Author: nancyvalko

We Will Not Comply

nancyvalko aging, Alzheimer's, assisted suicide, conscience rights, culture, dementia, disability, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, law, pro-life, suicide, ventilators/life support

In an excellent article in the June 28, 2024 Christian Post Reporter titled “‘Despair over hope’: Pro-life nurses group ‘will not comply’ with Delaware’s assisted suicide bill”,

As reporter Samantha Kamman reported:

“A national coalition of pro-life nurses (NAPN, the National Association of Prolife Nurses) says they “will not comply” with Delaware’s assisted suicide bill that passed in the Senate Tuesday as the state’s lone Catholic diocese is calling on people of faith to urge Democratic Gov. John Carney to veto the legislation. “

Ms Kamman explains that:

“H.B. 140 passed in the Senate with an 11-10 vote and will become law unless Carney vetoes it. Under the proposed law, adult patients who are “terminally ill” or have received the prognosis that they have six months or less to live can request or self-administer drugs to hasten their deaths.

Both the individual’s attending physician or attending advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) and a consulting physician or APRN must agree on the patient’s condition and decision-making capacity. Two waiting periods must pass before the patient can receive the drugs to end their life, and medical professionals who prescribe the medication must provide the patient the opportunity to rescind the request to kill themselves. 

The law would also grant immunity to medical professionals who offer life-ending drugs to patients, so long as they are “acting in good faith and in accordance with generally accepted health-care standards under this Act.” As the bill states, those “acting with negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct do not have criminal or civil immunity.” (All emphasis added)

THE RESPONSE

The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses, which has advocated against assisted suicide legislation for over 30 years, condemned the bill, calling it a “moral catastrophe that corrupts the very soul of healthcare.”

Marie Ashby, NAPN’s executive director, argued in a statement to The Christian Post that the bill “preys” on “the desperate and devalues the disadvantaged,” adding that it offers “poison as a perverse form of mercy” to people society deems “inconvenient.”

“Legitimate healthcare heals; it doesn’t kill,” Ashby added. “This law perverts our profession’s sacred duty, turning nurses from guardians of life into agents of death. We will not be silent. We will not comply.”

NAPN President Dorothy Kane contends, “Delaware has chosen death over dignity, despair over hope.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION-two personal stories

My Daughter Marie Killed Herself Using an Assisted Suicide Technique

In 2009, I lost a beautiful, physically well 30-year-old daughter, Marie, to suicide after a 16-year battle with substance abuse and other issues. Her suicide was like an atom bomb dropped on our family, friends and even her therapists.

Despite all of our efforts to save her, my Marie told me that she learned how to kill herself from visiting suicide/assisted suicide websites and reading Derek Humphry’s book Final Exit. The medical examiner called Marie’s suicide technique “textbook final exit” but her death was neither dignified nor peaceful.

Marie was not mere collateral damage in the controversy over physician-assisted suicide. She was a victim of the physician-assisted suicide movement, seduced by the rhetoric of a painless exit from what she believed was a hopeless life of suffering.

Adding to our family’s pain, at least two people close to Marie became suicidal not long after her suicide. Luckily, these two young people received help and were saved, but suicide contagion, better known as “copycat suicide”, is a well-documented phenomenon. Often media coverage or publicity around one death encourages other vulnerable people to commit suicide in the same way.

The Effect on our Healthcare System

Think the assisted suicide won’t affect you or our healthcare system?

Think again.

As I wrote in my 2018 blog “They are Lying to Us“:

“Several years after Oregon’s law was passed, I was threatened with termination from my job as an intensive care unit nurse after I refused to participate in a deliberate overdose of morphine that neither the patient nor his family requested after an older patient experienced a crisis after a routine surgery.

The patient had improved but did not wake up within 24 hours after sedatives used with a ventilator were stopped. It was assumed that severe brain damage had occurred and doctors recommended removing the ventilator and letting the patient die.

However when the ventilator was removed, the patient unexpectedly continued to breathe even without oxygen support. A morphine drip was started and rapidly increased but the patient continued to breathe.

When I refused to participate in this, I found no support in my hospital’s “chain of command” so I basically stopped the morphine drip myself, technically following the order to “titrate morphine for comfort, no limit.”

The patient eventually died (without food or other treatment) after I left but ironically, a later autopsy requested by the family showed no lethal condition or brain injury as suspected.

The physician who authorized the morphine demanded that I be fired.

