The World Brain Death Project: What It Means

THE HISTORY OF BRAIN DEATH

In December of 1967, the first successful heart transplant was performed in South Africa by Dr. Christian Barnard. At that time, there were no guidelines for the diagnosis of death for beating heart donors.

In September of 1968, the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death was published with the purpose of defining irreversible coma as a new criterion for death.

This was done for two stated  reasons:

  1. “Improvements in resuscitative and supportive measures have led to increase efforts to save those who are desperately injured. Sometimes these efforts have only partial success so that the result is an individual  whose heart continues to beat but whose brain is irreversibly damaged. The burden is great on patients who suffer permanent loss of intellect, on their families, on the hospitals and on those in need of hospital beds already occupied by these comatose patients.
  2. “Obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation.” (All emphasis added)

This report was quickly accepted by many and in 1968, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was passed in the US  as a regulatory framework for the donation of organs, tissues and other human body parts. The Act allowed the donation of whole or part of a human body to take effect upon or after the death of the donor.

The Uniform Declaration of Death Act (UDDA) was drafted in 1981 by a President’s Commission study to brain death and approved by both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Bar Association (ABA). It was intended to provide a model for states to emulate.

It offered 2 definitions of when a person could be declared legally dead to align the legal definition of death with the criteria largely accepted by the medical community:

  1. “Irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions (the traditional definition of death); or
  2. Irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem (brain death)” (Emphasis added)

The UDDA in some form has since been adopted by all US states and the District of Columbia.

However, in the June 2020 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics,  the well-known lawyer/ethicist Thaddeus  Mason Pope wrote about a current effort “to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) to assure a consistent nationwide approach to consent for brain death testing.” (Emphasis added)

Why just consent to brain death testing?

According to Mr. Pope:

“Right now, a patient might be legally dead in Nevada, New York, or Virginia (where consent is not required). But that same patient might not be legally dead in California, Kansas, or Montana (where consent is required and might be refused). (Emphasis added)”

Instead, Mr. Pope proposes adding this to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA):

“Reasonable efforts should be made to notify a patient’s legally authorized decision-maker before performing a determination of death by neurologic criteria, but consent is not required to initiate such an evaluation”. (Emphasis added)

Mr. Pope states that typically, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) follows a four-step process to change a law but notes that the Healthcare Law Committee has already skipped the first three steps and is ready for drafting the new language in the fourth step.

Ironically, there was a case last year in Michigan where the parents of a teenager  pushed for a Bobby’s Law after their son was taken off life support after being declared brain dead despite their objections. The law would “require a minor’s parents to consent to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment or to give do-not-resuscitate orders before medical professionals could end life support for a juvenile” and also allow the parents to defer an apnea test (taking the person off a ventilator to see if the person is able to breathe on his or her own) required to determine brain death. (Emphasis added)

THE WORLD BRAIN DEATH PROJECT

In an August 3, 2020 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) titled “Determination of Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria- The World Brain Death Project” , the authors state that due to “inconsistencies in concept, criteria, practice, and documentation of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) both internationally and within countries”, there is a need to “formulate a consensus statement of recommendations on determination of BD/DNC”. (Emphasis added)

In a August 3, 2020 Medpage article “Brain Death: What Does It Mean?” on the World Brain Death Project, the writer notes that the “guidelines recommend that consent not be required for apnea testing because of concerns over prolonged somatic support” while quoting a doctor who disagreed:

“Ostensibly, families should be asked to provide consent because the apnea test may lead to cardiovascular collapse in some patients, classifying it as procedure with risk,” (All emphasis added)

MY JOURNEY TO DISCOVER THE FACTS ABOUT BRAIN DEATH

Back in the early 1970s when I was a young intensive care unit nurse, no one questioned the new innovation of brain death organ transplantation. We trusted the experts and the prevailing medical ethic of the utmost respect for every human life.

However, as the doctors diagnosed brain death in our unit and I cared for these patients until their organs were harvested, I started to ask questions. For example, doctors assured us that these patients would die anyway within two weeks even if the ventilator to support breathing was continued, but no studies were cited. I also asked if we were making a brain-injured patient worse by removing the ventilator for up to 10 minutes for the apnea test to see if he or she would breathe since we knew that brain cells start to die when breathing stops for more than a few minutes.

I was told that greater minds than mine had it all figured out so I shouldn’t worry.

It was years before I realized that these doctors did not have the answers themselves and that my questions were valid.

I discovered that some mothers declared “brain dead” were able to gestate their babies for weeks or months to a successful delivery before their ventilators were removed and that there were cases of “brain dead” people like Jahi McMath living for  years after a diagnosis of brain death or even recovering like Zack Dunlap

If the legal definition of brain death is truly “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem”, these cases would seem to be impossible.

CONCLUSION

The World Brain Death Project is riddled with potential problems in establishing a worldwide consensus on brain death criteria and testing using a “set of criteria that satisfies the lowest acceptable standard for practice”. (Emphasis added) And changing the US Uniform Determination of Death Act to supersede states requiring consent before brain death testing will not inspire trust in the healthcare system or the law.

Personally, I will not sign an organ donor card or allow my organs to be taken by donation after cardiac death (DCD), a new category of severely brain-injured people who are not brain dead but who are on ventilators (breathing machines) and considered hopeless in terms of survival or predicted “quality of life”. The ventilator is removed and the patient’s heart is expected to stop. (However, a 2016 study showed that 27% of potential donors did not die within the window specified for organ recovery.)

Instead, my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues like corneas, skin, bones, etc. that can be ethically donated after natural death.

It is vitally important that everyone understands all the facts before signing an organ donor card.

And we all should demand transparency and rigorous medical ethics from our healthcare system.

 

 

 

Palliative Care and Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Death

Working in areas like critical care, oncology (cancer) and hospice for over 45 years, I know that it is often hard to predict how long someone may live or when that person may die.

