conscience rights

FEEDING IS NOT EXTRAORDINARY CARE– DECISION IN THE NANCY CRUZAN CASE ADDS TO THE LIST OF EXPENDABLE PEOPLE

nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain injury, conscience rights, disability, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, food and water, futility, law, Living wills, medical, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

Before the famous Terri Schiavo food and water case gained national attention 20 years ago, Dr. Harvath and I wrote this Op-Ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (no longer online) about the Nancy Cruzan casw, an earlier case of withdrawing food and water from a “so-called “vegetative state”‘ My family was furious when it was pusblished and told me that I was being “mean” to the family.

Unfortunately, such removal has become common and even recently, has resulted in a brother’s death.

Not surprisingly, so-called “assisted suicide” is now allowed in many states and countries

Nancy Valko, RN

Here is our op-ed:
Friday, August 12, 1988
FEEDING IS NOT EXTRAORDINARY CARE– DECISION IN THE NANCY CRUZAN CASE ADDS TO THE LIST OF EXPENDABLE PEOPLE

By Susan Harvath and Nancy Guilfoy Valko                                                                    

Just a few years ago the Missouri Legislature passed a ”living will” law that specifically excluded food and water from the kinds of care that may be withdrawn from a patient. In 1984, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that legislation should ”recognize the presumption that certain basic measures such as nursing care, hydration, nourishment and the like must be maintained out of respect for the human dignity of every patient.”

Therefore, it is hoped that the Missouri Court of Appeals will overturn the recent Circuit Court decision that would deny tube feedings for Nancy Cruzan, a severely disabled woman cared for at the Missouri Rehabilitation Center. The anguish felt by the Cruzan family, which initiated the suit, is understandable. However, directly causing the death of an innocent person – even for reasons of mercy – violates that person’s basic human rights.

The Cruzan case is perceived by many to be an issue of allowing a person to die. Cruzan has been categorized by some experts as being in a ”persistent vegetative state,” an unfortunate and imprecise term at best. However, she is not dying or brain-dead. Rather, she is severely disabled from brain damage and needs no special technology to survive. Withdrawing her feeding tube would not ”allow” her to die – it would ”force” her to die. She would not die from her injuries, but rather from starvation and dehydration.

Also, starvation and dehydration cause a protracted, agonizing death in a fully conscious person. Some experts have stated that Cruzan would feel no pain if her feedings were stopped. Yet Cruzan’s nurses have testified that she has cried, smiled and even laughed in response to stimuli.

The possibility of pain during the length of time before death occurs has led some to propose lethal injections as a more ”humane” way to cause death than starvation. The passive euthanasia of withdrawing feeding logically leads to active euthanasia by injection or other means. Both are unacceptable.

A recent trend has been to classify tube feedings as medical treatment. However, unlike other medical treatments, denial of food from any person (sick or healthy, in or out of coma) will always result in that person’s death.

Ethically, treatments may be withdrawn if they are useless or burdensome to the patient. However, tube feedings are not excessively expensive or burdensome to the patient and do maintain life and prevent the discomfort of hunger and thirst. In deciding what treatment may ethically be withdrawn one must be careful to judge the treatment itself, not the ”quality” of the patient’s life. A person’s limitations do not decrease a person’s humanity or worth.

In the past few years, we have seen many court cases similar to Cruzan’s in other states. Some have involved people less severely disabled than Cruzan. A recent case in North Dakota resulted in a judgment that even feedings by mouth may be stopped. In most cases, it is not the patient who requests that feedings be stopped but rather a third party, usually a family member. Often, as in the Nancy Cruzan case, there is no clear and convincing evidence that the patient would even want the feedings stopped.

Some courts have gone even further and have stated that third parties do not need the approval of a court before a patient’s food and water is withdrawn unless there is disagreement, for example, among family members. This trend has unfortunate implications for all people with mental impairments.

There is a vast difference between not prolonging dying and causing death. In the last two decades, we have seen killing promoted as a humane and compassionate response to unwanted unborn children, newborns with handicaps, and the terminally ill. Let us not add a new category of people (the non-dying, severely disabled) to the list of expendable human lives.

Nancy Guilfoy Valko, R.N., is co-chairperson, and Sue Harvath is program director of the St. Louis Archdiocesan Pro-Life Committee.

Hawaii Doctor Investigated for Assisted Suicide Murder

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

A January 8, 2025 news article in the Hawaii Free Press titled “Hawaii Doctor under Investigation for Murder in Woman’s Assisted Suicide Death” reveals that authorities are investigating a doctor for murder after police say he administered assisted suicide drugs to a woman.

Under Hawaii’s assisted suicide law passed in 2018, patients who have been approved for “assisted death” are required to self-administer the lethal dose of drugs.

The newspaper states:

“In this case, the 73-year-old doctor allegedly broke the law and assisted his 88-year-old patient in taking the lethal medication on October 9, 2024. According to the police report, at one point the woman was starting to choke and motioned for the doctor to stop — but he continued, causing her death. After an autopsy, the Medical Examiner’s Office ruled the death a homicide. According to Island News, the doctor is being investigated for second-degree murder, but as of yet no charges have been filed.” (All emphasis added)

In his January 4, 2025 Medical Futility blog titled “MAID Noncompliance Leads to Murder Investigation, assisted suicide supporter Thaddeus Pope, JD.Phd. states:

“All U.S. MAID laws require that the patient self-administer the medications (typically DDMA-Ph). When someone else administers the medications, that is not MAID. Instead, that is assisted suicide which remains criminally prohibited in all U.S. jurisdictions including those that permit MAID. ” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

A report released in February 2024 showed that 166 people had died by assisted suicide in Hawaii since its legalization in 2018. According to KTVZ, this is the first homicide investigation related to the OCOCA.