I was spared because I argued that I followed the order to “titrate morphine for comfort” by stopping the morphine when he was comfortable!

The family never knew the real story.

We need to reject legalized healthcare provider assisted suicide not only for seriously ill, elderly and disabled but also for ourselves, our loved ones and the integrity of our medical system!

The Supreme Court Rejects Challenge by Pro-life Doctors on Abortion Pill

nancyvalko abortion, culture, education, grief, law, medical abortion, medical ethics, miscarriage, pro-life, safeguards

As Life News reported on June 13, 2024:

“The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone, meaning the abortion drug will be widely available to continue killing babies and injuring doctors nationwide.

The 9-0 decision says the pro-life doctors who brought the case do not have standing – they were not injured, and so the court does not intervene. That’s even though they sued on behalf of women who were injured by the abortion drug by the thousands – including women who have been killed.” (Emphasis added)

The US Supreme Court decision acknowledged that the Mifeprex pill was approved in 2000 but also that:

“FDA placed additional restrictions on the drug’s use and distribution, for example requiring doctors to prescribe or to supervise prescription of Mifeprex, and requiring patients to have three in-person visits with
the doctor to receive the drug. ” (Emphasis added)

The Cout also acknowledges that the restrictions were relaxed further by the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) when:

“In 2021, the FDA announced that it would no longer enforce the initial in-person visit requirement. Four pro-life medical associations and several individual doctors moved for a preliminary injunction that would require the FDA either to rescind
approval of mifepristone or to rescind the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 regulatory actions. Danco Laboratories, which sponsors Mifeprex, intervened to defend FDA’s actions.”

Now as the Wall Street Journal reports:

“Twenty-six states and D.C. allow telehealth for medication abortion. The remaining states have restrictions that supersede federal guidance: 14 ban abortion throughout pregnancy, and the remaining 10 have various combinations of in-person requirements, such as mandatory ultrasounds and visits to doctors and counselors.” (Emphasis added)

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

As Dr. Christina Francis, an Ob-Gyn doctor herself, wrote in a May 2021 article titled “The government’s abortion pill policy puts mothers’ lives at risk”:

“One of the most significant reasons why an in-person visit has been required is for proper medical oversight as well as a physical exam and ultrasound. These visits are meant to accurately assess the gestational age of a woman’s pregnancy, as well as rule out ectopic pregnancy, which is life-threatening. The difference in size of an 8-week-old and 12-week-old preborn child is significant”

CONCLUSION

I have a personal interest in this because I had an unwed daughter who became pregnant and started bleeding without telling me because of embarrassment.

She went to a local ER where the doctors said she was just having a miscarriage and sent her home.

When the pain and bleeding increased, she called me. I took her back to the ER to demand an ultrasound.

As I suspected as a nurse, her pregnancy was ectopic and emergency surgery was performed.

Afterward, the surgeon showed me the picture he had taken (unasked) during the surgery to remove the then-deceased first-trimester baby, my grandchild. The picture was personally so sad to see but I was comforted that the surgeon cared enough to take a picture of this tiny person and show respect.

We need more respect and help for women with an unexpected pregnancy and their babies than a pill without medical safeguards!

        FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE?

        nancyvalko assisted suicide, conscience rights, culture, end-of-life, euthanasia, law, media, medical ethics, pro-life

        Many people believe that if something is legalized (like marijuana), it must be ok and if something is federally funded, it must be something GOOD.

        In a May 7, 2024, article titled “Democratic Lawmakers Seek To Allow Federal Funding for Assisted Suicide “ in the New York Sun newspaper, Maggie Hroncicht explains the situation and a new petition to oppose this travesty

        As she writes:

        “For nearly 30 years — since Oregon became the first state to legalize physician-assisted death — Congress has prevented federal funding such as Medicare from being used by patients to pay for the practice. A bill proposed by Democratic lawmakers seeks to change that. 

        In 1997, Congress passed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act, which prohibits using federal funds to provide for any health care services that assisted in someone’s death, including “assisting in the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual.” 

        NOW THE PRO-ASSISTED SUICIDE MOVEMENT IS EXPANDING

        Right now, pro-assisted suicide proponents have been successful in getting assisted suicide laws passed in 10 states and Washington, D.C and several other states are considering passing assisted suicide this year. This includes my home state of Missouri.

        The article notes that:

        “Public polling indicates broad support for doctor-assisted suicide, as the Sun has reported, with Gallup inducing that a majority of Americans have “consistently favored” it for nearly three decades.”

