravity of abortion. What it does do is make access to sacramental forgiveness easier for anyone who seeks it with a truly penitent heart.”

Questions and concerns about excommunication are addressed on pages 67-69 of Project Rachel Ministry: A Post-Abortion Resource Manual for Priests and Project Rachel Ministry Leaders. Here is an excerpt:

It is commonly thought that the Church excommunicates all Catholics who have procured a successful abortion. However, probably in a great many cases, mitigating or extenuating circumstances prevent the individual from incurring  the censure of excommunication. The tragedy of abortion triggers distinct and separate questions regarding the personal responsibility of one who has procured a successful abortion: has a sin been committed? If so, was the commission of that sin such that it also resulted in the incurring of a penalty?

“JANE’S” STORY

Years ago when I was in home health, I was assigned to “Jane” (not her real name),  an elderly woman  who was dying of  heart disease. The doctor said he was amazed that Jane had lived this long in an assisted living apartment. The home health agency told me that this woman was a very difficult patient who had fired every nurse who saw her. I was told that I was a last resort to try to help her. I could only hope that I would be equal to the challenge.
Sure enough, on my first appointment, Jane was very critical and negative. She seemed immune to positive comments and encouragement.  I recognized that Jane was very troubled and I tried to find out more about her. I discovered that Jane was a widow with few if any friends and a daughter in California who could only visit occasionally.  Jane raged daily against the limitations that her disease caused and the the medical establishment in general.
However, after several visits, Jane slowly softened and even showed a glimmer of a sense of humor. I liked her spirit.

Part of my duties was to measure her swollen abdomen and legs to determine if the diuretic (water pill) was working as intended to lessen the workload on her heart.
Then one day as I was measuring her abdomen, she commented that she looked 9 months pregnant and uncharacteristically started sobbing. She told me that she had had an abortion over 60 years ago before she was married and lost who she assumed was a son. Now she felt God was punishing her by making her look pregnant. Out of shame, Jane had told no one-not even her late husband-about the abortion.
She admitted that she was afraid of dying because she knew she would then have to go to hell because she had committed the “unforgivable sin” of abortion. I was stunned.
I reassured her that there was no such thing as an “unforgivable sin” and that God is all-merciful. I also told her about Project Rachel, how I could help her contact them, and that she deserved the peace of forgiveness from God and especially from herself.

Slowly, her outlook changed and even though she never called Project Rachel (she insisted that our talks and contacting a priest were enough), her spirits lifted. She died peacefully a few days later.
Postscript: I was later told by a priest that he was reluctant to preach about abortion because he realized that some in his parish probably had had an abortion and he didn’t want to cause them more pain and drive them away from church.
I told him Jane’s story and said that if he did not discuss abortion, he was depriving his parish of understanding the damage abortion causes, the help of groups like Project Rachel and the mercy of God’s forgiveness.

I know Jane would be pleased.

A Modest Proposal on Assisted Suicide

nancyvalko assisted suicide, bereavement, medical ethics

On August 26, 2015, the Wall Street Journal published letters to the editor responding to Dr. William Toffler’s great August 18 opinion article titled “A Doctor-Assisted Disaster for Medicine-As a physician in Oregon, I have seen the dire effect of assisted-suicide laws on patients and my profession”.

The letters to the editor were overwhelmingly critical of Dr. Toffler’s position. Here are some excerpts:

“On May 5, my mother, at age 73, chose to take her life using the medicine provided by her doctor to end her life. She couldn’t breathe, could barely walk and was skin and bones when she finally died. She had been a vocal advocate of the Death with Dignity Act and had spoken with all her physicians years before this ever became a real issue for her. ”  Portland, Oregon. (emphasis added)

“As a patient, I am not worried about “death doctors.” I am worried about doctors who use any treatment available to prolong life without having a matter-of-fact discussion with the patient about what the quality of that prolonged life will be.” Beaverton, Oregon (emphasis added)

“My personal experience in medical practice during the last 63 years is that those physicians who are against physician-assisted suicide have never spent month after month nor year after year with a dying patient who is suffering intolerable pain.” (emphasis added)

In response, here is the letter to the editor I sent to the Wall Street Journal today:

A MODEST PROPOSAL ON ASSISTED SUICIDE

With all the rancor about physician-assisted suicide, I would like to make a modest proposal.

