culture

One In Four Brain Injury Patients Who Appear Unresponsive Respond Covertly

nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain injury, culture, disability, education, food and water, futility, medical ethics, vegetative state, ventilators/life support

Back in May, I wrote the blog “New Study: Brain-injured patients who died after life support ended may have recovered” about a 7 1/2 year study of 1392 traumatic brain injury patients in ICU at 18 US trauma centers.

The researchers designed a mathematical model to calculate the likelihood that life-sustaining treatment would be discontinued “based on demographic, socioeconomic factor and injury characteristics” and then “paired patients continuing on life-sustaining treatment to individuals with similar moded scores but for whom life-sustaining treatment was stopped.”

They found that of the survivors who did not have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn, “more than 40% recovered at least some independence.” (Emphasis added)

This led one researcher to conclude that:

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

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

NEW STUDY

Now a newer study, published in August, states that one in Four Brain Injury Patients Who Appear Unresponsive Respond Covertly | MedPage Today, finding that functional MRI and EEG tests can detect awareness in coma or vegetative states.

The authors explain that:

“Cognitive-motor dissociation — a phenomenon that occurs when patients who appear unresponsive perform cognitive tasks that can be detected on functional MRI (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) — occurred in one in four people with severe brain injury, a prospective cohort study found.”

The study evaluated 241 unresponsive patients with brain injury who were given verbal commands, such as to imagine playing tennis or opening and closing their hands.

Of these, 60 patients (25%) repeatedly showed brain activation on fMRI or EEG indicating they were covertly following instructions, reported Nicholas Schiff, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, and co-authors in the 

Cognitive-motor dissociation was associated with younger age, longer time since injury, and brain trauma as an etiologic factor. In total, 11 patients with cognitive-motor dissociation were assessed with fMRI only, 13 were assessed with EEG only, and 36 with both techniques.

“This research shows that a substantial fraction of apparently unresponsive, severely brain-injured persons are aware and can engage in sustained cognitive activity,” Schiff told MedPage Today. These findings importantly point to the need to establish infrastructure to evaluate patients and to begin efforts to test possible therapies to help them.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

I have worked with brain-injured patients for decades both as a nurse and as a volunteer and I personally saw many amazing recoveries or improvements despite dire predictions and/or recommendations of life support removal.

One of the most amazing cases was a woman with disabilities whose husband wanted to remove life support as the doctors recommended.

As she personally told me, she frantically tried to move her hands to protest but her gestures were seen as seizures and she was given sedatives.

She persisted until finally, one nurse said she might be trying to tell us something and gave her a paper and pencil.

The patient wrote d-i-v-o-r-c-e.

She not only lived but became active in the disability community fighting assisted suicide!

Shocking Article in Academic Medicine: Helping Patients Die: Implementation of a Residency Curriculum in Medical Aid in Dying

nancyvalko assisted suicide, culture, disability, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, media, medical ethics ,

“First, do no harm” is attributed to Hippocrates and is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all healthcare providers are (or were) taught in school and is a fundamental principle throughout the world.

But today,  the Hippocratic Oath, the oldest and most widely known treatise on medical ethics that forbade actions such as abortion and euthanasia that medical students routinely took upon graduation, has now been revised or dropped at many medical schools.

So we should not be surprised that we now have an article in the August issue of Academic Medicine (lww.com) titled Helping Patients Die: Implementation of a Residency Curriculum in Medical Aid in Dying by Spielvogel, Ryan MD, MS; Schewe, Savannah MD

The authors state the need for such a program is because:

“As more states legalize medical aid in dying (MAID), there is an ever-increasing need of physicians trained in this type of end-of-life care. However, resident curricula in MAID have not been previously reported or assessed. The authors describe a residency curriculum in MAID and evaluate the resident outcomes of this program.” (Emphasis added)

They describe the program they started in California:

“Since 2018, the Sutter Family Medicine Residency Program in California has offered training in MAID to its residents. Residents attend lectures, evaluate patients for MAID, write prescriptions for aid-in-dying medications, and attend the planned deaths of their patients if desired. In February 2023, an anonymous branching survey was sent to graduates of the program from 2019 to 2022 to evaluate residency graduation year, receipt of MAID training, currently practicing MAID, how rewarding MAID is compared with other clinical responsibilities, how stressful MAID is compared with other clinical responsibilities, comfort discussing MAID with colleagues, comfort discussing end-of-life care generally, personal view of MAID as a practice, and works where MAID is permitted.”