        The article continues:

        ““Medical aid-in-dying, an authorized medical practice, is not euthanasia, mercy killing, or assisted suicide,” a draft discussion of the new “Patient Access to End of Life Care Act’’ obtained by the Sun reads.

        In states where physician-assisted death is legal, the 1997 restrictions “shall not apply to any information, referrals, guidance, or medical care provided consistent with such programs,” the bill, sponsored by Democratic Representatives Brittany Pettersen and Scott Peters, notes.” (All emphasis added)

        CONCLUSION

        But now, an online petition started by Alex Schadenburg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in Canada has hundreds of signatures is already forming against the proposal, noting that it “would force Americans to pay for assisted suicide (medically approved killing by poison) with their tax dollars.”

        “The Canadian group is outspoken in warning America not to follow its path, arguing that legalizing medically assisted death opens a door that can’t be shut. In Canada, as the Sun reported, assisted suicide numbers have been surging, with more than 13,000 patients dying from the procedure in 2022 — representing 4 percent of the country’s total deaths.”

        The petition states:

        “Dear Representative Jeffries and Representative Scalise,

        Thank you in advance for upholding my conscience rights by not approving the use of tax dollars for killing.

        I oppose The Patient Access to End-of-Life Care Act (HB 8137) that would force Americans to pay for assisted suicide (medically approved killing by poison) with their tax dollars.

        I oppose assisted suicide and I vehemently oppose paying for medically approved killing.”

        “Sign and share our petition opposing The Patient Access to End-of-Life Care Act (petition link) 

        I have signed and I encourage others to do the same!

        “New Study: Brain-injured patients who died after life support ended may have recovered”

        nancyvalko bereavement, brain injury, disability, education, end-of-life, futility, grief, medical, medical ethics, nursing, vegetative state, ventilators/life support

        Over the years, I’ve written about several of my patients like “Mike”, “Jack”, Katie” and “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 much from the so-called “vegetative” state during the approximately two years I saw him weekly.

        Since then, I have written several blogs on unexpected recoveries from severe brain injuries, most recently the 2018 blog “Medical Experts Now Agree that Severely Brain-injured Patients are Often Misdiagnosed and May Recover” and my 2020 blog “Surprising New Test for Predicting Recovery after Coma.

        Now, there is an important new study “New Study: Brain-injured patients who died after life support ended may have recovered”

        As the article states:

        “Using data gathered over a 7 1/2-year period on 1,392 traumatic brain injury patients in intensive care units at 18 U.S. trauma centers, the researchers designed a mathematical model to calculate the likelihood that life-sustaining treatment would be discontinued. They based their model on demographics, socioeconomic factors and injury characteristics.

        Then, they paired patients continuing on life-sustaining treatment to individuals with similar model scores, but for whom life-sustaining treatment was stopped.

        Based on follow-up, the estimated six-month outcomes for a significant proportion of the withdrawn group were either death or recovery of at least some independence in daily activities. Of the survivors in the not-withdrawn group, more than 40% recovered at least some independence.” (All emphasis added)”

        and

        “While many people recover consciousness over a few hours or a day, others remain in the intensive care unit, relying on life support, such as a breathing tube, said Bodien, who also is an assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital in Charlestown, Mass.

        “Predicting who will recover following severe traumatic brain injury, and to what degree, can be challenging. Yet, families are often asked to make decisions about continuing or withdrawing life support, such as mechanical breathing, within just 72 hours of the injury,” Bodien said.

        “This decision is based largely on whether the clinical team believes that recovery is possible,” she added. “It is unknown whether some people who died because life support was discontinued could have survived and recovered had life support been continued.”

        Currently, no medical guidelines or precise algorithms determine which patients with severe traumatic brain injury are likely to recover. The most common reason families opt for withdrawing life support measures is physicians relaying information that suggests a poor neurologic prognosis.“

        And:

        “In the study, researchers found that some patients for whom life support was withdrawn may have survived and recovered some independence a few months after injury. Postponing decisions on withdrawing life support may be helpful for some patients, they noted.” (All emphasis added)

        ADVOCATING FOR BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS

        I personally know how important and often difficult it is for healthcare professionals like myself as well as families when doctors recommend withdrawing treatments on a comatose patient.

        For example and many years ago, I received a phone call from a distraught fellow nurse living in California. Her sister, “Rose”, was comatose from complications of diabetes and had been in an intensive care unit for three days. Now the doctors were telling the family that Rose’s organs were failing and that she had no chance to survive. The doctors recommended that the ventilator and other treatments be stopped so that she could be “allowed to die”. My nurse friend was uncomfortable with the speed of this recommendation even though the rest of the family was ready to go along with the doctors.

