euthanasia

Tolerating Evil

nancyvalko abortion, assisted suicide, Canada, euthanasia, law, medical ethics

Years ago, one of my daughters was caught after she did something she knew was wrong. “But it looked so good!” she wailed. I told her that if evil looked like it really was, no one would choose it.

I thought of this incident when I read Kathleen Parker’s June 10, 2016 USA op-ed titled “Freedom to kill and permission for sick people to die”.

In the article, Ms. Parker reveals her struggle:

“Here, I should confess my own ambivalence. Basically, I’d like to have the means to end my own life on my own terms when my body has clearly called it quits. I’m just not sure I like the idea of the state and doctors lending a hand.”

Many people can find physician-assisted suicide alluring when they ponder their own potential demise. As a former hospice nurse myself, I recognized this in some of my patients even before assisted suicide was legalized. However, with care and treatment, we were able to help these patients live as well as possible before death. And I never saw a patient go on to die by suicide or assisted suicide.

It is a myth that a personal choice for assisted suicide will not affect others or have far-reaching consequences.

Ms. Parker’s conclusion recognizes this:

“As more than a dozen other states consider similar legislation, it isn’t irrational to wonder whether, in tampering with our medical culture of healing, we aren’t inviting unintended consequences that we’ll live — or die — to regret.”

The truth of her conclusion became starkly obvious when a few days after California’s new assisted suicide law took effect,  one doctor immediately opened up a dedicated assisted suicide clinic in San Francisco.

Dr. Lonnie Shavelson, 64 and a long-time supporter of assisted suicide, was an emergency room doctor for 29 year and then spend 7 years at an Oakland clinic for immigrants and refugees before taking a 2 year break.

His new assisted suicide business could be quite lucrative. Although Medicare will not pay for assisted suicide costs, Shavelson says he will charge $200 for an initial patient evaluation. If the patient is deemed qualified under California law, Shavelson said he would charge another $1800 for more visits, evaluations and legal forms..

Like the past so-called “back alley” abortionists, Shavelson defends his business by claiming that “..the demand (for assisted suicide) is so high, that the only compassionate thing to do would be to bring it above ground and regulate it.”

We cannot afford to be ambivalent or tolerant about evil, whether it is abortion, assisted suicide, terrorism, etc. Evil never limits itself because evil always seeks to expand unless it is stopped

We only have to look at Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and other countries where assisted suicide has already expanded to direct euthanasia and, in some of those countries, even without consent and for virtually any psychological, emotional or physical condition.

“Everybody’s a Winner When Euthanasia Combines with Organ Donation, Say Doctors”

nancyvalko assisted suicide, euthanasia, medical ethics, organ donation

This excellent article by Michael Cook  titled “Everybody’s a Winner When Euthanasia Combines with Organ Donation, Says Doctors” is a must read for anyone concerned about ethics and healthcare.

Michael Cook, the current editor of Mercatornet, writes that

Several Dutch and Belgian doctors have proposed legal reforms to increase the popularity of combining euthanasia and organ donation in the Netherlands and Belgium.

Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, they report valuable unpublished information about the prevalence of the procedure. So far, it has been performed only about 40 times in the two countries. However, there is “a persisting discrepancy between the number of organ donors and the number of patients on the waiting lists for transplantation” – which euthanasia patients could help to balance. (Emphasis added)

Ominously, the authors of this British Medical Journal article  titled “Legal and ethical aspects of organ donation after euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands”, write that public perception of this formerly abhorrent practice is increasingly positive:

“transplant coordinators in Belgium and the Netherlands notice a contemporary trend towards an increasing willingness and motivation to undergo euthanasia and to subsequently donate organs as well, supported by the increasing number of publications in popular media on this topic.”

and

“In the context of organ donation after euthanasia, the right of self-determination is a paramount ethical and legal aspect. It is the patient’s wish and right to die in a dignified way, and likewise his wish to donate his organs is expressed. Organ donation after euthanasia enables those who do not wish to remain alive to prolong the lives of those who do, and also—compared with ‘classical’ donation after circulatory death—allows many more people to fulfil their wish to donate organs after death.” (Emphasis added)

This slippery slope actually started in 1998 when Jack Kevorkian removed the kidneys of one of his victims and offered them for transplantation. Almost everyone was stunned and horrified. Transplant surgeons refused the organs at that time but the reasons given in some news articles unfortunately had less to do with the ethics than with the concerns over the viability of the organs and the  harvesting technique of the organs themselves.

By 2003, the prestigious journal Critical Care Medicine published an article titled “Role of brain death and the dead-donor rule in the ethics of organ transplantation” by Drs. Robert D. Troug and Walter M. Robinson that went even further:

“We propose that individuals who desire to donate their organs and who are either neurologically devastated or imminently dying should be allowed to donate their organs, without first being declared dead”.  (Emphasis added)

Thus, the actual cause of death would be the organ removal which, in itself, would be euthanasia.