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

“The authors surveyed 28 graduates and collected data from 21 former residents (response rate, 75%). Of these 21 former residents, 17 (81%) reported having opted to receive training in MAID during residency. Of the 12 residents who received training and were currently practicing in a location that allowed MAID, 7 (58%) were still practicing aid-in-dying, and of these 7 residents, 5 (71%) reported that their aid-in-dying work was more rewarding than their other clinical responsibilities.” (Emphasis added)

The authors of this study conclude that there is:

“promising preliminary evidence that MAID training in residency may be an effective strategy in the long term at closing the suspected patient access gap that purportedly exists. This preliminary evidence can be inferred by the fact that 7 of the 21 responding graduates (33%) in this study reported actively practicing MAID compared with the 30 of approximately 5,000 physicians (approximately 0.6%) practicing MAID group-wide at the large institution described above.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Ominously, an August Gallup poll titled ” Most Americans Favor Legal Euthanasia ” stated that ” 71% of Americans polled “believe doctors should be ‘allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family request it’.”

That is a change from polling in 1950 showing only 36% support for “ending a patient’s life through painless means”. (All emphasis added)

Tragically, too many Americans are falling for the lie that it is better to be made dead than disabled or dying. Assisted suicide laws are tragically wrong and I have personally testified against them. It’s not about politics. It’s about medical ethics and the need for trust in both our healthcare system and our healthcare providers.

When Food and Water Withdrawal is Recommended to Hasten Death

nancyvalko advance directives, Alzheimer's, assisted suicide, culture, dementia, disability, end-of-life, euthanasia, food and water, hospice, law, Living wills, medical ethics, VSED , , , ,

Recently, I was contacted by a man who was concerned about hospice care for his mother.

He wrote:

“I spoke to one hospice service that was recommended and asked about AHN (artificial hydration and nutrition) and I was basically told that if my mother became unconscious, they would not attempt to provide AHN. My mother has dementia and we’ve had a few scares where we were unsure she would recover. I’d like to understand what guideline I should expect the hospice to follow and whether hospice is even worth considering. Are there prescriptive standards of care that I can reference or could you tell me basically what routine care look like?”

I wrote back that I understood his concerns, especially since I recently lost a brother with dementia, diabetes and Crohn’;s disease after a second fall down stairs. H had trouble eating so the doctors recommended a feeding tube.

Unfortunately, a person from palliative care told my sister-in-law that he would not improve so she decided to refuse a feeding tube.

I told her that newer feeding tubes were more comfortable, could make him feel better and were worth a try but she rejected this. She said my brother told her he would not want to I’ve if he developed dementia- like our mother.

It took 4 long days for him to die.

I also told him that I have been writing about this problems for years, including my 2018 blot “‘Living Wills’ to Prevent Spoon Feeding at https://nancyvalko.com/?s=living+wills+to+prevent+spoon+feeding

I have seen the deterioration of medical ethics over 50 years as a nurse from requiring life-sustaining treatment unless it was medically futile or excessively burdensome to whatever is legal.

I would recommend to you two resources from the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization (HALO):

1, “The Food and Water Dilemma” at https://halovoice.org/wp-content/uploads/5.20.21-Making-a-Difference-8.pdf

2. “Making a Difference: A Guide for Defending the Medically Vulnerable” at https://halovoice.org/wp-content/uploads/5.20.21-Making-a-Difference-8.pdf

CONCLUSION

I have worked in hospice, critical care, etc. for decades and I was glad to be able to care for my patients, my mother and others so that they had dignity, comfort and emotional support at the end of life.

I hope these resources from HALO can help bring vital information, peace and comfort to others and their families.

We Will Not Comply

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

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

As reporter Samantha Kamman reported:

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

Ms Kamman explains that:

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

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

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

THE RESPONSE

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION-two personal stories

My Daughter Marie Killed Herself Using an Assisted Suicide Technique

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

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

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

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

The Effect on our Healthcare System

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

Think again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The family never knew the real story.

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

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

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

As Life News reported on June 13, 2024:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now as the Wall Street Journal reports:

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

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

        FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE?

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

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

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

        As she writes:

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

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

        NOW THE PRO-ASSISTED SUICIDE MOVEMENT IS EXPANDING

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

        The article notes that:

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

        The article continues:

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

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

        CONCLUSION

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

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

        The petition states:

        “Dear Representative Jeffries and Representative Scalise,

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

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

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

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

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

        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.