I have seen very ill or injured people with an optimistic prognosis  unfortunately die and I have seen people expected to die very soon who recovered and went on to live for years. Back then, we used pain and other specialists, social workers, ministers, etc. for all our patients when needed. Some of our patients went into hospice.

In recent years, a new specialty called palliative care was developed to improve the quality of life for patients who have a serious or life-threatening disease with the goal of preventing or treating as early as possible, the symptoms and side effects of the disease and its treatment, in addition to any related psychological, social, and spiritual problems.

So I was very interested to read a July 1, 2020 article in StatNews titled “An experiment in end-of-life care: Tapping AI’s cold calculus to nudge the most human of conversations about using cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) models in palliative care that scan patient hospital medical records and generate emails to doctors about their patients considered most likely to die within a year.

In the case of one doctor who received such an email,  she “was a bit surprised that the email had flagged” her patient who was in his 40s and seriously ill with a viral respiratory infection and too sick to leave the hospital. She thought “Why him? And should she heed the suggestion to have that talk?”

As the article states, those kinds of questions are increasingly cropping up among health care professionals at the handful of hospitals and  clinics around the country using such AI models in palliative care, stating that:

The tools spit out cold actuarial calculations to spur clinicians to ask seriously ill patients some of the most intimate and deeply human questions: What are your most important goals if you get sicker? What abilities are so central to your life that  you can’t imagine living without them? And if your health declines, how much are you willing to go through in exchange for the possibility of more time? (Emphasis added)

Some clinicians and researchers defend this AI by saying that doctors are “stretched too thin and lacked the training to prioritize talking with seriously ill patients about end-of-life care”.

Not surprisingly, the leaders of this palliative care AI discourage doctors from mentioning to patients that they were identified by an AI system because, as one doctor put it, ”To say a computer or a math equation has predicted that you could pass away within a year would be very, very devastating and would be really tough for patients to hear.”

Shockingly, while this AI is built around patients’ electronic health records, this article admits that some AI models also “sample from socioeconomic data and information from insurance claims.” (Emphasis added)

CAN AI RELIABLY PREDICT DEATH?

As the article admits, AI predictions of death “are often spotty when it comes to identifying the patients who actually end up dying” and that there has not been “a gold-standard study design that would compare outcomes when some clinics or patients are randomly assigned to use the AI tool, and others are randomly assigned to the usual strategies for encouraging conversations about end-of-life care.” (Emphasis added)

Nevertheless, using AI death predictions for earlier palliative care interventions is now also being tried for conditions like dementia. And last year in Great Britain, AI was touted as “better than doctors” in analyzing heart tests to determine which patients would die within a year.

ARE THERE OTHER AGENDAS?

The idea of basing medical decisions on a computer program to predict death is disturbing enough but there may be other agendas involved.

For example, in a May, 2020 Cancer journal article titled  “Leveraging Advances in Artificial Intelligence to Improve the Quality and Timing of Palliative Care”, the authors called palliative care “a discipline of increasing importance in the aging population of the industrialized nations.”  (Emphasis added

And according to a Hospice News article last year:

“Studies have found that palliative care saves health plans, health systems, and accountable care organizations close to $12,000 per person enrolled, as well as reducing hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and hospice lengths of stay. “

Now Compassion and Choices (the former Hemlock Society) is not only fighting to legalize medically assisted suicide throughout the US, it has also been active in promoting training and expansion of palliative care with federal funding and now calls assisted suicide “one option in the palliative continuum” and that knowing assisted suicide “is an option is in itself palliative care.” (Compassion and Choices already maintains that VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking) is already an ethical and legal means of ending life in the US.)

Even worse, a large and growing number of medical organizations-including the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM)-have endorsed or taken a neutral position on the issue of physician-assisted suicide.

CONCLUSION

An artificial intelligence program predicting death cannot replace the importance of an ethical healthcare provider who knows and truly respects the lives of his or her patients.

Good palliative care can be wonderful but, as I have written before, palliative care can go horribly wrong when misused.

We need to know the difference before we are able to trust that our own healthcare providers will  give all of us the care we need and deserve, especially at the end of our lives.

 

Over 600 Doctors Send Powerful Letter to President Trump Calling the Covid 19 Lockdown a “Mass Casualty Incident”

Although it received little media notice, a May 19, 2020 letter to President Trump signed by over 600 doctors detailed the physical and mental impact of the lockdown in the US due to Covid 19, calling it a “mass casualty incident” with “exponentially growing negative health consequences” to millions of non-COVID patients. 

As the highly contagious Covid 19 virus was spreading around the world, President Trump issued a proclamation on March 12, 2020 declaring a national emergency with “preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those affected”.

On March 18, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recommended that hospitals cancel all elective surgeries and nonessential medical, surgical and dental procedures to prepare for the expected deluge of patients with Covid 19 and the health system complied.

Regular healthcare became virtually suspended as states went to lockdown with rules to shelter in place except for essential errands or work. Schools and many businesses were closed. 

Ironically,  except for New York and other hotspots that received massive federal help including ventilators and emergency field hospitals, US hospitals wound up with many empty beds and even emergency room visits dramatically declined

Many hospitals are now facing a financial crisis and health care professionals are being furloughed.

THE IMPACT OF THE LOCKDOWN ON AMERICANS’ PHYSICIAL AND MENTAL HEALTH

The doctors’ letter to President Trump focused on the devastating impact on Americans’ physical and mental health of the lockdown and why the months-long lockdowns should be ending. 

Here are some excerpts:

“Suicide hotline phone calls have increased 600%,” the letter said. Other silent casualties: “150,000 Americans per month who would have had new cancer detected through routine screening.”

“Patients fearful of visiting hospitals and doctors’ offices are dying because COVID-phobia is keeping them from seeking care. One patient died at home of a heart attack rather than go to an emergency room. The number of severe heart attacks being treated in nine U.S hospitals surveyed dropped by nearly 40% since March. Cardiologists are worried “a second wave of deaths” indirectly caused by the virus is likely.

“The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.