        As I told her, back when I was a new nurse in the late 1960s, we would sometimes see patients in the intensive care unit who seemed hopeless and we would speak to families about Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders. However, the one thing we didn’t do was to quickly recommend withdrawal of treatment. We gave people the gift of time and only recommended withdrawing treatment that clearly was not helping the person. Some patients did indeed eventually die but we were surprised and humbled when an unexpected number of these “hopeless” patients went on to recover, sometimes completely.

        About six weeks after the initial phone call, my nurse friend called back to tell me that the family decided not to withdraw treatment as the doctors recommended and that her sister not only defied the doctors’ prediction of certain death but was now back at work. I asked her what the doctors had to say about all this and she said the doctors termed Rose’s case “a miracle”.

        “In other words” she noted wryly, “these docs unfortunately didn’t learn a thing.”

        CONCLUSION

        In 1983, I personally dealt with a withdrawal of treatment situation like this in my own family when my baby daughter with Down Syndrome and a severe heart defect developed pneumonia was placed on a ventilator. She was unresponsive and critically ill.

        We hoped to get her stable enough for her planned heart surgery.

        One day, a young resident came in and suggested “getting this over with” by removing her ventilator and “letting her die”. I told him that I would sue if he tried.

        I went to the chairman of pediatric cardiology whom I knew well and told him what happened and the chairman said he would fire him. Instead, I suggested that he try to educate the young doctor first but, if he didn’t get the point, then he should be fired.

        Karen did eventually die in the ICU on the ventilator but I was comforted by the fact that her death was not unnecessarily hastened as well as the fact that later, this wonderful chairman started the first clinic for people with Down Syndrome in the US to deal with their health issues.

        This important study should be mandatory reading for all healthcare professionals and families who need to know the facts.

        Great News-Utah is Twelfth State to Pass Simon’s Law!

        nancyvalko conscience rights, CPR, disability, education, law, medical ethics, Simon's Law, ventilators/life support

        For several years, Sheryl Crozier and I worked to get a law passed in Missouri protecting our children with disabilities from medical discrimination such as DNR (do not resuscitate) orders, withholding of basic treatment, etc. without our knowledge or consent. (See my 2016 blog “My testimony for Simon’s Law”).

        That law was finally passed in Missouri in 2019 and in February 2024, Simon’s Law was introduced in Congress.

        The push for states to adopt a Simon’s Law has continued and Simon’s Law has now passed in 12 states.

        Here is Sheryl’s post on the latest Utah law:

        “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 25, 2024

        Sheryl Crosier

        Simon’s Law

        (314) 443-3770

        Sheryl@SimonsLaw.org

        HB-0200 Passes Utah Legislature

        “Designating a Child as DNR Without Parental Consent” is Unprofessional Conduct

        Salt Lake City, UT: Simon’s Law today announced the passage of HB-0200, concerning life-sustaining procedures, which is scheduled to go into effect on May 1st.  The new amendment modifies Titles 58 and 75, providing much needed parental rights protection during the process of life-sustaining medical treatment decisions concerning a minor.

        Scott and Sheryl Crosier founded the non-profit after the death of their son, Simon, when they discovered a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order was placed in his medical chart without their knowledge or consent.

        “No child’s medical chart should have a DNR order or the withholding of life-sustaining treatment without parental knowledge or consent,” said Simon’s Law CEO and co-founder, Sheryl Crosier.  The Crosiers soon discovered a growing trend in hidden DNR orders without parental awareness or permission and felt the call to make a difference.

        The new Utah amendment protects parents’ rights to have the final say in their child’s medical treatment, and is presently the 12th state to either pass a version of Simon’s Law, or be identified as already having similar legislation on the books.

        “I can’t bring my son, Simon, back,” said Crosier, “but I want to make sure that no parent or guardian of a minor child is stripped of their parental rights in the determination of their child’s life or death.”

        Features and benefits of HB-0200 include:

        • Makes designating a child as do not resuscitate without parental consent unprofessional conduct for physicians, advance practice registered nurses, and physicians assistants.
          §58-31b-502(1)(s), 58-67-502(1)(h), 58-68-502(1)(h), 58-70a-503(1)(h)
        • Makes technical and conforming changes related to orders for life sustaining treatment.
          §75-2a-103(17), §75-2a-106(3)(b)(iii), §75-2a-106(4), §75-2a-106(8)
        • Protects parental rights to have the final say in do not resuscitate orders and orders for life sustaining treatment for their minor child. (Emphasis added)

        For more information on HB-0200, visit https://simonslaw.org/state-by-state/.  