Suicide- medically assisted or not- is never a death with dignity for anyone!

Great News: Governor Finally Vetoes Delaware Assisted Suicide Bill

nancyvalko assisted suicide, conscience rights, euthanasia, law, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

In an excellent article in the Christian Post on June 28, 2024, reporter Samantha Kamman reported:

““A national coalition of pro-life nurses (NAPN, the National Association of Pro-life 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)”

Ms. Kamman reported NAPN’s 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-Great News

On September 20, 2024, Delaware Governor Johns Carey vetoed HB 140, saying that:

“As I have shared consistently, I am simply not comfortable letting this piece of legislation become law. For the reasons set forth above, I am hereby vetoing House Bill 140 with House Amendment 1 by returning it to the House of Representatives without my signature.” (Emphasis added)

“Jessica Rodgers, Coalitions Director for the Patients’ Rights Action Fund told LifeNews she was delighted by the news.

“Thanks to the tireless efforts of Delaware advocates who have shown up year after year after year, assisted suicide will not be coming to their state. I have been amazed and humbled at the work of these doctors, nurses, disability rights advocates, and all who care for their vulnerable neighbors,” she said. “Time and again when the call was put out to take action, they answered. And you answered- you called and emailed Governor Carney’s office and you made the difference.”

And just in time!

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!

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!

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!

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.

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!

Are “Anti-abortion activists” Really Looking “To Rebrand Themselves As Not Religious”?

nancyvalko abortion, assisted suicide, conscience rights, culture, euthanasia, law, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

Last May, I was interviewed by Dr. Anne Whitesell, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Miami University “as part of a research project to understand the work of pro-life organizations post-Dobbs and common misconceptions about the movement.”

Dr. Whitesell was very gracious during the interview, and we had a long conversation about what motivates pro-life people-and especially nurses.

I told her about our National Association of Pro-life Nurses and the why and how we do what we do because we call about all lives.

I also told her that the National Association of Pro-life Nurses was not a religious organization but rather open to nurses of any religion or none.

I explained how the National Association of Pro-life Nurses is a “registered non-profit organization that brings nurses together who look for excellence in advancing ethics in nursing practice “and “seeks to establish and protect ethical values of the nursing profession. The organization educates its members on a wide range of bioethical issues” from conception to natural death”.

I also told Professor Whitesell that we are not about being judgmental but rather about truly caring and offering help to desperate people in crisis situations and the people around them before-or even after- a person has chosen abortion or is considering medically assisted suicide. (see “Pro-Life and Other Resources for Help and Information to Protect Human Life”)

Our motto is “I Care” and we even have developed a button with that simple message for our nurses to wear.

PROFESSOR WHITESELL’S NOVEMBER 6, 2023 ARTICLE

Professor Whitesell said she would send me a copy of her eventual article but instead I discovered her November 6, 2023 article titled “As Ohio and other states decide on abortion, anti-abortion activists look to rebrand themselves as not religious.”

Here are some excerpts:

“My research shows that anti-abortion organizations in the U.S. fall into one of three camps. Some are openly religious. Others may have religious staff, but refrain from using religion in their advocacy. A small proportion outright reject the use of religion.

“In my interviews, anti-abortion rights activists said they understood that the public views their movement as anti-woman and driven by conservative Christians. More recently, the movement has adopted pro-woman messaging to counter the perception that they do not support women.

These organizations are increasingly choosing to speak less about religion and more about human rights and science to combat the narrative that the anti-abortion movement is solely a Christian movement.”

and

“Most of the activists I interviewed said their organization does not have a formal stance on religion. Approximately one-quarter of the 45 activists I interviewed, however, said their organizations are explicitly Christian. (Emphasis added)

Professor Whitesell concludes that:

“Instead of using religion to bolster their arguments against abortion, these activists frame abortion as a human rights issue. For them, any loss of human life is tragic, whether it is from abortion, war or the death penalty.

This kind of framing could help the anti-abortion movement shift conversations about abortion away from religious beliefs.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, the abortion rights movement’s animus against using religious beliefs in discussions about abortion has real world consequences.

For example, a January 16, 2024, CNA article titled “Religious Americans’ lives possibly at risk in 2024, new report by U.S. bishops says” states:

“Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade in the June 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, attacks against the Catholic Church as well as pro-life organizations have risen considerably. The bishops said that annual hate crime statistics gathered by the FBI in 2022 reported anti-Catholic crimes as nearly 75% higher than for any other bias.“

All this is compounded with, the bishops said, a “general failure” on the part of the “federal government to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators of such attacks.” (All emphasis added)

It is disheartening that articles like Professor Whitesell’s and most mainstream news reporting about abortion and the pro-life movement continue to misrepresent the “anti-abortion movement” as primarily religious rather than a movement based on science, human rights and, above all, helping those involved in crisis situations.