Journal of the American Medical Association Article Calls Crisis Pregnancy Centers “Legal but Unethical”

When I first started nursing school, abortion was illegal in all 50 states and the American Medical Association (AMA) was influential and widely admired.

But, as cited and influential in the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, the AMA dropped its’ opposition to abortion in 1970  after a few states legalized abortion with resolutions  that stated:

“abortion is a medical procedure that should be performed by a licensed physician in an accredited hospital only after consultation with two other physicians and in conformity with state law, and that no party to the procedure should be required to violate personally held moral principles”.

I remember how upset many doctors were with the AMA after Roe v Wade and many dropped out of the AMA.

Now, there are over one million MDs in the US  but less than 25% of practicing doctors are members of the AMA, down from 75% in the 1950s. (This is not just because of abortion but also the politics of the AMA.)

The AMA today now stands firmly for abortion rights and even against common sense conscience rights protection.

“AT ‘CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS’, CRITICS SAY, IDEOLOGY TRUMPS EVIDENCE”

This is the title of a July 18, 2018 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Rita Rubin, MA excoriating crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) as “legal but unethical”.

Among the allegedly “unethical” practices the article cites are that CPCs “don’t prescribe or provide birth control” and “dispense misleading information-sometimes mandated by the state-about disproved or exaggerated harms associated with abortion, including increased risk of breast cancer, depression and infertility”. The article also criticizes the free ultrasounds as “medically unnecessary” and “emotional manipulation”.

But, according to the article, the biggest ethical problem seems to be “withholding information” about obtaining abortions.

The article cites California as the first state to pass a crisis pregnancy mandatory disclosure law that mandates CPCs to “post or distribute a notice about California’s public programs that provide free or low-cost contraception, prenatal care, and abortion“.(Emphasis added)

The article criticizes the June 26, 2018, the US Supreme Court’s National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra decision that struck down the California law as likely unconstitutional.

The JAMA article also decries a recent Health and Human Services’ announcement that Title X family planning services grants includes “natural family planning methods” and that faith-based organizations are eligible to apply for such grants.

THE REAL FACTS ABOUT CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS

As even the JAMA article admits, there are more than 3500 CPCs in the US, more than twice the number of US institutions that performed at least 1 abortion in 2014 according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. That is a decline of 3% between 2011 and 2014.

Obviously, crisis pregnancy centers are seen as threatening to the pro-abortion movement.

As CPC volunteer Patty Knap observed in her blog The Real Reason Crisis Pregnancy Centers Must Always be Free”,  “The difference between an abortion center and a pro-life pregnancy center is like day and night. Or life and death.”

Ms. Knap observes that, unlike an abortion clinic that charges for everything, CPCs don’t charge for anything-including pregnancy tests. Instead, Ms. Knap says, “Every pregnancy center in the country is constantly fundraising”.

Ms. Knap says offering their services without charge is necessary because the trust factor is so important. When their clients understand the motivation of someone who isn’t profiting from the decision they are making, they are more likely to accept the truth and real help.

CONCLUSION

Just as outrageous as California’s attempt to compel crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion is that so many mainstream media outlets continue to ignore or disparage the ongoing efforts of the pro-life movement to offer desperate women a loving opportunity for them and their unborn babies.

We may sometimes wonder if attending fundraising baby showers in our churches, picketing abortion clinics with telephone numbers for help, donating to Birthright, etc.  is really accomplishing much. But, as the successes of CPCs show, even the smallest effort by a great number of people can produce the awesome result of helping distressed mothers and saving their babies’ lives.

Medical Experts Now Agree that Severely Brain-injured Patients are Often Misdiagnosed and May Recover

People with severe brain injuries from accidents, strokes, illness, etc. are often in comas at first. If they don’t die or spontaneously wake up, they can progress to a “persistent vegetative state” (PVS) described as “awake but unaware” and/or a “minimally conscious state” (MCS) described as definite, but extremely limited, awareness of self or environment, and limited means of communication. People with these conditions have had court battles over removing their feeding tubes such as the 1988 Nancy Cruzan (PVS) and the 2001 Robert Wendland (MCS) right to die” cases.

Now, an August 9, 2018 Medscape article “New Guideline for Minimally Conscious, Vegetative States Released”  reveals that 3 specialty societies including the American Academy of Neurology have just published a new guideline with 15 recommendations for “accurate diagnosis, prognosis and treatment for these conditions”.

The reason for the new guidelines, according to Dr. Joseph Giacino, who was one of the authors of the study, is because:

“Misdiagnosis of  DoC (“disorders of consciousness”) is common because underlying impairments can mask awareness — in fact, there is a 40% rate of misdiagnosis, leading to inappropriate care decisions as well as poor health outcomes.” (Emphasis added)

The 223 page new guideline titled Practice guideline update: Disorders of consciousness” states that:

 “Clinicians should refer patients with DoC (disorders of consciousness) who have achieved medical stability to settings staffed by multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams with specialized training to optimize diagnostic evaluation, prognostication, and subsequent management, including effective medical monitoring and rehabilitative care.”

and

When discussing prognosis with caregivers of patients with DoC (disorders of consciousness) during the first 28 days after injury, avoid statements suggesting that these patents “have a universally poor prognosis”. (All emphasis added)

According to Dr. Giacino, “Approximately 20% of individuals who have disturbance in consciousness from trauma regain functional independence between 2 and 5 years post-injury, even though they may not return to work or pretrauma functioning.” (Emphasis added)

The study also cites the drug amantadine and brain imaging showing that the brain can still respond normally to stimulus even though the person seems unaware as potentially helpful.

What about the “right to die” for these people? Ominously, the guideline does mention 1 study found that hospital mortality was 31.7%, with 70.2% of those deaths associated with the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy”. (Emphasis added)

IS THE “40% MISDIAGNOSIS” RATE REALLY NEWS?