“It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown,” the letter says. “Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a person’s health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million [now 38 million] other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come.” (All emphasis added)

But while nearly all 50 states are starting to relax lockdown rules to some extent, some officials are threatening to keep many businesses closed and other draconian measures in place until August or even later. Many schools and universities now say they may remain closed for the remainder of 2020.

But as Dr. Marilyn Singleton, a California anesthesiologist and one of the signer of the letter said, “Ending the lockdowns are not about Wall Street or disregard for people’s lives; it’s about saving lives.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

We know a lot more about Covid 19 now. The US Center for Disease Control’s new ‘best estimate’ implies a COVID-19 Infection fatality rate below 0.3% with an estimated 35% of people with Covid 19 never having symptoms. 

States have rescinded orders that forced long term care facilities with our most vulnerable people to admit Covid 19 patients after hospital discharge resulting in lethal outbreaks.

But as more states are slowly opening, Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute writes:

“Will patients come back? COVID-phobia is deathly real.

Patients still are fearful about going to hospitals for heart attacks and even for broken bones and deep lacerations. Despite heroic efforts by physicians to deeply sanitize their offices, millions have cancelled appointments and are missing infusion therapies and even chemotherapy treatments. This deferred care is expected to lead to patients who are sicker when they do come in for care and more deaths from patients not receiving care for stroke, heart attacks, etc.”

While still observing social distancing, sanitizing and other common sense measures to protect ourselves and others, it is my opinion that the more than 600 doctors writing to President Trump are right when they urge ending the Covid 19 shutdown as soon as possible for all Americans’ physical and mental health.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covid 19 and Nursing Homes

Recently, two good friends of mine with physical limitations who had been waiting for over a year to enter a carefully chosen assisted living/long term healthcare facility changed their minds about going. They found out that the facility had at least one resident with Covid 19. They are now staying at home with help from their sons, friends and a paid caregiver.

And my 97 year old friend Melissa with heart and mobility problems is adamant about staying at home to be cared for, primarily by her wonderful family. Recently, she developed a disturbing symptom but instead of going to her doctor as usual, her doctor was able to come to her via a telehealth visit by computer. Melissa is happy at home and knows that other options like home hospice are available if necessary.

Are these three people overreacting about nursing homes?

In my opinion, the answer is probably no at this time.

Unfortunately, long-term health facilities for the elderly have become hotbeds for Covid 19 despite those residents being the most at risk during the pandemic. A number of  staff at those facilities have also caught Covid 19 and some have also died.

Even worse, as NBC News reported April 25, 2020:

“Three states hit hard by the pandemic — New York, New Jersey and California — have ordered nursing homes and other long-term care facilities to accept coronavirus patients discharged from hospitals.” (Emphasis added)

On May 6, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that New York nursing homes may have nearly 5,000 Covid-19 related deaths and the next day, the California Mercury News  reported that  “at least 41 percent of all known coronavirus deaths in California have occurred among residents and staff of nursing homes and assisted living facilities.” (Emphasis added)

And, unfortunately, these same people are usually dying alone due to restrictions for even family members in hospitals and nursing homes. Sadly, even funerals are changing with new restrictions for ceremonies and mourners.

According to an April 21, 2020 article “Nursing Homes Balk at COVID Patient Transfers From Hospitals” by the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP):

“The American Health Care Association says discharged hospital patients should return only to nursing homes with separate COVID-19 units. Ideally, those units are staffed with employees with access to personal protective equipment. The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which regulates nursing homes, endorsed the idea of separate COVID units this month.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

I was personally shocked to discover that  only  23 states publicly reported data for cases and deaths due to COVID-19 in long-term care facilities  as of April 23, 2020.

However, the Trump administration has recently announced upcoming new regulatory requirements that:

“will require nursing homes to inform residents, their families and representatives of COVID-19 cases in their facilities. In addition, as part of President Trump’s Opening Up America, CMS will now require nursing homes to report cases of COVID-19 directly to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” (Emphasis added)

When my mother with Alzheimer’s disease was dying from cancer in 1988, there was no pandemic and we cared for her at home as long as possible before placing her in a nursing home nearby for safety reasons. So I do know that nursing homes and other long-term care facilities can be wonderful and even necessary options.

But until this pandemic dissipates, we need all the essential information  necessary to protect and advocate for the most vulnerable among us.

Can a POLST be Hazardous to Your Life?

First, we had the “living wills” developed in the 1970s by the Euthanasia Society US (later renamed the Society for the Right to Die) to allow people to states their wishes for or-most importantly-against certain medical treatments in case they become unable to communicate their decisions. By 1991, The Patient Self-Determination Act was passed and every health care facility was required to ask every patient if they had such a document.

Today, we have many types of such documents including the newest one called the “Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment” (POLST)  that was developed in Oregon (the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide) in 1991.

A POLST is a short document that people can carry with them with checkoffs for CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and tube feedings. And if the person is still alive but unable to communicate, the POLST has checkoffs for whether the person wants “Comfort measures only”, “Limited Interventions” like antibiotics and IV fluids, or “Full treatment”.

Although efforts to pass a national POLST law have failed so far, many states have passed their own versions that lead to serious concerns.

Most recently, Illinois is now considering a POLST bill SB 3524 that amends and expands the previous Health Care Surrogate Act.

Among the changes in the Illinois bill are changing “qualified physician” to “qualified health care practitioner” which  “means an individual who has personally examined the patient and who is an Illinois licensed physician, advanced practice registered nurse, physician assistant, or licensed resident after completion of one year in a qualified graduate medical education program”. (Emphasis added)

The bill also removes the requirement of a witness to the signature of the person, legal guardian or health care surrogate on the POLST form. This is an important requirement to be reasonably certain that the POLST reflects the person’s wishes.

The bill  defines a person’s “qualifying conditions” for a POLST as “Terminal condition”, “Permanent unconsciousness”, or “Incurable or irreversible condition” (a definition that alarms many disability groups).