First of all, take the medical professionals out of assisted suicide.

Capital punishment opponents have successfully challenged lethal injection executions on the basis that even that direct termination of life is “cruel and inhumane” and sometimes fails to render an inmate unconscious, causing much suffering. How can we then justify an oral overdose that cannot guarantee rapid unconsciousness, a quick termination of breathing and heartbeat or a lack of complications?

Secondly, if the suicide is then assisted by a family member or friend, eliminate any profit incentive by barring the person assisting from receiving any proceeds from an insurance policy or provision in a will. Families and friends who say no can instead concentrate on obtaining adequate symptom relief and support for their loved ones.

Unfortunately, the assisted suicide message of a victimless choice is seductive not only to people with life-threatening medical conditions but also to physically healthy people of all ages dealing with despair, disability, mental illness and the frailty of old age.

Almost 6 years ago, my physically healthy but addicted daughter killed herself using a technique the medical examiner called “textbook final exit”. My daughter read Final Exit, a book written by Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society now known as Compassion and Choices.

My daughter’s suicide was neither quick nor peaceful and it devastated her family and friends. However, none of us regret the years of efforts to save her and none of us would have sat at her deathbed supporting her alleged choice while she struggled to breathe.

Sincerely,

Nancy Valko, RN ALNC

New Doctor-Assisted Suicide Bill Introduced in California After Prior Bill and 2 Court Challenges Fail

nancyvalko assisted suicide, euthanasia, medical ethics

Last October when Compassion and Choices (the former Hemlock Society) rolled out Brittany Maynard’s tragic assisted suicide story along with the establishment of a Brittany Maynard Fund to raise money to legalize doctor-assisted suicide throughout the US, the group was confident that this would be the tipping point in a movement that had stalled in other states.

The state of California was considered a sure thing for doctor-assisted suicide especially because Brittany Maynard and her family left California which had repeatedly rejected doctor-assisted suicide for Oregon, the first state to legalize such suicides. Nevertheless, People magazine and other mainstream media praised Ms. Maynard “heroism” in supporting doctor-assisted suicide and touted the “success” of such laws in the few states that had legalized it.

However, efforts to pass Senate Bill 128 failed in the California legislature this summer after efforts by disability, pro-life and other organizations to educate both legislators and the public about the dangers of doctor-assisted suicide.

Undaunted, Compassion and Choices then supported efforts to reverse the ban against assisted suicide with lawsuits filed by several terminally ill patients in two courts. However both courts, one in San Francisco and one in San Diego,  refused to overturn California’s ban on assisted suicide.

The well-funded pro-assisted suicide groups are nothing if not tenacious so it should not be a surprise that they have now unveiled a “new” and “improved”  doctor-assisted suicide bill called AB 15 End of Life Option Act with more so-called “safeguards”.

The reassurance of safeguards are critical to the selling of doctor-assisted suicide to a public understandably squeamish about allowing doctors to help some people to kill themselves.

 WHAT SAFEGUARDS?

There have been many articles about the problems with these alleged safeguards but they are rarely covered in mainstream media articles. The latest and one of the best is then August 15, 2015 US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ paper titled  “Assisted Suicide Laws in Oregon and Washington: What Safeguards?”,

For example, here is a portion of the paper that gives the real facts behind the alleged psychological counseling safeguard:

Despite medical literature on the frequent role of depression and other psychological problemsin choices for suicide, the prescribing doctor (and the doctor he selects to give a second opinion)are free to decide whether or not to refer suicidal patients for any psychological counseling.Even if such counseling is provided, its goal is to determine that the patient is not suffering from“a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment.” Ore. Rev.Stat. 127.825; Rev. Code Wash. 70.245.060. The doctors or counselor can decide that, since depression is “a completely normal response” to terminal illness, the depressed patient’s judgment is not impaired…..
From 1998 to 2012, on average only 6.2% of patients who died under the Act in Oregon were referred for counseling to check for “impaired judgment.” Of 108 patients who died under the (Oregon) Act in 2007 and 2009, none was referred for psychological evaluation. In Washington, only 4% of patients are known to have been referred for such counseling in 2014 (six of the 167 who died from any cause after receiving the prescription); the state does not report whether any of those who actually ingested the lethal drugs had been referred for counseling.
 In another section, the paper relates what happened with an Oregon physician despite the alleged safeguard that an assisted suicide request must come from a competent, terminally ill person:
An Oregon emergency room physician was asked by a woman to end the life of her mother who was unconscious from a stroke. He tried to stop her breathing or heartbeat in several ways,finally giving a lethal dose of a paralyzing drug to the older woman who died minutes later. The state board of medical examiners reprimanded the doctor but he faced no criminal charges for this direct killing–which news reports called a case of “assisted suicide”–and he later resumed medical practice.

WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

Unfortunately, even my home state of Missouri which has laws against assisted suicide had a case similar to the one referenced here about the Oregon physician who gave a lethal overdose. This 2001 Missouri case involved a nurse. The nurse gave a lethal overdose without a doctor’s order to a patient who had a stroke the day before but wouldn’t stop breathing when taken off a ventilator. After the patient’s son voiced support for the nurse, she was only sentenced to 5 years’ probation.

The point is that when so-called “safeguards” are accepted (and routinely ignored) in states that do have legalized doctor-assisted suicide amid an aggressive national campaign to legalize doctor-assisted suicide as a civil right, there has been a chilling effect on prosecutors and juries even in other states that have rejected assisted suicide as long as “compassion” is given as the reason for ending life.

Ominously, in other countries like Belgium and Holland, the practice of doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill adult has  evolved over the years to now include children, people with mental illness and even people who are only “tired of life.”

Are we willing to risk a similar fate here?

Medical Professionals, Planned Parenthood and Fetal Tissue from Aborted Babies

nancyvalko abortion, family planning, fetal tissue, medical ethics, organ donation, Planned Parenthood

On August 6, 2015, the Medscape website for medical professionals had an article: “Reader Poll: “Should Medical Societies Support Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood?” with 3 questions:

1. Do you agree that Planned Parenthood should continue to receive federal funds for non-abortion-related care?
2. Do you believe that these 18 medical societies were justified in stating their support for Planned Parenthood?
3. Do you believe that it is ethical for Planned Parenthood to donate aborted fetal tissue for use in medical research?

Not surprisingly, given how these questions are worded, a large majority voted yes.

The Medscape article referenced a letter to Congress dated 8/3/2015 by 18 medical societies supporting continued funding for Planned Parenthood.
However, when I accessed the letter, it surprisingly says nothing about fetal tissue research.

I am including the actual letter and its signers below.

I wonder if these groups’ members feel the same way. I checked on two groups and couldn’t find the letter on the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or Society’s for Adolescent Health and Medicine’s websites.

I would encourage members of these groups as well as other ethical doctors and nurses to contact to contact these organizations to encourage them to protest this position (and the use of aborted babies for fetal tissue research), especially since it appears that many medical professionals are unaware of the issues involved.

I have seen this before.

Even though the American Nurses Association did not sign this letter and a current search shows no position on Planned Parenthood or fetal tissue use on its website, I was a member of the American Nurses Association (ANA) years ago and tried to work within that organization at a state level on several ethical issues. I read every issue of ANA’s Journal of Nursing, particularly the political section. When the ban on partial birth abortion came up in Congress, I read nothing about it in the Journal.

Awhile later, I was watching a political talk show and one of the panelists mentioned that the ANA was against the ban. That was news to me so I searched for the information on the internet. It took some time but I finally found the letter.

I tracked down the public relations director of the ANA and called her. At first, she said that she didn’t know what I was talking about but eventually found the information herself and seemed surprised.

I told her that I no longer could be a member of ANA not only because of its’ stance on partial birth abortion but also because of the secrecy. We members were not polled or even informed. I also told her that I would encourage other ANA members to also leave if the ANA did not change its position or inform its membership.

The PR person apologized. I gave her my phone number and encouraged her to have someone from the ANA contact me.

I never heard back from them.