        About Simon’s Law: We are a national network of families and professionals influencing legislation to preserve parental rights in Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) determinations.  In addition to influencing or identifying such legislation across the nation, we have also introduced The Simon Crosier Act (HR-6344) in Congress to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act pertaining to the Medicare and Medicaid codes regarding DNRs on unemancipated minors.”

        CONCLUSION

        While it is wonderful that this protective law has been passed, there is a larger question to be asked: Shouldn’t these protections for children and their families have already been part of medical and nursing ethics education?

        I remember when it used to be!

        NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRO-LIFE NURSES JOINS ASSOCIATION CHALLENGING CHEMICAL ABORTION IN LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASE

        nancyvalko abortion, law, medical, medical abortion, medical ethics, nursing

        Washington, D.C. — The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses (NAPN) has proudly joined the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, an association of medical organizations suing the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its reckless removal of essential safeguards for the use of chemical abortion drugs.

        The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, other medical organizations, and individual doctors argue that the FDA’s actions not only blatantly disregard established protocols for drug safety but also gravely jeopardize women’s health. This case now heads to the Supreme Court asking that the Court hold the FDA accountable for its callous disregard for women’s health and safety.

        The lawsuit, brought forth by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and others, highlights the following concerns:

        • Removal of safety standards: The FDA removed safeguards for mifepristone and misoprostol, even though its own label states that nearly 1 in 25 women who consume these drugs will end up going to an emergency room.
        • Increased patient risks: The removal of abortion drug safety standards could lead to a greater number of complications, including hemorrhage, life-threatening infection, and incomplete abortions.
        • Lack of informed consent: Remote prescription practices and the elimination of in-person doctor visits endanger women, particularly those at risk for ectopic pregnancies.

        https://nursesforlife.org/press-releases

        NAPN President Dorothy Kane issued the following statement on behalf of the organization:

        “Nurses are on the front lines witnessing the serious harms to women caused by the FDA’s reckless removal of essential safeguards for the use of chemical abortion drugs. Women deserve the ongoing, in-person care of a medical professional when taking high-risk drugs. The FDA has compromised patient safety and shown a callous disregard for women’s health and safety. This case is about safeguarding women’s health, protecting the integrity of the healthcare profession, and committing to evidence-based care.”

        For more information on the legal case, visit Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal organization representing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine: https://adflegal.org/case/us-food-and-drug-administration-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine

                                                                       ###

        The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses (NAPN) is dedicated to promoting respect for every human life from conception to natural death, and to affirming that the destruction of that life, for whatever reason and by whatever means, does not constitute good nursing practice.

        Important Position Paper on Criteria for Brain Death and Organ Donation: A Call to Action

        nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain death, brain injury, Canada, conscience rights, culture, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, medical ethics, ventilators/life support

        I am a signatory on this statement and it deserves to be read and shared. Although the statement touches on Catholic teaching, it is primarily is about science and ethics. Please read the statement and press release.

        The statement, “Catholics United on Brain Death and Organ Donation: A Call to Action”, was published on February 27, 2024. It was prepared by Joseph Eble, a physician and President of the Tulsa Guild of the Catholic Medical Association; John Di Camillo, an ethicist of The National Catholic Bioethics Center; and Peter Colosi, a philosophy professor at Salve Regina University.

        As a nurse, I have been writing about this topic for years, most recently in my May, 2021 blog “Rethinking Brain Death and Organ Donation” and my experience serving on an ethics committee at a hospital where a patient “failed” one of the hospital’s brain death tests and thus could not have her organs removed.

        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.

        I was also alarmed when a 2011 Illinois almost passed a “presumed consent for organ donation” law in 2011 that would allow presumed consent unless a person ” opt(s) of the presumed donation by executing an anatomical gift as otherwise provided in the Act or by filing with the Secretary of State an organ donor opt out document. ” (Emphasis added) Thankfully, it was defeated especially with the help of the disability group Not Dead Yet.

