conscience rights

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.

NAPN: Ohio’s Issue 1 Abortion Vote Marks a Temporary Setback, Not a Surrender

nancyvalko abortion, adoption, conscience rights, culture, education, law, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 7, 2023

National Association of Pro-Life Nurses

Contact: media@nursesforlife.org

Columbus, Ohio – The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses (NAPN) is expressing deep disappointment over the passage of Ohio’s extreme, deceptive abortion initiative. Despite the passage of Issue 1, NAPN remains committed to upholding ethics in healthcare practice.

Issue 1 undermines common-sense health and safety protections by lowering the standard of care in Ohio. Its passage will enshrine discriminatory abortion practices into the state’s constitution, including for reasons of gender or disability. Further, the ballot initiative will expand abortion into the third trimester, when a preborn child is capable of feeling pain. Issue 1 is radically out of touch with the 7 in 10 Americans who support common-sense abortion limits after 15 weeks. NAPN firmly believes in upholding the principles of compassion, empathy, and respect for all human life, echoing the fundamental principles of the nursing profession.

Executive Director Marie Ashby, on behalf of the NAPN, stated, “While we are deeply concerned by the passage of extreme, anti-life legislation, it does not diminish our resolve to protect human life in all its stages. We must continue to support families facing unexpected pregnancies through pregnancy resource clinics and Federally Qualified Health Centers. NAPN remains steadfast in advancing a higher standard of patient care, which is fundamentally incompatible with abortion.”

NAPN will continue to push back against healthcare disinformation, as it paves the path forward for excellence in nursing practice. The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses calls upon policymakers to consider the profound ethical implications of legislation that erodes patient protections. The association stands ready to counter public health threats by educating lawmakers and healthcare providers on policies that seek to undermine patient care.

The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses is a not-for-profit organization uniting nurses who are 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.

###

For further inquiries or interviews, please contact:

Marie Ashby

Executive Director

National Association of Pro-Life Nurses

marie@nursesforlife.org

www.nursesforlife.org

Repost from 2018: My Book Review on “Nurses and Midwives in Nazi Germany: The ‘Euthanasia Programs’”

nancyvalko conscience rights, culture, disability, economics, euthanasia, food and water, law, medical ethics, mental health, nursing

In view of the current war in the Middle East, I am reposting this blog. I was shocked to learn that 31 US states don’t require schools to teach about the Holocaust.

When I was in school in the 1960s, we not only learned about the Holocaust but also read Anne Frank’s book “The Diary of a Young Girl”. We were both horrified and inspired by her courage.

In nursing school in 1969, we nurses were taught about the Holocaust as the lowest point in medical ethics and we took medical ethics very seriously. Tragically, now the majority of nursing and medical schools do not include Holocaust and genocide studies in the curriculum. In view of the current deterioration in healthcare ethics, these schools should require it.

“Nurses and Midwives in Nazi Germany-The ‘Euthanasia Programs’”
Edited by Susan Benedict and Linda Shields
Routledge Studies in Modern European History. London: Routledge 2014

My book review (abstract) was just published in the Linacre Quarterly journal. Here are some excerpts from my review. with all emphasis added only for this blog.

In my nursing education during the 1960s, the Nazi euthanasia program was covered during a class but mainly as a ghastly aberration that was unthinkable today with our now strong ethical principles. As students, we were shocked and horrified by the revelation that nurses were integral to Nazi killing programs. We had little knowledge of the mechanisms that existed to encourage nurses to kill those patients whose lives were deemed “not worth living.”

Unfortunately, it is difficult these days to find information about nurses during the Nazi regime, even on the American Nurses Association website. Thus, the editors of this book do nurses and the public a great service by examining the little-known but crucial role of nurses in the Nazi euthanasia programs. Knowing this history is more important than ever as efforts to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia continue to grow.

The authors explain the history, education, propaganda, and pressures that led so many nurses to participate in the killing of hundreds of thousands of helpless men, women, and children in the 1930s and 1940s; they also propose a model for teaching nursing ethics using the Nazi euthanasia program to encourage nursing students to examine ethical principles and their own values as a nurse in today’s health-care system.