We need accountability from our professional organizations, especially since these organizations claim to represent the interests of groups of medical professionals.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

In a letter dated August 3, a group of 18 medical societies, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, ask the Senate and House leadership to continue to allow Planned Parenthood to participate in federal health programs.

https://filemanager.capwiz.com/filemanager/file-mgr/acog/Provider_Ltr_in_Support_of_Planned_Parenthood_Funding_Updated.pdf

August 3, 2015

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Senate Majority Leader
S-230, U.S. Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable John Boehner
Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232, U.S. Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner:

As organizations representing health care professionals and the people they serve across the country, we strongly oppose any effort to prevent Planned Parenthood health centers from participating in federal health programs, including Medicaid and the Title X family planning program. Any proposal to exclude Planned Parenthood from public health programs will severely curtail women’s access to essential health care services, including family planning, well-woman exams, breast and cervical cancers screenings, and HIV testing and counseling. At a time when we should be focused on improving the health of all people, it is frustrating to witness ongoing attempts to cut off access to life-saving preventive care.
Planned Parenthood health centers play a crucial role in improving the health and lives of people across the country. In fact, 2.7 million people rely on Planned Parenthood for health care. For many women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care—offering basic preventive services that are fundamental to women’s health and well-being. Each year, Planned Parenthood health centers provide nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings and nearly 500,000 breast exams.

Additionally, Planned Parenthood provides over 2.1 million contraceptive services and nearly 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. These services improve women’s health, prevent an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality.
Policies that would exclude Planned Parenthood from public health funding would hurt millions of women and undermine health care access in communities across the country. Approximately 60 percent of Planned Parenthood patients access care through Medicaid and Title X, in addition to those who rely on other essential programs, including maternal and child health programs and Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) breast and cervical cancer screening programs.

In some states, Planned Parenthood is the only provider participating in Title X, and more than 50 percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in a medically underserved or health professional shortage area. Because federal law already requires health care providers to demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion, prohibitions on funding for preventive care at Planned Parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these life-saving services.

Every day, we see the harmful impact that unequal access to health care has on women and communities across the country, and we therefore strongly support policies that improve access to affordable, quality health care. Policies that would deny Planned Parenthood public health funds only serve to cut millions off from critical preventive care, and we strongly oppose any effort to do so. Should you have any questions, please contact ACOG Government Affairs staff, Rachel Gandell at 202-863-2534 or rgandell@acog.org.

Sincerely,

American College of Nurse-Midwives
American Congress of Obstetrician and Gynecologists
American Medical Women’s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Public Health Association
American Society for Reproductive Medicine
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
Doctors for America
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Hispanic Medical Association
National Physicians Alliance
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
cc: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Pope: ‘By No Means Excommunicated,’ but Divorce and Remarriage Contradicts the Sacrament

nancyvalko faith, marriage

In an 8/5/2015 article in the National Catholic Register titled “‘By No Means Excommunicated,’ but Divorce and Remarriage Contradicts the Sacrament”, statements by Pope Francis have set off a firestorm of controversy once again in Church circles. Some fear that Church teaching on marriage will be changed or watered down.

As the article states:

Echoing his predecessors on the need to care for divorced-and-remarried persons, Pope Francis said Christians should help these persons integrate into the community, rather than treating them as though they are excommunicated.

“The Church well knows that such a situation contradicts the Christian sacrament,” the Pope said in his Aug. 5 general audience in St. Peter’s Square. Nonetheless, he added, the Church should always approach such situations with a “mother’s heart; a heart, which, animated by the Holy Spirit, seeks always the good and the salvation of the person.”
“It is important that they experience the Church as a mother attentive to all, always disposed to listen in encounters,” he added.
The community is to welcome persons who have divorced and entered into new unions, the Pope said, so that “they may live and develop their adherence to Christ and the Church with prayer, listening to God’s word, frequenting the liturgy, the Christian education of their children, charity, service to the poor and a commitment to justice and peace.”