        FINDINGS OF THE POSITION PAPER

        “At least half of donors declared brain-dead are actually alive when their organs are removed, according to the position paper endorsed by 151 Catholic health care professionals, theologians, philosophers, ethicists, lawyers, apologists, pro-life advocates, and others, including a brain death survivor and a professional organization.” (There is now a webpage of some of the people diagnosed as brain dead who “lived to tell the tale”.)

        “Catholic United explains that the criteria for brain death establish only partial loss of brain function. This is now abundantly clear based on scientific studies, a recent effort to lower the legal standard for death, and updated brain death guidelines issued in October 2023.” (All emphasis added)

        The statement calls for an effort “to unite against the utilization of the current brain death criteria” because they do not ensure that patients are dead. They recommend concrete action steps to protect vulnerable patients, enable informed decisions, identify better criteria for determining actual death, and protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals and organizations”.

        Also “Catholics United bridges a divide among faithful Catholics about whether the concept of brain death aligns with Church teaching. Some Catholics hold that brain death represents true death when there is complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, often called whole brain death. Others hold that brain death does not represent true death. Since the existing criteria establish only partial loss of brain function, all the endorsers—whether they accept or reject whole brain death as true death—agree that “the current brain death criteria in widespread use do not provide moral (prudential) certainty of death.” (Emphasis added)

        RECOMMENDATIONS

        The statement “calls on health care professionals and institutions to cease organ harvesting that relies on the inadequate criteria, noting that 70% of all donors are declared dead using brain death criteria. “ (Emphasis added)

        Given the lack of moral certainty of death whenever the current brain death criteria are used, the statement affirms that “a clear majority of vital organ donors can be presumed alive at the time of organ harvesting.” Since the Catholic Church forbids removing vital organs when this would kill the patient, “it is therefore wrong to remove organs from patients declared dead using these inadequate criteria.”

        Catholics United makes a number of other strong recommendations, including:

        • Declining to be an organ donor at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
        • Refusing to be an organ donor after death in advance directives.
        • Improving education on end-of-life care and organ donation at the pastoral level.
        • Identifying criteria that will establish certainty of death.
        • Advocating for conscience protection rights for health care professionals and institutions.

        The statement also cites:

        “Current president and co-founder of the pro-life advocacy group American Life League, Judie Brown, has decided to update its Loving Will Comfort and Care Directive in accord with the new recommendations. “I think that any organization that has a pro-life document addressing wishes at the end of life needs to be updated in view of this article,” said Ms. Brown.”

        CONCLUSION

        Unfortunately, now some countries’ healthcare ethics have even degenerated to the point where eight countries including Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium allow organ donation after euthanasia by “combining medical assistance in dying (MAiD) with donations after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) is known as organ donation after euthanasia (ODE)”. (Emphasis added)

        Personally, I am all for the ethical donation of tissues like bone, skin, corneas, etc. after natural death. And I am also a strong supporter of living donation. For example, I volunteered to donate one of my kidneys to a friend years ago and one of our grandsons was saved in 2013 by an adult stem cell transplant donated by a living person.

        Hopefully, this statement can help all of us to better protect ourselves and vulnerable patients at the end of life- especially when it comes to organ donation-as well as promoting a dignified, humane and peaceful end of life.

        Victory: “After Initial Hope, Medically Assisted Suicide Bill Won’t Move Forward in Maryland”

        nancyvalko ANA, assisted suicide, conscience rights, culture, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, food and water, law, medical ethics, nursing, VSED

        In 2019, I testified in Maryland against another “medically assisted suicide” bill that was expected to pass and wrote a blog about it titled “Lessons from the Victory against Assisted Suicide in Maryland”. It failed to pass by one vote.

        Now, yet another attempt to pass an assisted suicide bill in Maryland failed by “one or two votes”, according to a Baltimore Sun article titled “After initial hope, medically assisted suicide bill won’t move forward in Maryland”, thanks to efforts like that of Mary Bogdan BSN, MA-C, DNP-S, ALNC who wrote an excellent expert witness testimony stating in part:

        “The physician assisted suicide bill has been called many things: medical aid in dying, euthanasia, withholding of food and water, etc., etc., etc. The bottom line is this: I did not become a nurse to kill people. The American Nurses Association (ANA) says that nurses should support patient autonomy, the desire to have control over one’s life. I submit this; if we allow patients to end their lives as desired by them, we subject ourselves to unfathomable consequences.” (Emphasis added)