……

The authors start with the rise of the influential eugenics movement in the early twentieth century in countries like the United States where the American Eugenics Society even held conferences on eugenics, such as the 1937 one which included the topic “The Relation of Eugenics to the Field of Nursing.” Eventually, the US eugenics movement fell out of favor after the Nazi euthanasia programs were discovered in World War II.

Even prior to World War II, German professional nursing publications discussed eugenics as “providing a scientific basis for the positive eugenics promoting reproduction among the healthy (often of northern European descent) middle to upper classes and negative eugenics encouraging limited reproduction and forced sterilization of the ‘unfit’ (who were often poor, uneducated, and more recent immigrants) as reasonable”.  Eugenic language was most prevalent in public health and psychiatric nursing texts and in discussions of poverty, immigrants, cleanliness, and social problems.

The editors also point to the influence on Adolf Hitler of the 1920 book titled Approval of the Extermination of Worthless Human Lives by Germans Karl Binding, a jurist, and Alfred Hoche, a psychiatrist. Binding and Hoche noted that there were no legal arguments preventing legalizing the killing of those whose lives were considered not worth living. (Emphasis added)

There was extensive propaganda aimed at increasing the acceptance of euthanasia by the public and health-care providers. Only a few months after Hitler seized power, the first law, affecting people diagnosed with psychiatric conditions, was passed. It mandated sterilization for people with hereditary disorders including alcoholism and epilepsy. Propaganda emphasized wastefulness of providing health care to the chronically mentally ill and the hereditary nature of undesirable physical, mental, and social traits.

Hitler did not propose the systematic killing of psychiatric patients during peacetime because he anticipated the opposition of the churches and the German people. The beginning of World War II muted moral objections and distracted the populace with concerns of conserving resources for the war effort and was the start of state-sponsored euthanasia. The first documented killing occurred in 1939 when Hitler granted the euthanasia request of a father whose son was born blind, missing a leg and part of an arm and who “seemed to be an idiot” .

In 1939, the German Ministry of Justice proposed two new clauses:

1.“Whoever is suffering from an incurable or terminal illness which is a major burden to himself or others can request mercy killing by a doctor, provided it is his express wish and has the approval of a specially empowered doctor.”

2. “The life of a person who, because of incurable mental illness, requires permanent institutionalization and is not able to sustain an independent existence may be prematurely terminated by medical measures in a painless and covert manner” . (Emphasis added)

The program started targeting those in asylums and the disabled in nursing homes for death by lethal gas, starvation, drugs, and neglect. The Jewish population was especially targeted regardless of health.

………

In 1933, Adolf Bartels, the deputy leader of the Reich’s medical profession, provided a blueprint of the future of nursing under the Nazis. He emphasized that German nurses in social and medical service had to meet standards in the new Reich that were very different from before. The new Reich not only wanted to look after the sick and weak but also wanted to secure a healthy development of all Germans “if their inherited biological predisposition allows for it” (p. 38). Above all, the new state wanted to secure and promote a genetically sound, valuable race, and, in contrast to the past, “not to expend an exaggerated effort on the care of genetically or racially inferior people”. (Emphasis added)

As a Nazi politician stated, “a nurse is the one who should carry out the will of the State in the health education of the people”. It was not necessary for the majority of nurses to become ardent supporters of the Nazi regime for them to do the will of the Reich. One source noted that the majority of nurses who participated in a secret euthanasia program known as T4 tried to remain good nurses; an estimated 10 percent or fewer were enthusiastic supporters of Nazi practice. But, as in other areas of public life, the Reich absorbed professional nursing organizations, leaving the nursing profession with no means of expressing opposing or dissenting views as well as no organizational support for refusing to participate. (Emphasis added)

……

Using midwives, the Reich took various measures both to prevent those regarded as having a “hereditary disease” or who were “racially inferior” from reproducing while increasing the birth rate of those considered valuable and healthy. Thus, the traditional midwife focus on the mother and child was changed to focus on the nation as a whole.