As someone who has experienced the trauma of divorce personally, I do believe that priests and the parish communities could be much more supportive to the parent and, especially, any children involved.
After my divorce, I met many Catholic divorced women who, whether or not they remarried, felt isolated from the rest of their parish and some even erroneously believed that they could not receive Communion even when they had not remarried. Sadly, every one of these women reported receiving little or no emotional or spiritual support from their parish priest even though some had reached out to their priest before the divorce. Many even left the Church, often for a more welcoming Christian church.
This is a situation that can be helped by sensitivity and deliberate outreach from priests and parish members. I assume that is what Pope Francis was talking about when he emphasized the need for a welcoming presence for people and their children dealing with divorce-even those who have remarried without an annulment.
I do support the annulment requirement based on Church teaching about the sacrament of marriage. Even though the annulment process can be painful at times, the questionnaires and personal interactions with the priests and people helping with the process can result in new insights, understanding and even a sense of closure and forgiveness.
I was granted an annulment from my first marriage years ago and long before I unexpectedly remarried 20 years after my divorce. I feel the annulment process was overall a positive experience and enabled me to marry my wonderful husband Kevin with no reservations. I certainly would not have remarried without the annulment.

I do recommend exploring an annulment after divorce, especially when a remarriage is being contemplated. An “Annulment FAQs” page can be found on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Those Catholics who remarried without an annulment should not assume that they have no recourse. I strongly encourage them to contact a Church authority for guidance.

TWO ARTICLES ABOUT ASSISTED SUICIDE MAY PREDICT ULTIMATE COURSE OF MEDICALIZED DEATH

nancyvalko assisted suicide, medical ethics, mental health

A July 31, 2015 article in Medscape (a subscription website for medical professionals) titled “Assisted Suicide for Mental Illness Gaining Ground” admits that:

“Euthanasia (referred to as assisted suicide in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, where it is also legal in cases involving suffering due to medical and psychiatric illness) has been legal since 2002 in Belgium, and the law was extended in 2014 to include emancipated children with suffering due to terminal illness.

Through a required process, patients must show their illness to cause “unbearable or untreatable suffering”; however, the definition is acknowledged to be subjective, Dr Thienpont told Medscape Medical News.

“By its nature, the extent to which the suffering is unbearable must be determined from the perspective of the patient him- or herself and may depend on his or her physical and mental strength and personality,” said Dr Thienpont.

Despite the ongoing criticism that very few assisted suicide requests in the US are referred for psychological/psychiatric consultations, this article examines a July 27, 2015 British Medical Journal article ““Euthanasia requests, procedures and outcomes for 100 Belgian patients suffering from psychiatric disorders: a retrospective, descriptive study”   that tries to make the case that mental illness itself can be grounds for assisted suicide.

In the meantime, an Irish website thejournal.ie has an August 2, 2015 poll asking “Poll: Would you consider euthanasia while still healthy?” based on a story about a healthy nurse who  legally ended her life in a Swiss clinic:

“A HEALTHY NURSE from England has opted to die via assisted suicide, rather than growing old.
Gill Pharaoh (75), a former palliative care nurse, chose to die at a Swiss clinic so she wouldn’t become a burden on her family or the health service.

In an interview with the Sunday Times shortly before her death, Pharaoh said her children struggled to cope with her decision, but understand where she is coming from.

Her husband accompanied her to the clinic.”

Unfortunately, the countries in Europe that have legalized euthanasia/assisted suicide apparently are the “canaries in the mine” warning us of a relentless march towards the acceptance of euthanasia on demand in the US and potentially worldwide.

How to Bury Your Baby After a Miscarriage

nancyvalko bereavement

In 1983, my daughter Karen who had Down Syndrome died at 5 1/2 months from a complication of pneumonia just before her open heart surgery. In 1984, we suffered a miscarriage at 10-12 weeks.

My 7 year old son and 5 year old daughter were devastated and asked what the name was. Since the doctors could not determine the sex of the baby, I had each of my children select a boy’s or girl’s name. Naming the baby Jeff Candy helped make my children feel better but then they questioned why Jeff Candy did not have a funeral like their sister Karen. Good question!