The bill also defines “Life-sustaining treatment” as “any medical treatment, procedure, or intervention that, in the judgment of the attending physician, when applied to a patient with a qualifying condition, would not be effective to remove the qualifying condition or would serve only to prolong the dying process“. (Emphasis added)

Also, the bill states that the health care provider acting on the POLST in “good faith” is not “subject to any criminal or civil liability, except for willful and wanton misconduct, and may not be found to have committed an act of unprofessional conduct.” (Emphasis added)

A February 16, 2020 editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association titled “Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment and Limiting Overtreatment at the End of Life” had this chilling observation about physicians’ attitudes and POLSTs:

Even with the best of counseling, some patients will refuse any limitations of treatment—36% of the patients in the study by Lee et al1 had POLSTs that indicated “full treatment,” presumably including admission to the ICU, mechanical ventilation, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, if necessary. While receipt of these therapies would be considered POLST-concordant care, clinicians sometimes object to providing care that they perceive will be unbeneficial or even harmful. These conflicts between clinicians and patients or their surrogates are a common problem in ICU care and are seen as a major contributor to distress and frustration among clinicians.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

A 2013 article “The Problem with POLST – Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment” succinctly describes the problems with POLST and what we should instead be striving for:

“POLST only makes sense in cases of patients with terminal illnesses, in end stage disease with no real options. By that point in time there are no therapeutic treatment decisions to be made. Yet, a patient who is under treatment who is living with a disease, there are alternative treatment decisions to be made. There are risks to weigh and an up to date informed consent required. It cannot be left up to a patient to research new literature and evidenced based medical standards.

POLST even precludes an assessment by a paramedic to make any decisions on overall survivability at the time of emergency care in the field. Surrogate decision makers are not consulted, advance health directives are not read or considered, and second opinions are not sought. Intelligent and experienced assessments are precluded by POLST. In cases of non-terminal patients POLST does not respect society’s moral mandate to respect life and instead treats life cavalierly by simply pinning a card on a person’s chest with life and death decisions of timely and clear origin.” (Emphasis added)

As a former hospice, oncology and ICU nurse, I wholeheartedly agree!

Is there a “New” Catholic Medical Ethics?

A few years ago, a middle-aged prolife nurse friend of mine had a sudden cardiac arrest after her mother died but was resuscitated. She was taken to the same Catholic hospital where I received my nursing education. She wound up sedated and on a ventilator to help her breathe, along with a feeding tube. Her 24 year old son wanted all efforts made to save her and several of us volunteered to help if and when she returned home.

Instead and after a week or  two, her son was urged to remove her ventilator but, even then, she kept breathing even with the sedation medication used to control her tremors. But the son was horrified to see that her feeding tube was removed at the same time as the ventilator and against his wishes. The staff insisted that he agreed to this and that it was documented in the computer. He insisted he never agreed to this and demanded that the feeding tube be reinserted but the staff said they could not without a doctor’s order.

The son stayed for hours waiting for a doctor but the staff said the doctor was busy. A nurse from hospice came in and pushed for hospice but the son said he wanted to take his mother home eventually so he and the volunteers could care for her. The hospice nurse then told him that his mother was dying and her organs were failing.

I happened to be there at the time and, as a critical care nurse myself, I told the hospice nurse that I saw that my friend’s vital signs were normal and her kidneys were obviously functioning. I also questioned the dangerous increase in her sedation medication after her ventilator was removed because it could suppress her breathing. I was ignored. With a heavy heart, I lhad to leave to work my night nursing shift at another hospital but I told the son to call me if the doctor did not come.

The next morning, the son called me to tell me that the hospital just called to tell him his mother was dead.

He had stayed for several hours after I left but finally went home to get some sleep, thinking his mother was stable. He was devastated to later learn that his mother had been transferred to hospice against his wishes after he left. My friend then died a few hours later. She never got her a feeding tube or her sedation lowered or stopped. And she tragically died alone.

I still have nightmares about this.

THE “NEW” CATHOLIC MEDICAL ETHICS

While medically futile treatment has long been accepted as medically useless or gravely burdensome to the person, we now see a new bioethics with “quality of life”, economics, societal and family burdens, etc. included in the determination of medical futility.

This January, I was horrified to find that the influential Catholic magazine Commonweal published an article titled “Giving Doctors a Say-Futility and End-of-Life Ethics”  that also injects “respect for physicians as moral agents” to defend the rationale behind the (often secret) futility policies in Catholic hospitals  by citing cases like the Charlie Gard and Simon Crozier cases where medical care was removed from two infants with life-threatening conditions against the parents’ wishes.  In Charlie Gard’s case, the medical care was withdrawn by court order and in Simon Crozier’s case the medical care was withheld without the parents knowledge. Both boys died.

Tragically, the outrageous Simon Crosier case occurred in the same Catholic hospital where I once worked and where my daughter with Down Syndrome and a critical heart defect was made a Do Not Resuscitate behind my back and against my expressed wishes.

As a nurse and a mother, I was shocked by the Commonweal article but not surprised.

I have been writing about the deterioration in medical ethics even in Catholic institutions for many years.

In the Commonweal article, Michael Redinger (co-chair of the Program in Medical Ethics, Humanities at Western Michigan University , and Law} defends medical futility and criticizes the Simon’s Law passed in the Missouri legislature last year to prohibit “any health care facility or health care professional from instituting a do-not-resuscitate or similar order without the written or oral consent of at least one parent or legal guardian of a non-emancipated minor patient or resident”.  (Emphasis added)

Instead, Professor Redinger writes that “These efforts, collectively referred to as ‘Simon’s Law’ legislation, are well-intentioned but misguided”.

His Commonweal article concludes that:

“Given the coordinated efforts of Right to Life groups across the country and their ties to the Catholic Church, it is necessary to begin a broader conversation about the incompatibility of such laws with church teaching. Such a conversation would help guide individual Catholics at the end of life, and support Catholic bishops in their oversight of Catholic hospitals. Even better, it would relieve the medical staff at Catholic hospitals from the immense moral distress that comes from violating our oath to do no harm.” (Emphasis added)

 

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?