        Note this sentence from the article in the Baltimore Sun “I think that as we slowly got closer to the vote and had more in depth discussions with their constituents, folks just expressed unreadiness to move on it at this time,” Smith said. “I’m obviously very disappointed, but you have to respect the decisions of the individual senators who were listening to their constituents and listening to their conscience.” (Sen. Will Smith is chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee and a previous sponsor of the bill)

        CONCLUSION

        Nurse Bogdan’s testimony ends with a powerful quote from Dr.  Harvey Max Chochinov, MD, PhD in his December 2023 recent Medpage article ” Intensive Caring: Reminding Patients They Matter— How to care for those who no longer care about themselves”:

        “There is abundant evidence that patients approaching death are susceptible to feeling that they no longer matter. When patients feel life is no longer worth living, healthcare professionals must affirm their intrinsic worth to patients for all that they are, all that they were, and all that they will become in the collective memories of those they will eventually leave behind.” (Emphasis added)

        Virginia is now facing SB 280, an assisted suicide bill.

        Unfortunately, the assisted suicide proponents never seem to give up and we must continue to be vigilant in every state and continue to educate legislators, healthcare providers, and the general population about these dangerous assisted suicide laws.

        Great News: Simon’s Law Introduced in Congress

        nancyvalko civil rights, CPR, education, futility, law, medical ethics, Simon's Law

        Sheryl Crosier, the mother of Simon, a baby with Trisomy 18, and I, with my baby Karen who had Down’s Syndrome and a severe heart defect, worked for years to get a law passed In Missouri to get our children protected from the lethal medical discrimination against children with disabilities we encountered (See my 2016 blog “ My testimony for Simon’s Law” )

        Sheryl worked hard to get other states to do the same and in 2020, I wrote a blog titled “Strongest “Simon’s Law” Yet is Passed in Iowa” .

        Now, Sheryl and Allies of Simon’s Law have had HR-6344 (The Simon Crosier Act) introduced into Congress.

        Nancy V.

        Legislative Action Alert for Congressional HR-6344 (The Simon Crosier Act) – All Star Press.com

        Legislative Action Alert for Congressional HR-6344 (The Simon Crosier Act)

         RNILSEN12  FEBRUARY 9, 2024 3 MIN READ 

        The Board of Directors of Simon’s Law, a nationwide network of families, guardians, and professionals dedicated to creating national awareness and protection for medically endangered pediatric dependents with life-threatening diagnosis through education, accountability, parental rights legislation, and Patients’ Bill of Rights, calls on all citizens to petition their congressmen to support The Simon Crosier Act.

        HR-6344 (The Simon Crosier Act) proposes to amend titles XVII and XIX of the Social Security Act to require providers of services and health maintenance organizations under the Medicare and Medicaid programs to provide for certain policies to be in place relating to do-not-resuscitate orders or similar physician’s orders for unemancipated minors receiving services.

        The Simon Crosier Act (HR-6344) is currently waiting for the House Committee On Energy and Commerce to mark it up. Please take a moment to reach out to committee members, especially Chairwoman Rodgers (R-Washington) at (202) 225-2006, with the following message:

        “My name is your name, I am the parent of a child with a life-limiting diagnosis, who is at risk of having resuscitative measures withheld without my consent, with every hospitalization in your state. Therefore, I urge you to mark up HR-6344 (The Simon Crosier Act), so that it has the opportunity to move beyond the House Committee On Energy and Commerce to protect my parental right to be included in DNR determinations for my child.“

        REPUBLICAN:

        1.     Cathay McMorris Rodgers, WA (202) 225-2006

        2.     Michael C. Burgess, TX (202) 225-7772

        3.     Robert E. Latta, OH (202) 225-6405

        4.     Brett Guthrie, KY (202) 225-3501

        5.     H. Morgan Griffith, VA (202) 225-3861

        6.     Gus M. Bilirakis, FL (202) 225-5755

        7.     Larry Bushon, IN (202) 225-4636

        8.     Richard Hudson, NC (202) 225-3715

        9.     Tim Walberg, MI (202) 225-6276

        10.              Earl L. “Buddy” Carter, GA (202) 225-5831

        11.              Jeff Duncan, SC (202) 225-5301

        12.              Gary J. Palmer, AL (202) 225-4921

        13.              Neal P. Dunn, FL (202) 225-5235

        14.              John R. Curtis, UT (202) 225-7751

        15.              Debbie Lesko, AZ (202) 225-4576

        16.              Greg Pence, IN (202) 225-3021

        17.              Dan Crenshaw, TX (202) 225-6565

        18.              John Joyce, PA (202) 225-2431

        19.              Kelly Armstong, ND (202) 225-2611

        20.              Randy K. Weber, Sr., TX (202) 225-2831

        21.              Rick W. Allen, GA (202) 225-2823

        22.              Troy Balderson, OH (202) 225-5355

        23.              Russ Fulcher, ID (202) 225-6611

        24.              August Pfluger, TX (202) 225-3605

        25.              Diana Harshbarger, TN (202) 225-6356

        26.              Mariannette Miller-Meeks, IA (202) 225-6576

        27.              Kat Cammack, FL (202) 225-5744

        28.              Jay Obernolte, CA (202) 225-5861

        DEMOCRAT:

        1.     Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ (202) 225-4671

        2.     Anna G. Eshoo, CA (202) 225-8104

        3.     Diana DeGette, CO (202) 225-4431

        4.     Janice D. Schakowsky, IL (202) 225-2111

        5.     Doris O. Matsui, CA (202) 225-7163

        6.     Kathy Castor, FL (202) 225-3376

        7.     John P. Sarbanes, MD (202) 225-4016

        8.     Paul Tonko, NY (202) 225-5076

        9.     Yvette D. Clarke, NY (202) 225-6231

        10.              Tony Cárdenas, CA (202) 225-6131

        11.              Raul Ruiz, CA (202) 225-5330

        12.              Scott H. Peters, CA (202) 225-0508

        13.              Debbie Dingell, MI (202) 225-4071

        14.              Marc A. Veasey, TX (202) 225-9897

        15.              Ann M. Kuster, NH (202) 225-5206

        16.              Robin L. Kelly, IL (202) 225-0773

        17.              Nanette Diaz Barragán, CA (202) 225-8220

        18.              Lisa Blunt Rochester, DE (202) 225-4165

        19.              Darren Soto, FL (202) 225-9889

        20.              Angie Crian, MN (202) 225-2271

        21.              Kim Schrier, WA (202) 225-7761

        22.              Lori Trahan, MA (202) 225-3411

        23.              Lizzie Fletcher, TX (202) 225-2571

        The contact list of politicians and their office contacts is available from the public Congress website for the Committee On Energy and Commerce.

        For further information or media inquiries, please contact:
        Sheryl Crosier – Mother of Simon, Founder of Simon’s Law – Sheryl@SimonsLaw.org
        Sand Enzminger – Director of Operations, Simon’s Kids – Sandi@SimonsLaw.org
        Website: www.SimonsLaw.org

        Read about Simon’s Life and His Impact

        Victory on Assisted Suicide, Conscience Rights and AMA Proposed Resolutions

        nancyvalko AMA, ANA, assisted suicide, conscience rights, culture, euthanasia, law, medical ethics, nursing

        “First Do No Harm-Hippocrates”

        Last November, I wrote my blog “NAPN Position Paper on AMA Considering New Resolutions on Assisted Suicide”.

        Now, the Life Legal Defense Foundation has announced a great victory on this as well as conscience rights.

        I have personally worked with The Life Legal Defense Foundation for years and they are awesome!

        Here is their statement:

        VICTORY over DEATH PEDDLERS in the American Medical Association…! – LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION

        / Active Euthanasia / By Life Legal / January 9, 2024:

        “In 2022, Life Legal sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta to stop enforcement of SB 380, which would have prohibited physicians from opting out of the state’s assisted suicide scheme. SB 380 required doctors to provide most of the documentation needed for their patients to receive so-called “aid-in-dying” drugs – even if doctors were morally opposed to participating in assisted suicide. The law imposed draconian punishments on physicians who refused to comply, including civil and criminal penalties and professional discipline.

        Life Legal, along with Alliance Defending Freedom, represented the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA) in the lawsuit – and we won! After a hard fight, we were able to get the law enjoined (blocked). Life Legal, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the CMDA were victorious in protecting physicians’ rights of conscience – but the wins did not stop there.

        Recently, the CMDA joined with members from the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) to oppose two American Medical Association resolutions supporting physician-assisted suicide. As a result of the pro-life stance taken by the CMDA and the CMA, the American Medical Association declined both resolutions. This means the AMA officially remains in opposition to assisted suicide, holding that “permitting physicians to engage in assisted suicide would ultimately cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.”

        We are honored to represent pro-life physicians and we are grateful for their powerful witness in opposition to assisted suicide.” (Emphasis in original)

        CONCLUSION

        We nurses are also grateful for this victory and so should everyone who cares about healthcare ethics!