I brought this up to my mentor Fr. Joe Naumann (now archbishop of Kansas City) when he headed the St. Louis Archdiocesan Pro-Life Committee and the next thing I knew, I wound up on a committee. Now we have “The Order for the Naming and Commendation for an Infant Who Died Before Birth” (copyright 1989)
.
I am so proud of the results of my children’s long-ago question and I am so happy to see the long-term results in this article which should be shared with every Catholic. Here is an excerpt:

How to Bury Your Baby After a Miscarriage

by JoAnna Wahlund • June 10, AD2015

The loss of a child is a nightmare for every parent. In the first few hours and days of grief and shock, it’s hard to know what to do. It’s especially hard when the loss occurs in early pregnancy, since our culture isn’t accustomed to treating unborn babies as human beings — and this happens even in pro-life circles.

If you are reading this article because you recently lost a baby via miscarriage, there are three things I want you to know:

1. I am so sorry for the loss of your baby.

2. You have the right to bury your baby.

3. If you did not bury your baby, do not not feel ashamed or guilty. We can only do our best in the circumstances we’re in according to the knowledge that we have.

I accepted this award in the name of all the ethical, dedicated nurses in health care: CARDINAL O’MALLEY PRESENTS 2015 PEOPLE OF LIFE AWARDS

nancyvalko assisted suicide

USCCB>MEDIA > NEWS RELEASES

CARDINAL O’MALLEY PRESENTS 2015 PEOPLE OF LIFE AWARDS

http://WWW.USCCB.ORG/NEWS/2015/15-116.CFM

July 28, 2015
WASHINGTON—A nurse, a chastity educator, and the retired director of the bishops’ national grassroots organization received the 2015 People of Life Award for lifetime commitment to the pro-life movement, July 27, during the annual Diocesan Pro-Life Leadership Conference in Kansas City, Kansas. Cardinal Sean O’Malley, OFM Cap., of Boston, chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), presented the awards to Nancy Valko, Molly Kelly, and Michael Taylor. Over 120 diocesan, state and national Catholic pro-life leaders and guests from across the country attended the private awards dinner sponsored by the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities.

Nancy Valko was recognized for her professional and volunteer advocacy, especially on disability and end-of-life issues. A registered nurse since 1969, she worked for 45 years in critical care, oncology, hospice, home health and other specialties. Valko formerly served as president of Missouri Nurses for Life, board member of the Saint Louis Down Syndrome Association, and co-chair of the St. Louis Archdiocesan Respect Life Committee. She is currently a spokesperson for the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses and serves as a legal nurse consultant with the Valko Group. Having cared for family members as well as patients with chronic conditions, disabilities and terminal illness, her compassionate insight informs her many presentations, media appearances, and articles on medical ethics in Catholic publications and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Valko has become a significant voice in the fight against assisted suicide.

Molly Kelly was honored for her decades as a pro-life speaker and chastity educator. Widowed as the mother of eight children, Molly began speaking in local schools on prenatal development and life affirming options for pregnant girls. While raising her family, she opened their home to five unwed mothers in need of support. Called to address the issue of chastity at first locally, and then in every state as well as Canada, Great Britain, and Australia, she engaged over 50,000 high school youth each year with the message of “saved sex.” Rather than moralizing or teaching merely abstinence, she proposed the beauty of self-control with frankness and affectionate humor. Her popular videos, including “Face-to-Face with Teens: Molly Kelly,” “Teens and Chastity” and “Abortion,” expanded her outreach to countless other youth in public and private schools, equipping them with the tools to make wise, healthy decisions in their relationships.

Michael Taylor was honored for 46 years of pro-life leadership, including 26 at the bishops’ pro-life grassroots mobilization organization, the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA). He holds a doctorate of sacred theology from The Catholic University of America. After Roe v. Wade in 1973, he helped to form NCHLA and to shape the bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities, which guides Catholic efforts in pro-life education, pastoral care, prayer, and public policy. From 1975-79, he served as associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, where he helped design the annual Respect Life Program still used in dioceses across the country. Taylor established and served as the first executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. He was also appointed to the Pontifical Council for the Family for five years. As director of NCHLA, he oversaw several massive postcard campaigns, in which over 138 million Catholics called upon Congress to enact the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, oppose the “Freedom of Choice Act,” support conscience rights and maintain pro-life measures already in law. Today NCHLA’s online action center is the hub of Catholic grassroots email activity on federal laws and policies, and their website, http://www.EndRoe.org. . . , is a comprehensive resource for students studying abortion law in the United States.