After years of research and my own experiences with Catholic hospitals and staff, I have seen the tremendous influence of the Catholic Health Association which boasts that it’s health care ministry comprises more than 600 hospitals and 1,600 long-term care and other health facilities in all 50 states,  When I received my nursing education in a Catholic hospital in the late 1960s, rigorous ethics were an important part of our nursing education with “do no harm” to patients, report our mistakes, never lie, advocate for our patients regardless of age, socioeconomic status or condition, etc. incorporated as standard requirements. We happily took the Nightingale Pledge as our standard of excellence.

But now, as Catholic Health Association ethicists Fr. Patrick Norris and the late Fr. Kevin O’Rourke have stated in 2007 regarding futility :

“end-of-life decisions exemplify the principle of double effect, (wh)erein the withholding/withdrawing of life support is either morally good or neutral, the intention of the act being to remove either an ineffective or gravely burdensome treatment. The evil effect of the death is not a means to achieving the good effect (avoiding an inappropriate treatment), and, given appropriate circumstances, the good achieved is commensurate with the harm that occurs as a foreseen but unintended effect of a good action. The invocation of the principle of double effect in these cases properly distinguishes between physical causality and moral culpability.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

I have been called by many distraught relatives who have said they thought their loved one was “safe” in a Catholic hospital but saw problems. One case involved an older woman who had a stroke (cerebral vascular accident) and was in a coma and expected to imminently die but continued to live several days later with normal vital signs. The woman had a pro-life living will to reject life-sustaining treatment, including a feeding tube, if she had a “terminal event” and was imminently dying. The relative wanted to know if this was indeed a “terminal event”.

I asked if the woman was on a morphine infusion. She was and hadn’t seemed to be in pain. I explained that the sedation could account for her coma and suggested that they ask the doctor about trying to slow or stop the morphine to see.

The relative called back to say that the morphine was stopped and that the woman started to wake up and even seemed to recognize them. However, the Catholic chaplain told the woman’s sister who was her power of attorney for health care that her apparent response was only a reflex. The sister ordered the morphine turned back on.

The family was upset and considered legal action but decided that this would split the family so they gave up. Not surprisingly, the woman eventually died 2 weeks later.

After this case, I later wrote a blog “Living with ‘Living Wills’ about the little-known pitfalls of advance directives and how they could work against what a person wants.

The bottom line is that everyone must remain vigilant when they or a loved one becomes seriously ill, regardless of the hospital or institution. It is also important not to be afraid to ask questions.

There are also non-denominational, non-profit groups like Hospice Patients Alliance  and the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization (I am on the advisory board) that have much useful information and resources for patients, families and the public.

But without a change in policies and attitudes, those of us medical professionals who believe we should never cause or hasten death may become an endangered species as well as our medically vulnerable patients.

Can Getting a DNR Tattoo be Hazardous to Your Health?

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a lifesaving technique developed in the 1960s  for emergencies such as a heart attack or near drowning when a person’s breathing or heartbeat has stopped. Even non-medical people can be trained in basic CPR. However, not every person can be saved with CPR and some who do survive can have some brain damage.

In the early 1970s when I was a young ICU nurse, patients who appeared to be dying or their families could agree to a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order.

But the 1991 Patient Self-Determination Act, along with the so-called “right to die” cases like Nancy Cruzan and Karen Quinlan, resulted in  the widespread use of DNR orders in hospitals.

So now after years of concern with rising health care costs, older people worried about becoming a “burden” to their adult children, and the push for people to sign “living wills” to refuse certain treatments if they become incapacitated,  it should not be a surprise that a growing number of people-including young, healthy people-are getting DNR (do not resuscitate) tattoos.

But what does that mean when an unconscious person is rushed to an emergency room?

Recently, there was a serious discussion of an actual case and a poll on ethics and DNR tattoos in MedPage, a newsletter for health care professionals.

The case involved a patient who arrived in an emergency room and unconscious after suffering a heart attack while jet skiing on vacation. He had ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ tattoo on his chest. There was a signature under the tattoo. However, the ambulance crew called restarted his heart with a defibrillator. The man was stabilized but hours later he has another heart attack.

The poll question and results from the 1580 votes were:

“Do you comply with the DNR tattoo or not?

Yes: 43.04%

No: 56.96%”

I was appalled that 43% would treat a DNR tattoo as the equivalent of a legal document and I agree with the reasoning of the lawyer/doctor reviewing this case who wrote that “the legally correct course of action would be to temporarily ignore the tattoo unless and until evidence that the tattoo reflects the patient’s current thinking is brought forth.”

PROBLEMS WITH DNR ORDERS

Unfortunately in hospital situations, DNR orders are sometimes misinterpreted as not wanting to live  or “do not treat” when the person had assumed it would apply only in extreme circumstances.

For example, a new nurse was taking care of a young girl with mental retardation who was eating when she suddenly started choking. The new nurse ran to her head nurse in a panic and was told that, because the parents agreed to a DNR order, the nurses could only just hold her hand!

Obviously, relieving the choking by removing the food should have been done.

CONCLUSION

The results of not understanding  DNR orders can be tragic but too many people-including medical professionals-don’t realize the legal and ethical ramifications.

Personally, I chose to make a durable power of attorney for health care naming my husband as the decision maker if I could not speak for myself rather than a “living will” or other advance directive with various treatments to check off if I can’t speak for myself.

I want all the options, risks and benefits of treatments fully explained to my decision maker based on my current condition so that he make an informed decision. This would include the use of a DNR if or when I am dying.

What we all desperately need now is more awareness and common sense when it comes to asking for or allowing a “Do Not Resuscitate” order, especially a DNR tattoo.

 

Accidental Oversight or Deliberate Omission in new Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act?

With the enthusiastic support of Compassion and Choices (which promotes legalizing assisted suicide throughout the US), the first Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (PCHETA) was introduced in Congress in 2016  to allow millions of dollars in federal grants to, in the bill’s words, “increase the number of permanent faculty in palliative care at accredited allopathic and osteopathic medical schools, nursing schools, social work schools, and other programs, including physician assistant education programs, to promote education and research in palliative care and hospice, and to support the development of faculty careers in academic palliative medicine.”