Midwives could initiate proceedings for forced sterilization, and it was now a duty for midwives to report to public health officers “deformed” births and small children with disabilities before their third birthday. Reports received from doctors and midwives were reviewed by medical examiners, and based solely on the reports, the examiners decided whether the child was to be killed or spared.

Parents with such children were told about institutions for children who needed special care that were being established through the country. They were persuaded to admit these children and were assured that the children would receive the best possible care. Parents could refuse but had to sign forms stating their responsibility to supervise and care for their children. The identified children in these institutions were killed by starvation or lethal injection. Parents were told that their children had died from natural causes.

……..

The world was riveted by the 1945 Hadamar trial, the first mass atrocity trial after the Nazi regime was defeated in World War II. This trial came before the infamous Nuremburg trials that included doctors. Hadamar was covered extensively by American media but ignored by the American Journal of Nursing even though nurses were charged.

The trial involved one of the largest and most important killing centers, Hadamar Psychiatric Hospital, one of the six institutions in Germany designated for killing the mentally ill. In 1943, a ward (called an “educational home”) was set up for mixed-race children with Jewish heritage within Hadamar. Completely healthy children were killed with lethal injections. The actual numbers are not known because employees were required to take an oath of secrecy. It is estimated that more than 13,000 patients were killed in 1941 and 1942, even before the ward was set up.

In the first Hadamar trial, Head Nurse Irmgard Huber was tried with six others for killing over 400 men, women, and children. Nurse Huber was charged with “obtaining the lethal drugs, being present when some of the fatal injections were given, and being present when the false death certificates were made out”. Two male nurses were charged with administering the lethal injections. All pleaded not guilty. Their defense was that they were powerless and had inadequate knowledge to judge the morality of their actions. All denied accountability. (Emphasis added)

Trial testimony confirmed that the nurses prepared patients for their deaths, directed the entire nursing staff of the institution, and were present at the daily conferences where the falsified death certificates were completed. Duties to patients were limited to so-called kindnesses that consisted of bringing small gifts to pediatric patients and taking care to prevent patients from knowing that they would soon be killed. Head Nurse Huber insisted that she wished to render a last service to these patients and did not want to do them any harm and that she had a clear conscience.

…….

The second Hadamar trial in 1947 did not receive the same attention as the first. Twenty-five members of the Hadamar staff were charged. At this trial, Head Nurse Huber was charged with killing 15,000 German mental patients. All but one of the defendants were found guilty and served sentences ranging from two and a half to five years. The one nurse found not guilty claimed she had feigned pregnancy in order to achieve release from the killing center. (Emphasis added)

In the end, Head Nurse Huber was released from prison in 1952; the others by 1954.

………

The book presents a model used for two innovative teaching programs about this subject, one in Israel and one in Australia, perhaps the most important contribution of this book. The editors believe that the Nazi era should be taught to students, “highlighting the danger of failing to see each individual as a valuable member of human society. And while the heart of nursing and midwifery continues to be care and caring practices, it is fundamental for students to confront this history to develop insights into the causes and social constructs that enabled nurses and midwives to distort the goal of nursing practice and theory to harm and murder patients.”

The results of these programs and the responses by students appear encouraging. The editors hope that by raising these issues, students will be forced to confront their own values and beliefs, sometimes an intensely uncomfortable experience. They also believe students who are exposed to this “dark element of nursing and midwifery history” will be better prepared to face pressure or to report and oppose violations of the trust that is central to any relationship between nurses and patients

CONCLUSION

Decades after the Nazi atrocities, we are seeing a resurgence of the same “life unworthy of life” justification that drove Nazi eugenics. We see how this perspective increasingly approves the deliberate termination of some lives as “merciful” and “humane.” There is an emerging, shocking consensus that we can—or perhaps even should—choose to have our own lives terminated when our lives are considered not worth living either by ourselves or by others if we cannot speak for ourselves.