The People of Life Award recognizes Catholics who have answered the call outlined by Pope John Paul II in The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae, 1995), dedicating themselves to pro-life activities and promoting respect for the dignity of the human person. It is bestowed in honor of their significant contributions to the culture of life.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, and a long-time member of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, offered his congratulations as well.

Valko, Kelly, and Taylor join 25 other People of Life Award recipients since the Pro-Life Secretariat inaugurated it in 2007. More information on previous recipients and on the People of Life campaign is available at: www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/people-of-life/people-of-life-award.cfm
—
Keywords: Cardinal O’Malley, USCCB, Catholic bishops, pro-life, People of Life campaign, People of Life Award, Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, Nancy Valko, Molly Kelly, Michael Taylor, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, youth, chastity education, National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, National Association of Pro-Life Nurses, Archdiocese of Kansas City, Archbishop Naumann
# # #
MEDIA CONTACT
Don Clemmer

Money, Consent and Dishonesty on “Fetal Tissue Research”: The New York Times editorial “The Campaign of Deception Against Planned Parenthood”

nancyvalko abortion, fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood

In this editorial, the New York Times defends the Planned Parenthood practice of “donating” fetal body parts in abortion by  arguing that the mothers make “voluntary and potentially lifesaving tissue donations” and that Planned Parenthood “only accept money — between $30 and $100 per specimen, according to Dr. Nucatola — to cover costs associated with collecting and transporting the tissue”.

Not surprisingly, the NYT doesn’t-or most likely won’t-discuss how these baby “donations” are done or other ethical/legal issues.

However, the NYT does reveal that “Last year, the National Institutes of Health gave $76 million in grants for fetal tissue research. Planned Parenthood is certainly not the only collector of fetal tissue — clinics associated with universities also supply tissue for research.” (emphasis added)

Obviously, there is a lot of money to be made obtaining fetal tissue, including from taxpayers. The media should be following the money involved.

For example, note this quote from a May, 2015 USA Today article “Fetal stem cells and the sports heroes they revitalized-A special report by USA TODAY Sports reveals how a stem-cell manufacturer averted controversy in the treatments of Gordie Howe and John Brodie”: “”We don’t use the word fetal too much,” said Maynard Howe, Stemedica’s CEO, who is no relation to Gordie Howe. “We just don’t want to get people confused about what it is. They’re really considered legally adult stem cells even if they’re fetal-derived.“’ (emphasis added) Besides the deceptive terminology, have or are fetal tissues being set up for commercialized medical use?

As a former reporter, I am constantly amazed by the lack of investigative reporting on the issue of harvesting fetal body parts in abortion.

In just a few minutes of research, I found this on the website of StemExpress, one of the companies mentioned in articles about the controversy:

“Partnerships-Easy to Implement Program + Financial Profits
StemExpress promotes global biomedical research while also providing a financial benefit to your clinic. By partnering with StemExpress, not only are you offering a way for your clients to participate in the unique opportunity to facilitate life-saving research, but you will also be contributing to the fiscal growth of your own clinic. The stem cell rich blood and raw materials that are usually discarded during procedures can, instead, be expedited through StemExpress to research laboratories with complete professionalism and source anonymity.” (emphasis added)

StemExpress also includes a convenient site  for purchasing “fetal liver” cells, including the incentive of “Become a StemExpress Customer Today to Receive 10% off Your First Order up to $1000”

Regarding consent, StemExpress has a “Statement of StemExpress Concerning Recent Media Stories”  that states “Written donor consent is required for any donation, including bone marrow, tissue of all types or blood.” If so, what does the form say? When and are the risks and benefits of abortion/donation written or explained to the women ready to abort so that their consent can be informed? As a nurse, I am very familiar with the standards for written consent before any surgery or procedure and few people “volunteer” to sign consent forms instead of being asked.

Planned Parenthood needs to be challenged on its defense as well as the politics, ethics or legality of harvesting body parts in abortions.