While palliative care has been traditionally defined as “compassionate comfort care that provides relief from the symptoms and physical and mental stress of a serious or life-limiting illness” and hospice care as “compassionate comfort care (as opposed to curative care) for people facing a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less, based on their physician’s estimate”, the PCHETA bill may radically change such care.

I started writing  about the potential dangers with the PCHETA bill in Congress in 2018 when it was passed by the US House of Representatives and sent to a Senate Committee for approval. The PCHETA stalled there, thought to be at least partially due to concerns by some U.S. senators about the bill’s potential problems with hastening of death and legalized assisted suicide  despite a “clarification” in the bill that that “None of the funds made available under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to provide, promote, or provide training with regard to any item or service for which Federal funding is unavailable under section 3 of Public Law 105–12 (42 U.S.C. 14402)” such as assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing.

So after the bill stalled, a second “clarification” was added to the Senate bill (now S. 2080) in July, 2019 that states “Sec. 5(b) ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION.—As used in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), palliative care and hospice shall not be furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, a patient’s death, for any reason.” (Emphasis added)

This second clarification is critical because, as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops representative Greg Schleppenbach, has written:

“This provision is important because for the first time anywhere in federal law or regulations it explicitly states that palliative and hospice care cannot be furnished for the purpose of causing or assisting in causing death.  These protective provisions were added as a condition of our support for this bill.” (Emphasis added)

But on October 28, 2019, the House PCHETA (HR 647) bill that does NOT contain the second clarification was reintroduced and quickly passed by the US House of Representatives on a voice vote  and sent to the Senate for approval. That bill is now in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Senators can now be contacted by even email.)

OPPOSITION TO THE PCHETA BILL CONTINUES

Even with the second clarification, many groups continue to voice concern about the PCHETA bill because many of us nurses and doctors are seeing unethical practices such as assisted suicide, terminal sedation, voluntary stopping of eating, drinking (VSED) and even spoon feeding, etc. being used to cause or hasten death but often called palliative or “comfort care” for such patients.

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

Julie Grimstad of the Healthcare Advocacy and Leadership Organization (HALO) also voices concerns about funding new palliative care and hospice programs, citing the 2019 Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General report titled Vulnerabilities in Hospice” that documented serious problems.

She also cites Dr. Farr A. Curlin, a palliative medicine specialist at Duke University, who warns that:

“When the goal of HPM (Hospice and Palliative Medicine) shifts from helping patients who are dying to helping patients die, practices that render patients unconscious or hasten their death no longer seem to be last-resort options,” [emphasis added]

HALO is joined by other groups who officially oppose PCHETA S.2080 such as the National Association of Pro-life Nurses  and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition USA

CONCLUSION

Whether or not the omission of the second clarification in the bill sent to the Senate was intentional, the omission validates the genuine concern many of us have that the traditional end of life care ethic to neither hasten nor postpone dying is rapidly being replaced by “quality of life” judgments, economic concerns and patient “choice” to die.

Here is What Sara Buscher Wrote to a Senator about the PCHETA

I have written before about the Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act (PCHETA) that has now been reintroduced in 2019 but today, I have a guest column.

Sara Buscher recently wrote a well-researched letter to her congressman opposing the new PCHETA bill and has given me permission to use it here.

To find your state’s House of Representative member, go to https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

To find your US Senator. go to https://www.senate.gov/senators/index.htm and type your state into the search box near the end.

September 8, 2019

Via Email to sean_riley@ronjohnson.senate.gov

The Honorable Ron Johnson

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

September 8, 2019

RE:      Palliative Care and Hospice Education Training Act (PCHETA),

  1. 2080 (in Senate HELP Committee) and related bill H.R. 647

Dear Senator Johnson:

I am a retired attorney and C.P.A. who served on Governor Tommy Thompson’s task force on health care costs. I managed employee benefit programs for the State of Wisconsin and later at the University of Wisconsin. As a lawyer in private practice, I advocated for the elderly and disabled. I currently serve on the board of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition – USA.

I urge you to object to this bill being “hot-lined,” oppose it and vote against it. As one accountant to another, this bill is a rip off. In effect it will help create a second tier of health care where people receive poorer care, and are sometimes euthanized. The bill provides federal funding for palliative care medical education and a public awareness option for “selling” palliative care to patients and their families. Palliative care grew out of and includes hospice care. It provides an earlier pathway to hospice care.

Government Funding is Unneeded

Government funding is not needed. If enacted, the bill will cost the federal government $86 million over the next four years.[1] Palliative care has already spread rapidly.[2] Through 2006, the George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation spent more than $200 million to develop and expand palliative care.[3] With philanthropic[4] funding, palliative care has grown to the point that more than 80% of US patients who are hospitalized for serious illness have access to it.[5] Over 2017-19, $40 million is being spent to develop community programs for serious illness.[6]

We know that philanthropic funding did not stop when the bill failed to pass two years ago. During that time, palliative care has continued to expand. If enacted, this bill would replace philanthropic dollars with federal tax dollars. So, this bill would benefit those who want to reshape medicine for the rest of us according to their worldview.

 Elusive Cost Savings

If there are any savings, which is questionable as discussed below, providers would likely keep them. When the government pays a flat fee, like Medicare and Medicaid do for hospitalizations, the providers keep all the savings.[7] For example, if Medicare or Medicaid pays $20,000 per case and the hospital spends only $13,000, thereby saving $7,000, the government still pays $20,000 and provider keeps $7,000. The same is true of all the managed care programs and hospice. Industry proposals would have Medicare pay for palliative care like it does for hospice with a flat daily fee.[8]

I am concerned that palliative care, like its older sister hospice will not live up to its cost savings hype. Palliative care researchers are claiming they can save end of life costs that hospice and advance care planning also claim to be saving. It just isn’t possible to save the same costs (use of Intensive Care Units (ICUs), reducing hospitalizations, and reducing aggressive care at the end of life) more than once.