We should not assume that legalized organ donation euthanasia can’t happen here in the US when the public has already been softened up for years by a mostly sympathetic media publicizing sad cases like Brittany Maynard’s and the relentless Compassion and Choices campaign to legalize physician-assisted suicide in every US state.

I can even envision a time when organ donation euthanasia could be presented to the public as merely “medically assisted death-with benefits.”

 

 

Canada’s Assisted Suicide Law to Cover Mental illness, Dementia and Minors

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Canada, disability, euthanasia, law

In a Canadian CBC News article titled “Mature minors, mentally ill should have right to doctor-assisted death, report advises”, a special committee of MPs (members of Parliament)  and senators issued a 70 page report “Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach”  stating that mature minors and mentally ill people should not be excluded from the right to “doctor-assisted death” (physician-assisted suicide).  It also states that Canadians should have the right to make an “advance request” for physician assisted suicide, termed “medical aid in dying”,  after being diagnosed with certain debilitating, but not necessarily terminal, conditions.

There is not even a requirement that the lethal overdose be oral or self-administered and the Canadian province of Quebec has already started lethal injections.

Ironically, capital punishment existed in various forms in Canada until 1998, when the federal government completely abolished the death penalty.

How can lethal injections be “cruel and inhumane” for convicted murderers but a civil right when it is chosen by an ill person?

And while physician-assisted suicide laws in the US routinely provide immunity for physicians, the Canadian recommendations also exempt nurses, pharmacists and other health care practitioners from key criminal code provisions.

Age of Consent

Although the Canadian Pediatric Society pushed to exclude minors regardless of competence, the report states that

“Given existing practices with respect to mature minors in health care and the obvious fact that minors can suffer as much as any adult, the committee feels that it is difficult to justify an outright ban on access to medical assistance in death for minors.”(Emphasis added)

Mental Illness

The report states that the right to assisted death should not be limited to physical conditions, and that Canadians with psychiatric conditions should not be excluded from “doctor assistance to end suffering” (physician-assisted suicide).

However

“As reported by Medscape Medical News, the inclusion of psychiatric suffering in assisted death laws in European countries such as Belgium has sparked significant debate, particularly with research showing that many individuals who have a history of suicide attempts later regret taking such action.

“Most people who consider or attempt suicide never die by suicide [and] the conviction that there is no alternative but to end their lives often passes with the resolution of an acute crisis,” medical ethicist Paul S. Applebaum, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

“By making the option of suicide easier, ie, a painless, certain death with medical assistance, the Dutch, Belgian, and similar laws may encourage many people, especially women, who would not have ended their lives to do so,” said Dr Applebaum, Dollard Professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and director of the Division of Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York City.” (Emphasis added)

“Advance Consent” for Assisted Suicide for People with Dementia

The advocacy group Dying With Dignity Canada applauded the report’s recommendations, especially the one to allow advance consent.

“Patients deserve real choice,” said CEO Shanaaz Gokool in a release.

“Without the option to consent in advance to assisted dying, Canadians with dementia who want to die in peace with the help of a physician face a dire choice: access assisted dying prematurely, while they are still competent; or risk losing competence before their wishes can be carried out, only to be condemned to the exact fate they sought to avoid.” (Emphasis added)

Actually, that result was already on the agenda when “living wills” were first proposed by Chicago lawyer Louis Kutner in his 1969 article “Due Process of Euthanasia: The Living Will, A Proposal” .

Some people say that Holland, Switzerland and Belgium are not like the US so that their virtually unregulated euthanasia policies should not affect us. But no one can deny the potential lethal impact on our own society from this terrible “right to be killed” propagated by our neighbor to the north.

CBS’s “60 Minutes” and the Selling of Physician-assisted Suicide

nancyvalko assisted suicide, education, end-of-life, euthanasia

In the March 13, 2016 TV “60 Minutes” segment titled “Aid in Dying” (retitled “Should the terminally ill control how they die?” in the online transcript, the vaunted investigative news show crossed the line from presenting facts to enthusiastic advocacy.

The stage was set when medical correspondent Dr. John LaPook, an internist and son-in-law of liberal activist Norman Lear, opened the segment by stating:

This is not euthanasia, when a doctor gives a patient a lethal injection. That’s illegal in all 50 states. Aid-in-dying, or what opponents call “assisted suicide” and supporters call “death with dignity,” relies on people taking the medication themselves. Oregon became the first state to legalize it 18 years ago, but because a nurse or doctor is rarely present, it’s remained mostly a private affair, practiced behind closed doors. We wanted to hear from patients and family members who’ve experienced it and are fighting to make it legal nationwide. (Emphasis added.)