Doctors like Dr. Keith Andrews of the UK and US doctor Mihai Dimancescu published  medical journal articles  in the 1990s showing that around 40% of patients in a so-called “persistent vegetative state” were misdiagnosed.  And in 1987, the Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability in the UK opened a “vegetative state” unit and later developed the “Sensory Modality Assessment and Rehabilitation Technique (SMART)” as a clinical tool for the assessment and rehabilitation of people with disorders of consciousness following severe brain injury.

Despite this, most media stories about cases like Terri Schiavo’s and “right to die”/assisted suicide groups continued to insist that “PVS” is a hopeless condition for which everyone should sign a “living will” to ensure that food and water is withheld or withdrawn to “allow” death.

This happened despite articles like the New York Times’ 1982 article “Coming Out of Coma”.  about the unexpected return of consciousness of Sgt. David Mack over a year after the famous “right to die” neurologist Dr. Ron Cranford  predicted ”He will never be aware of his condition nor resume any degree of meaningful voluntary conscious interaction with his family or friends” before. (Emphasis added)

There have also been articles about people like Terry Wallis who in 2003 regained consciousness after 19 years in a “minimally conscious” state. Unfortunately, such cases were often explained away as just “misdiagnosis” or a “miracle”.

MY EXPERIENCE

Just before Drs. Jennet and Plum invented the term “persistent vegetative state” in 1972,  I started working with these 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 it for the patient if hearing is truly the last sense to go. Because of this, I unexpectedly saw some amazing recoveries and one patient later  told me 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 the patient was comatose.

Over the years, I’ve written about several other patients like “Jack”, “Katie” and “Chris” in comas or “persistent vegetative states” who regained full or limited consciousness with verbal and physical stimulation. I 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 healing of the brain. 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

It is good news that the American Academy of Neurology and other groups are finally rethinking their approach to people with severe brain injuries, especially the recommendation to start rehabilitation therapies as soon as the person is medically stable and the recommendation for  periodic and thorough testing over time.

This is crucial because the often quick prognosis of “hopeless” attached to people with severe brain injuries can-and has-led to early withdrawal of feeding tubes and ventilators as well as DCD (donation after cardiac/circulatory death) for these non-brain dead people.

Dr. Joseph Fins MD and chief of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medical College perhaps says it best when he praises the new guideline as “a real step forward for this population that has historically been marginalized and remains vulnerable” and “suggests that brain states are not static, but dynamic, and that people can improve over time”. (Emphasis added)

 

 

 

 

 

Caught in Social Media Bias

I have been hearing about Facebook blocking or restricting “conservative” content on the internet. Recently, there was a National Right to Life News story about a Republican judge from my state of Missouri who could not “boost”  (pay for reaching a wider audience) a pro-life video of his nephew overcoming a life-threatening birth defect detected prenatally. Facebook’s stunning rationale?

“Your Ad wasn’t approved because it doesn’t follow our Advertising Policies. We don’t allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence.” (Emphasis added)

A short time ago, I saw that a shared written item from #NoAbortionCoercion on protecting conscience rights for healthcare providers on our National Association of Prolife Nurses (NAPN) Facebook page  was not allowed to be “boosted” because it also conflicted with Facebook’s advertising policies.

The item read:

“Conscience rights of healthcare providers must always be protected. As nurses, the government is constantly telling us what we must and mustn’t do when caring for our patients. There can be no coercion to act against our consciences. Compassion and love is and will always be at the center of what we do. #NoAbortionCoercion”

Our NAPN media nurse says that this has happened before and he has been told that some ads are considered “political”.

However, NAPN is a 501C3 educational organization, not a political one. We have only volunteers, not salaried employees. We do not endorse candidates.

I am a spokesperson for NAPN and as our NAPN website states :

“NAPN is a not-for-profit organization uniting nurses who seek excellence in nurturing for all, including the unborn, newborn, disabled, mentally and or/physically ill, the aged and the dying. Beginning in 1973, when abortion was accepted as a legal alternative to pregnancy, healthcare professionals have been confronted by an ever-increasing number of morally challenging life issues. The list of ethical dilemmas continues to grow: in vitro fertilization, cloning, fetal experimentation, organ donation and transplantation, nutrition and hydration, patient rights, certain sterilization practices, looming rationing of medical resources, assisted suicide and euthanasia, and stem cell research with its promise of advances in the treatment of disease. No one is more affected by these morally challenging issues than the nurse and the pressure to utilize unethical techniques and practices in the care of patients is increasing. Through a united, educational, professional organization such as NAPN, nurses can, in good conscience, deliver the best possible patient care while preserving, protecting and defending respect for human life.”

NAPN also helps to support nurses facing conscience rights legal battles and even offers a $1000 pro-life scholarship award each year to the school of the winning nursing student based on his or her essay, academic achievements, demonstration of leadership and participation in pro-life activities. Applications for the next 2018-2019 award will be posted soon on our website and Facebook page.

CONCLUSION

Of course, NAPN is only one of many groups and individuals complaining about apparent bias against pro-life or conservative groups on social media.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg testified in April before the US Congress that he had no knowledge of bias against conservatives but as Lifenews.com and other news sources have found, there is conservative speech being suppressed not only by Facebook but also Twitter, Google and YouTube. We need more than just reassurances that improvements will be made while the problems are still ongoing.

With so much of the mainstream media enthusiastically supporting abortion, assisted suicide and other deliberate death decisions while ignoring or negatively reporting on issues like conscience rights and alternatives like crisis pregnancy centers, it is especially important for the public to be able to access social media sites like NAPN’s for real facts.

In today’s volatile legal and cultural climate, we need all available information-not a double standard.