A study done for the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) found Medicare hospice benefits have not lowered Medicare costs in the last year of life.[9] According to the consultant, some researchers showed hospice saved money by picking time periods that compared apples to oranges.[10]

Enactment Could Erase Medicare Fraud Recoveries

The HHS Office of Inspector General says hospices are defrauding Medicare of hundreds of millions of dollars by enrolling people who are not terminal and then billing Medicare at the highest rates.[11] Hospices are already using palliative care as a “loss leader” to enroll more patients into hospice earlier.[12] Hospices make more money by enrolling people who are not eligible for hospice as they need less care.[13] As a result, for-profit hospices are the most profitable Medicare-financed health service. Id. They expect palliative care to become as profitable.[14] Competition will drive out small non-profit hospices.[15]

The PCHETA bill could erase Medicare fraud recoveries by extending palliative care including hospice to those with a “serious or life threatening illness,” the definition of which is to be decided after enactment with input from hospice and palliative care insiders (Bill Section 4 creating section 904(c)(3)). If defined in a way that allows end of life hospice-like care to be called palliative care, it would legitimize enrolling the people who are now being fraudulently enrolled in hospice. Medicare spent $9.5 billion on hospice benefits for patients who outlived their terminal prognosis in 2016.[16] Nearly half of hospices are unsure they could pass a government audit, saying their biggest concern is their enrollment of people who are not terminal. Id. So, this bill could benefit those who game the system.

A Government Stamp of Approval May Hoodwink People

Palliative care can start alongside normal medical care and then eventually shift to hospice care without access to normal medical care. The HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported that people were inadequately informed about the consequences of enrolling in hospice and some were placed in hospice completely without their knowledge.[17] In California, the Senior Medicare Patrol reported that elderly people living in their own homes were approached by nurses and sold housekeeping services that turned out to be Medicare hospice enrollment, leaving them without access to their medications and with unpaid medical bills.[18]

A government stamp of approval may lead more people to poor palliative care and in some cases, euthanasia. Last year, the HHS-Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported that hospice enrollees were receiving poor care.[19] More recently, HHS-OIG reported that 80% of hospices had deficiencies that posed risks to beneficiaries, with 20% jeopardizing patients’ health.[20]

Instances of patients being overdosed to unconsciousness until they die (this is called “palliative sedation” or “terminal sedation”) have increased according to Duke University professor Farr Curlin, M.D.:

Many patients and their families don’t trust HPM [Hospice and Palliative Medicine] and are resistant to it.… These individuals tell stories about loved ones who declined slowly over time, fighting the good fight with the support and companionship of their family members and friends. When HPM professionals became involved in their care, their loved ones were put on powerful drugs, became unconscious and unresponsive, and were soon dead. These stories are clearly shared within communities and powerfully shape people’s perceptions of HPM, which many see as a sophisticated and seductive way of getting people to die.[21]

I was involved in a case where a family member authorized pain relief for her sister and was assured the staff would keep her warm in a snugly blanket because she was always cold. Three hours later, she was dead after massive repetitive doses of powerful drugs.

To maximize profits, the director of Novus Health Services regularly directed nurses to make hospice patients “go bye-bye” with overdoses of drugs like morphine.[22] Novus is now facing a $60 million Medicare fraud indictment.[23]

Clinical practices in palliative medicine regularly result in shortening lives.[24] In one study, 39% of physicians and nurses said they intended to shorten survival with medications and treatment withdrawals.[25] A survey of over 800 hospice and palliative care physicians revealed 45% would sedate patients who were not actively dying to unconsciousness and then withhold food and fluids until they died.[26] One-fourth of them said it did not matter to them how long the patient had to live. Id.

I hope you will do everything you can to kill this bill.

Sincerely,

Sara Buscher

[1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54309

[2] https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/892289

[3] Palliative Care Grantmaking Snapshot Report 2009 (data up to 2006) at page 4, available at amydwrites.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Palliative_Care_Grantmaking_Snapshot_Report.13155115.pdf

[4] “Mr. Soros is now funding a project that focuses on the development of palliative care globally. We help govern­ments develop pain and palliative care initiatives and policies.” https://www.mskcc.org/experience/physicians-at-work/kathleen-foley-work

[5] See note 2.

[6] https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0653 grant from Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

[7] J. Brian Cassel, Whose Costs Are Saved When Palliative Care Saves Costs?, Health Affairs Blog Sept. 2014 at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20140929.041603/full/

[8] See proposals via links at https://www.nationalcoalitionhpc.org/aahpm-pacssi-payment-model-ptac-results-a-win-for-patients-and-families/

[9] Spending in the Last Year of Life and the Impact of Hospice on Medicare Outlays (Updated August 2015), MEDPAC http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/contractor-reports/spending-in-the-last-year-of-life-and-the-impact-of-hospice-on-medicare-outlays-updated-august-2015-.pdf?sfvrsn=0

[10] See note 9 at the Appendix.

[11] https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-16-00570.asp linking to the complete report.

[12] https://hospicenews.com/2019/05/14/study-71-of-u-s-adults-have-never-heard-of-palliative-care/ A loss leader is a service sold below cost to attract more customers who will then buy more profitable services. www.businessdictionary.com/definition/loss-leader.html

[13] For-profit hospices saw profit margins exceed 15 percent in 2012, according to a new report from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, known as MedPAC, which advises Congress on health policy. No other Medicare-financed health service was as profitable. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hospice-report_n_55b1307ee4b0a9b94853fc7a 

The 2016 profit margin was 16.8%. http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/data-book/jun19_databook_entirereport_sec.pdf?sfvrsn=0 at p 190.

[14] See note 12.

[15] hospicenews.com/2019/08/27/confessions-of-a-board-member-small-hospice-non-profits-will-not-survive/

[16] homehealthcarenews.com/2018/10/nearly-half-of-hospice-providers-uncertain-they-would-survive-an-audit/

[17] See note 19.