The authors of this book make it clear: we all need to know and understand the past in order not to repeat it. Hopefully, it is not too late to turn the tide of history back toward respect for all life.

Share this:

Customize buttons

Catholic Hospital in Canada Under Fire for Naming Euthanasia Provider as Palliative Care Director-Why Should We Care?

nancyvalko AMA, assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, conscience rights, dementia, disability, economics, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, food and water, futility, hospice, law, media, medical ethics, mental health, nursing, palliative care, terminal/palliative sedation, ventilators/life support, VSED

In a shocking Sep 16, 2023 article from the Catholic News Agency titled Catholic hospital under fire for naming euthanasia provider as palliative care director | Catholic News Agency, Dr. Danielle Kain, a palliative care specialist who is associate professor and division co-chair of palliative medicine at Queen’s University, was appointed to the directorship of palliative care at Providence Hospital in Kingston, Ontario in Canada despite being “is both a staunch proponent and practitioner of euthanasia.”

Providence Hospital is one of 22 health care institutions in Ontario under the sponsorship of Catholic Health Sponsors of Ontario (CHSO). Canada has one of the most expansive assisted suicide laws in the world and is now considering adding people whose sole medical condition is mental illness. (Emphasis added)

The article also states that “Kain has argued that all publicly funded institutions, including Catholic hospitals, should be compelled to offer MAiD (Medical Aid in Dying) She has also expressed support for the Effective Referral Policy: doctors who have conscientious objections to euthanasia must refer patients to MAiD-offering doctors. In a 2016 Twitter post, Kain wrote: “Making an effective referral is not an infringement of rights.” (All emphasis added)

And

“A variety of professional associations of Canadian Catholic health care providers, including the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians, have made appeals to both the CHSO and the local ordinary, Archbishop Michael Mulhall, to intervene….but “The archbishop’s office did not respond before publication to a request for comment.” (Emphasis added)

RECENT HISTORY

In 2019, The National Association of Pro-life Nurses joined the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA and other organizations in opposing the  Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (2019) H.R. 647, S.2080 (known as PCHETA) introduced in the US Congress.

We stated that:

“As nurses, we strive to care for our seriously ill, disabled and terminally ill patients with compassion and the highest ethical standards. We applaud the medical innovations and supportive care options that can help our patients attain the highest quality of life possible.

However now many of us nurses are now seeing unethical practices such as assisted suicide, terminal sedation (with withdrawal/withholding of food, water and critical medicines), voluntary stopping of eating, drinking and even spoon feeding, etc. used to cause or hasten death but often called palliative, “comfort” or routine hospice care for such patients.

Such practices are already  considered acceptable by many influential hospice and palliative care doctors like Dr. Timothy Quill, a board-certified palliative care physician, 2012 president of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine and promoter of legalizing physician-assisted suicide and terminal sedation.

It is also disturbing the Compassion and Choice, the largest and best funded organization promoting assisted suicide and other death decisions,  has a mission statement stating:

“We employ educational training programs, media outreach and online and print publications to change healthcare practice, inform policy-makers, influence public opinion and empower individuals.”

and a “Federal Policy Agenda / 2016 & Beyond”  goal to:

“Establish federal payment for palliative care consultations provided by trained palliative care professionals who will advocate for and support the values and choices of the patient….” (All emphasis added)

We believe that the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (2019) will allow federal funding to teach and institutionalize such unethical practices without sufficient oversight, safeguards or penalties.”

NOW A NEW PCHETA BILL HAS NOW BEEN PROPOSED

The 2019 PCHETA did not pass in Congress but now a new and almost identical version US SB2243 has just been has been introduced into the US Senate.

A new addition is included to “develop and implement a strategy to be applied across the institutes and centers of the National Institutes of Health to expand and intensify national research programs in palliative care in order to address the quality of care and quality of life for the rapidly growing population of patients in the United States with serious or life-threatening illnesses.”(Emphasis added)

A letter of support for the new 2023 PCHETA bill was signed by a multitude of groups including the Alzheimer’s Association, American College of Surgeons, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Geriatrics Society, the American Heart Association, American Psychological Association, Association of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Nurses, American Academy of Association of Professional Chaplains, Hospice Action Network Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Motion Picture & Television Fund, etc.

Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Catholic Health Association of the United States have also sent a letter of support for the 2023 PCHETA, citing that it “includes crucial clarifications which ensure that the palliative and hospice care training programs abide by the provisions found in the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-12) and are not furnished for the purpose of causing or assisting in causing a patient’s death for any reason.” Unfortunately, as we have long observed, practices such as terminal sedation, withdrawal of food and water, etc. are routinely called just “patient choice” or routine comfort care-even in Catholic institutions.

And, as lawyer Sara Buscher of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA writes, the 2023 HHS Office of Inspector General’s report cites problems with hospice and she says that the PCHETA’s “safeguards are illusions”, “unenforceable and pretty much meaningless.”

CONCLUSION

In September 3, 2023 article titled ” by Jonathan Turley, a 19 year-old woman with is critically ill with a rare genetic mitochondrial disease that is progressively degenerative but conscious and communicative and on a ventilator, feeding tube and dialysis wanted to be allowed to travel to Canada for an experimental treatment but doctors opposed her plan saying that “she is not accepting the realities of her terminal illness.” She and her family appealed to a court but “Nevertheless, the judge found that she is mentally incapable of making decisions for herself because “she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors”  and “Accordingly, the court ruled that decisions about ST’s further care should be determined by the Court of Protection based on an assessment of her best interests. Her “best interest,” according to the doctors, is to die.” (all emphasis added)

As lawyer Turley writes: “Thus, the courts have declared that ST cannot choose to continue life-extending treatment and can be forced into palliative care against her will.”

Thus the “choice” of a “right to die” can trump the choice of a right to live and even become a “duty to die”.

We need to be able to trust out healthcare system to provide ethical, life-affirming and compassionate care when we need it most.

A good first step would be to make sure the 2023 PCHETA does not become law.

Progress in the War Against Conscience Rights

nancyvalko abortion, AMA, ANA, assisted suicide, brain injury, civil rights, Compassion & Choices, conscience rights, culture, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, food and water, futility, law, medical, medical ethics, nursing, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, vegetative state

As I wrote in my 2016 blog “Conscientious Objection, Conscience Rights and Workplace Discrimination” :

The tragic cases of Nancy Cruzan and Christine Busalacchi , young Missouri women who were claimed to be in a “persistent vegetative state” and starved and dehydrated to death, outraged those of us in Missouri Nurses for Life and we took action.

Besides educating people about severe brain damage, treatment, cases of recovery and the radical change in medical ethics that could lead to the legalization of euthanasia, we also fought for healthcare providers’ rights against workplace discrimination for refusing to participate in deliberate death decisions. We talked to nurses who were threatened with termination.

Although Missouri had some protections against forcing participating in abortion, there were no statutes we could find where health care providers were protected against being forced to participate in deliberate death decisions. We were also told by some legislators that our chance of success was almost nil.

Nevertheless, we persisted and after years of work and enduring legislators watering down our original proposal to include lethal overdoses and strong penalties, Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 404.872.1 was finally signed into law in 1992. It states:

Refusal to honor health care decision, discrimination prohibited, when.

404.872. No physician, nurse, or other individual who is a health care provider or an employee of a health care facility shall be discharged or otherwise discriminated against in his employment or employment application for refusing to honor a health care decision withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment if such refusal is based upon the individual’s religious beliefs, or sincerely held moral convictions.

(L. 1992 S.B. 573 & 634 § 7)

PROGRESS DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

In 2018, the Trump administration announced a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division  in the department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce “federal laws that protect conscience and the free exercise of religion and prohibit coercion and discrimination in health and human services”. The division specifically mentions “issues such as abortion and assisted suicide (among others) in HHS-funded or conducted programs and activities” and includes a link to file a conscience or religious freedom complaint “if you feel a health care provider or government agency coerced or discriminated against you (or someone else) unlawfully”.

