education

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!

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

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

        Over the years, I’ve written about several of my patients like “Mike”, “Jack”, Katie” and “Chris” in comas or “persistent vegetative states” who regained full or some consciousness with verbal and physical stimulation. I have also recommended Jane Hoyt’s wonderful 1994 pamphlet “A Gentle Approach-Interacting with a Person who is Semi-Conscious  or Presumed in Coma” to help families and others stimulate consciousness. Personally, I have only seen one person who did not improve much from the so-called “vegetative” state during the approximately two years I saw him weekly.

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

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

        As the article states:

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

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

        Based on follow-up, the estimated six-month outcomes for a significant proportion of the withdrawn group were either death or recovery of at least some independence in daily activities. Of the survivors in the not-withdrawn group, more than 40% recovered at least some independence.”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

        and

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

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

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

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

        And:

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

        ADVOCATING FOR BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS

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

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

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

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

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

        CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 25, 2024

        Sheryl Crosier

        Simon’s Law

        (314) 443-3770

        Sheryl@SimonsLaw.org

        HB-0200 Passes Utah Legislature

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Features and benefits of HB-0200 include:

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

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

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

        CONCLUSION

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

        I remember when it used to be!

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

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

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

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

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

        Although I already knew that the medical criteria used to determine brain death vary — often widely — from one hospital to another, one young doctor checked our area hospitals and came back elated after he found a hospital that did not include the test the elderly woman “failed”. He suggested that our hospital adopt the other hospital’s criteria to allow more organ donations.

        When I pointed out that the public could lose trust in the ethics of organ donations if they knew we would change our rules just to get more organ transplants, I was told that I being hard-hearted to people who desperately needed such organs.

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

        FINDINGS OF THE POSITION PAPER

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

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

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

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

        RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

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

        The statement also cites:

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

        CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

        Great News: Simon’s Law Introduced in Congress

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

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

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

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

        Nancy V.

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

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

         RNILSEN12  FEBRUARY 9, 2024 3 MIN READ 

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

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

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

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

        REPUBLICAN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        DEMOCRAT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Read about Simon’s Life and His Impact

        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

        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.