[18] https://cahealthadvocates.org/beneficiaries-pay-the-price-for-hospice-fraud/

[19] https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-16-00570.asp linking to the complete report.

[20] https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-17-00020.asp linking to the complete report.

[21] Farr A. Curlin, MD Hospice and Palliative Medicine’s Attempt at an Art of Dying, ch 4 in Dying in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Lydia Dugdale, MD, MIT Press 2015 at page 48.

[22] https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2016/03/30/novus-hospice-ceo-directed-nurses-to-overdose.html

[23] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/sixteen-individuals-charged-60-million-medicare-fraud-scheme

[24] Cohen L, et al., Accusations of Murder and Euthanasia in End of Life Care, J Pall Med 2005.8.1096 at 1102.

[25] See note 24 at 1099.

[26] Plots created by Sahr N, Ph.D from data reported on in Maiser S et al., A Survey of Hospice and Palliative Care Clinicians’ Experiences and Attitudes Regarding the Use of Palliative Sedation, J Pall Med 2017 Sep;20(9):915-92.

Strange Bedfellows: The Psychedelic Movement and Assisted Suicide

Kathryn Tucker is an influential lawyer and director of the pro-assisted suicide organization called the End of Life Liberty Project, described as “the leading advocacy organization using litigation as a tool to expand end-of-life liberty”. Back in January, 2017 I wrote about Ms. Tucker’s criticism of the so-called “safeguards” in assisted suicide laws as “burdens and restrictions”.

Now in a April 12, 2019 article for Chacruna Institute for Psychedelic Plant Medicines  titled “Can the Psychedelic Movement Learn from the Movement for End of Life Liberty?”, Ms. Tucker explains how the effort to legalize the psychedelic drug Psilocybin (better known as “magic mushrooms”) can learn from the techniques of the assisted suicide movement.

Currently, there is an effort in Oregon (the first state to legalize assisted suicide) for a “2020 ballot initiative to legalize psilocybin therapy and a Denver, Colorado (another assisted suicide state) initiative to decriminalize psilocybin use and possession by adults has just now narrowly passed.

WHAT IS PSILOCYBIN (“MAGIC MUSHROOMS”)?

According to the website drugs.com, so-called “magic mushrooms” contain chemical compounds obtained from certain types of dried or fresh mushrooms that are similar to LSD and “abused for their hallucinogenic and euphoric effects”.  Drugs.com also states that:

“The psychological reaction to psilocybin use include visual and auditory hallucinations and an inability to discern fantasy from reality. Panic reactions and psychosis also may occur, particularly if large doses of psilocybin are ingested.” (Emphasis added)

Because of special waivers from the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration), some small studies of cancer patients have shown benefits with small doses for anxiety and depression.

STRATEGIES

Ms. Tucker insists that the 1997 US Supreme Court case Vacco v Quill found a right  “of dying patients having access to as much pain medication as they need to get relief, even if it advances their time of death”.  (Emphasis added) However, Ms. Tucker neglects to mention that the Supreme Court ruled-unanimously-that there was no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide.

She maintains that:

“Law and medicine already allow dying Oregonians access to controlled substances to eradicate consciousness (palliative sedation) and to advance the time of death (AID) (Aid in Dying, aka physician-assisted suicide). Surely law and medicine ought to allow access to controlled substances to alter and elevate consciousness.” (Emphasis added)

Tellingly Ms. Tucker writes about psychedelics:

“An authorization for medicinal use, allowing sick patients access to this medicine, appears the easiest first step in changing the law. Other medicinal uses are also compelling, including treatment of PTSD and depression. Focusing on medicinal use avoids attacks from those opposed to recreational or social drug use. It opens the door to societal familiarity with, and appreciation of, the benefits of psychedelics; this can lead to future expansion of access outside the medical realm.” (Emphasis added)

Because psychedelic drugs are not legal under current law and would need changes in the federal Controlled Substances Act, Ms. Tucker writes that various state efforts are instead emerging to change their state laws-just as Oregon did with assisted suicide after the 1997 Supreme Court case.

Ms. Tucker writes that one lesson the assisted suicide movement learned was that changing state laws can take multiple efforts. She writes that failed efforts to pass assisted suicide by ballot initiative in California and Washington state led to a tailoring of the text of such initiatives to get it passed by voters.

CHOOSE A STATE THAT ALREADY HAS PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE LAW

Ms Tucker says that using a state that already has an assisted suicide law would be strategic and would emphasize “the need to ensure that eligible patients would be provided with good palliative care to ensure that no patient would choose to precipitate death due to inadequate palliative care.” (Emphasis added)

She suggest that states like Hawaii might be the best test state because it has a unique provision to allow terminally ill patients to access undefined “remedial agents” as well as assisted suicide.

CONCLUSION

We often speak of the “slippery slope” of dangerous proposals that ultimately expand far beyond their initial enactment into law. We must recognize that this “slope” is planned and incremental, as Ms. Tucker makes clear.

With euthanasia, it started in 1938 with multiple failed legalization attempts by the Euthanasia Society of America. The concept finally gained traction after lawyer Luis Kutner’s 1969 law journal article “Due Process of Euthanasia: The Living Will, a Proposal”. After the well-publicized 1976 Karen Quinlan case, “living wills” and the “right to die” then were successfully sold to the public as the right of people to refuse extraordinary medical treatment when they are imminently dying or in a so-called “vegetative state”. Soon afterwards came the idea of legally removing feeding tubes from people who were also seriously brain-injured but not dying. This eventually led to several states legalizing physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill expected to die within 6 months.

Now we are seeing, as in a (thankfully failed) recent bill in New Mexico,  further attempts to change the definition of terminal illness to expected death in the “forseeable future”,  non-physicians able to prescribe assisted suicide, inclusion of people with mental health disorders, approval by “telemedicine” and no state residency requirement.

As Ms Tucker makes clear in this article, the most important lesson for legalization of any formerly outrageous concept is to never give up.

But never giving up is also a strategy that we in the pro-life movement have already learned.