Both Planned Parenthood (abortion) and Compassion and Choices (assisted suicide) loudly condemned this.

Lawsuits were quickly filed by groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Center for Reproductive Rights, delaying implementation of the Final Conscience Rule until at least late November. The first lawsuit was filed by San Francisco within hours of the announcement of the Rule.

NOW STATES ARE GETTING INVOLVED

In 2020, the Medical Conscience Rights Initiative (MCRI)  was launched by the Religious Freedom Institute, Alliance Defending Freedom and the Christ Medicus Foundation to promote legislation on the state level “to protect America’s healthcare providers from mandates to perform voluntary procedures in violation of their conscience (e.g., abortion, physician assisted suicide, gender transition surgery, etc.).”

Now five states-Arkansas, Ohio, South Carolina, Florida and now Montana– have enacted versions of this model legislation while “similar efforts are ongoing in multiple other states.”

CONCLUSION

Conscience rights are a necessity, especially since as Dr. Donna Harrison, director of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) makes the crucial point that:

 “Those who oppose the HHS Conscience Rule demonstrate their clear intention to squeeze out of the medical profession any doctor who still abides by the Hippocratic Oath, and to squelch any opposition to forcing doctors to kill human beings at the beginning and end of life.” (Emphasis added)

Disturbingly, as a 2021 paper “Teaching the Holocaust in Nursing Schools: The Perspective of the Victims and Survivors” points out: “the majority of nursing and medical schools do not include Holocaust and genocide studies in their curriculum“, unlike years ago when it was included as an essential part of medical ethics education.

The results are frightening, as I wrote in a 2019 blog “How Could This Happen? Ohio Doctor Accused of Murder in 25 Patient Overdose Deaths”. The doctor was eventually acquitted of murder after “Husel’s defense team, led by high-profile attorney Jose Baez, argued that no maximum doses of fentanyl are considered illegal under state law and that his client was trying to give comfort care to people who were dying or near death.” (Emphasis added)

 Today, both the American Medical Association and American Nurses Association champion “abortion rights” and have dropped their total opposition to medically assisted suicide.

Without conscience rights and whistleblower protections, our health care system can not only become unethical but also downright dangerous to both healthcare providers and patients.

The National Association of Pro-life Nurses Opposes “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety” Amendment to the Ohio Constitution

nancyvalko abortion, adoption, AMA, conscience rights, culture, education, law, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses supports Ohio Right to Life in opposing “The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety” amendment to the Ohio Constitution. Here are some of our objections:

  1. The amendment states that: “Every individual  has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” the amendment says. If approved, the state couldn’t unduly “burden” this right.   According to FindLaw . : “Minors in Ohio generally cannot provide consent to most medical procedures and must seek the consent of a parent or legal guardian instead. But the state also allows so-called “mature minors” to consent   to such procedures without the consent of a parent or guardian. “Mature minors” must be at least 15 years of age or older, and they must be able to show a doctor that they have enough understanding to make such decisions on their own.” (All emphasis added) It is vitally important that parents be informed about such abortions procedures before they occur, especially with teenagers who may be pressured to get rid of the baby before their parents find out. Not only can parents help their teens make a life-saving decision like adoption but also be there to help if any physical or emotional complications result from the abortion.
  2. The amendment states: “Abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability,” except if a physician  believes it’s necessary “to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.” (Emphasis added)  We agree with AAPLOG (American Association of Pro-life Obstetrician and Gynecologists) that: “The amendment would legalize abortion through all nine months of pregnancy by allowing post-viability abortion for broadly defined ‘health reasons, which have been long been understood legally to include any and all factors supposedly affecting health, including socioeconomic reasons. Its broad language forbidding ‘direct or indirect’ restriction on abortion places at risk such basic safeguards as protections against coerced abortion parental consent, conscience rights for pro-life clinicians, current health and safety regulations for abortion clinics, and counseling to support a woman through her pregnancy-all of which have been demonstrated to help women” and” this proposed amendment also opens the door for the legal targeting of pregnancy resource centers, which serve thousands of Ohio women with material, medical and emotional support every year.” (Emphasis added) This makes an abortion right more extreme than what prevailed under Roe v. Wade.
  3. Conscience rights for healthcare providers are at risk. In a July 31, 2023 USA Today article “‘Conscience’ bills let medical providers opt out of providing a wide range of care” states cites a March 2020 article in the American Medical Association’s Journal of Ethics that said, “Clinicians who object to providing care on the basis of ‘conscience’ have never been more robustly protected than today. Legal remedies for patients who receive inadequate care as a result have shrunk significantly”. Many of the most sweeping bills are backed by organizations that have promote the “conscience” agenda nationwide, such as the Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association, and National Association of Pro-Life Nurses. Other groups launched a joint effort in 2020 with the explicit purpose of advancing state legislation that makes it easier for health care providers to refuse to perform a wide range of procedures, including abortion and types of gender-affirming care.” And that “Opponents such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, and the Human Rights Campaign have been vocal opponents of this trend, criticizing it as a backdoor way to restrict the rights of women, LGBTQ+ community members, and other individuals. (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

We urge all people of good will to join us in working to protect and help vulnerable people as well as ethical healthcare providers.

The Frightening Deterioration of Professional Medical Ethics Regarding Abortion and Assisted Suicide at the AMA and ANA

nancyvalko abortion, assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, conscience rights, culture, end-of-life, law, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

ABORTION AND THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

When I went to nursing school in 1967, abortion was illegal in the US and so-called “back alley” abortions were universally condemned.

According to a Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health article titled “A Brief History of Abortion in the U.S.”:

“America’s first anti-abortion movement wasn’t driven primarily by moral or religious concerns like it is today. Instead, abortion’s first major foe in the U.S. was physicians on a mission to regulate medicine.” and “Most providers were midwives, many of whom made a good living selling abortifacient plants.” (Emphasis added)

The American Medical Association was established in 1847 and the “AMA was keen to be taken seriously as a gatekeeper of the medical profession, and abortion services made midwives and other irregular practitioners—so-called quacks—an easy target.”

“In 1857, the AMA took aim at unregulated abortion providers with a letter-writing campaign pushing state lawmakers to ban the practice. To make their case, they asserted that there was a medical consensus that life begins at conception, rather than at quickening.“

The campaign succeeded. At least 40 anti-abortion laws went on the books between 1860 and 1880.” (All emphasis added)

And abortion eventually became illegal throughout the US until the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized most abortions in the US.

FAST FORWARD TO TODAY

In a June 13, 2023 article on Medpage titled “AMA Delegates Make Short Work of Proposals on Abortion” at AMA Delegates Make Short Work of Proposals on Abortion | MedPage Today, Dr Thomas Eppes Jr, MD from Virginia introduced a resolution that asked the AMA to:

 “advocate for availability of the highest standard of neonatal care to [an] aborted fetus born alive at a gestational age of viability,” which occurs at approximately 22 weeks’ gestation. “This position is not to argue the woman’s right to choose … The decision to abort is still between the patient and the physician,” Eppes said. “It does not imply the woman’s responsibility for the fetal life, but this resolution places the burden of care on the physician, who now has to care for two patients once the fetus is viable.” (Emphasis added)

The resolution was opposed by Kavita Arora, MD, of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a delegate from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) who was speaking on behalf of the ACOG section council and the Specialty and Service societies who said that:

“Our policy should be based on science, it should be based on fact, and it should be based on the best available evidence that honors and upholds the value of the patient-physician relationship and the nuance and complexity of medical care,” and that “It is not a one-size-fits-all approach and should not be based on misinformation or disinformation. I strongly urge you to oppose.” (Emphasis added)

The Dr. Eppes’ resolution was voted down 476-106 and the council moved on to reimbursement matters.

ASSISTED SUICIDE AND THE AMA

A May 1, 2023, article by Dallas R. Lawry, DNP, FNP-C, AOCNP® from the University of California, San Diego in the Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology titled “Rethinking Medical Aid in Dying: What Does It Mean to ‘Do No Harm?’” at Rethinking Medical Aid in Dying: What Does It Mean to ‘Do No Harm?’ – PMC (nih.gov) reveals that:

“Until 2019, the American Medical Association (AMA) maintained that MAID (medical aid in dying aka assisted suicide) was incompatible with their code of ethics and a physician’s responsibility to heal (AMA, 2022)“.

 But now, the AMA Medical Code of Ethics now has two provisions that support both positions on MAID, including: “Physicians who participate in MAID are adhering to their professional, ethical obligations as are physicians who decline to participate” (AMA, 2019, 2022; Compassion & Choices, 2022) (Emphasis added)

ABORTION AND THE ANA (American Nurses Association)

When I graduated nursing school in 1969, abortion was still a criminal act and no one expected the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing most abortions.

In 2022, the ANA publish a position statement fully supporting “respect for a person’s reproductive choices; sex education; access to contraception; access to abortion care; ensuring equity in reproductive health, access, and care delivery; and matters of conscience for nurses in SRH (sexual and reproductive health)”.

So it was not surprising that several national nursing associations condemned the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning the 1973 Roe v Wade decision and returning regulating abortion to the states and the ANA wrote in its  official statement that:

“the “U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade is a serious setback for reproductive health and human rights” and that “”(n)urses have an ethical obligation to safeguard the right to privacy for individuals, families, and communities, allowing for decision making that is based on full information without coercion.” (All emphasis added)

ASSISTED SUICIDE AND THE ANA

In 1995, the American Nurses Association stated:

“The American Nurses Association (ANA) believes that the nurse should not participate in assisted suicide. Such an act is in violation of the Code for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (Code for Nurses) and the ethical traditions of the profession. “ (Emphasis added)

In 2017, the ANA revised in position on VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking) “with the intention of hastening death”.

In 2019, the American Nurses Association revised their position on assisted suicide titled “The Nurse’s Role When a Patient Requests Medical Aid in Dying”, stating that nurses:

“• Remain objective when discussing end-of-life options with patients who are exploring medical aid in dying.

• Have an ethical duty to be knowledgeable about this evolving issue.

• Be aware of their personal values regarding medical aid in dying and how these values might affect the patient-nurse relationship.

• Have the right to conscientiously object to being involved in the aid in dying process. (But “Conscience-based refusals to participate exclude personal preference, prejudice, bias, convenience, or arbitrariness”)

• Never “abandon or refuse to provide comfort and safety measures to the patient” who has chosen medical aid in dying (Ersek, 2004, p. 55). Nurses who work in jurisdictions where medical aid in dying is legal have an obligation to inform their employers that they would predictively exercise a conscience-based objection so that appropriate assignments could be made” (All emphasis added)

But while the ANA is states that “It is a strict legal and ethical prohibition that a nurse may not administer the medication that causes the patient’s death“, it is silent when some states with assisted suicide laws like Washington state’s where Governor Jay Inslee signed a new expansion to the law in April 2023 to “allow physician assistants and advanced nurse practitioners to be one of the medical providers who sign off on the procedure”, “eliminates a two-day waiting period for prescribing the drugs” and “allow the necessary drugs to be mailed to patients instead of picked up in person”. (Emphasis added) https://www.axios.com/2023/04/24/washington-death-with-dignity-law

Most recently on June 2, 2023 in Hawaii, Gov. Josh Green (D), a physician, signed a bill that “allows qualified advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) the authority as attending and consulting healthcare providers to evaluate and confirm a patient’s eligibility and to prescribe medical aid in dying medications.“ (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Because there are now many state and national medical professional organizations that support assisted suicide, , abortion and other problematic ethical issues, the discouraging effect on idealistic people considering or remaining in a health care career may be devastating to our most vulnerable people and indeed to our healthcare system itself.

But, as I will write in a future blog, there is hope, alternatives and resources that everyone needs to know to protect themselves and their loved ones as well as other vulnerable lives.