If you go to the link for the transcript, you will also see “related videos” with segment extras not included on the TV show.

One titled “ethical concerns” is an interview with Dr. Katrina Hedberg, state epidemiologist of the Oregon Public Health Division, to discuss “ethical concerns raised by her state sanctioning aid-in-dying”. Not surprisingly, Dr. Hedberg strenuously denies that assisted suicide is a danger for the “disenfranchised” or for medical economic or family burden reasons. Instead, she says “the opposite has happened” despite cases like Barbara Wagner’s.

In the segment extra “How does the medicine work?”, the assisted suicide doctor explains that the medicine simply just “shuts off the brain” starting “at the top” where consciousness is and then goes to “the bottom” of the brain where heartbeat and breathing occur. Not a very accurate or scientific explanation but designed to reassure the public.

In the televised segment, there was only a very short interview with Dr. William Toffler, National Director of Physicians for Compassionate Care  but only identified by Dr. LaPook as a doctor “who’s taken care of terminally ill patients for 40 years” and whose wife died of cancer in comfort and without physician-assisted suicide. Dr. Toffler’s practical and ethical concerns were ignored or dismissed by Dr. LaPook.

The rest of the segment involved interviews with people fighting for physician-assisted suicide for themselves or a relative and an assisted suicide doctor. The usual lethal overdose drug and the method for using it for suicide were described in detail.

A major portion of the segment were interviews with Brittany Maynard’s husband and Dr. Eric Walsh, the Oregon physician who prescribed the overdose for the 29 year old woman with a gliobastoma brain tumor whose countdown to assisted suicide became a media sensation in October, 2014.  Brittany’s suicide was described by her husband as Brittany just going to sleep and slowly stopping to breathe.  Not surprisingly, it was after Brittany’s suicide that most mainstream media then changed the usual term “physician-assisted suicide” to softer terms like “aid in dying” or “physician-assisted death”.

Ironically, 60 Minutes aired a segment on March 29, 2015-just 5 months after Brittany Maynard took her lethal overdose-titled “Killing Cancer“  The segment followed patients in a year long clinical trial who had gliobastoma brain cancers like Brittany’s. Many of these patients saw their cancers disappear after being treated with a reengineered polio virus. This was touted as a great breakthrough by “60 Minutes” but went unmentioned in this segment.

Another interview was with a man in hospice who was being seen by Dr. Walsh but, as the segment stated:

Though usually extremely effective at keeping people comfortable, in rare instances, standard hospice care doesn’t work well enough. In those cases, Dr. Walsh says, one option is something called palliative sedation.

Dr. Eric Walsh: When the physician decides that suffering is intolerable, the physician prescribes a medication which puts the patient in a coma…The nurse administers it. It’s given until the person is asleep. The person sleeps for three days, five days. I’ve had someone live 10 days, still excreting, still breathing, with the family at the bedside wondering, “When is this going to end?”

When an assisted suicide doctor himself “decides that suffering is intolerable”, prescribes a intravenous continuous medication to be administered by a nurse to speed a patient’s death, how is that NOT euthanasia?

Sadly, the last interview with a woman dying of colon cancer illustrates the dangers of assisted suicide for so-called “altruistic” reasons that would also appeal to many non-terminally ill but debilitated or suicidal people:

Dr. Jon LaPook: And it sounds like from what you’re saying your decision to
perhaps take the medication will be a final act—
Elizabeth Wallner: Absolutely.
Dr. Jon LaPook: –of protecting your son.
Elizabeth Wallner: Absolutely. I just want him to remember me laughing and, you know, giving him a hard time, and telling him to brush his teeth, and knowing that I would– I would, you know, walk across the sun for him. (Emphasis added)

The public deserves a better and more comprehensive discussion about physician-assisted suicide. Such discussions have been occurring in state legislatures where physician-assisted suicide groups like Compassion and Choices relentlessly push for legalization and medical, disability, pro-life and other groups testify to the real facts and dangers.

There must be something to this opposition since so far this year 8 states have rejected physician-assisted suicide bills.

 

Arguing Life, Death and Assisted Suicide

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Canada, disability, euthanasia, law, medical ethics, mental health, palliative care

In the article “Sides discuss NY proposal for aid in dying”, the exchange between Diane Coleman, a founder of Not Dead Yet, the foremost disability organization fighting physician-assisted suicide, and  Dr Timothy Quill, who fought for the constitutionality of physician-assisted suicide in the landmark 1997 US Supreme Court Vacco v Quill decision, is very enlightening.

Diane Coleman of Not Dead Yet spoke simply and eloquently:

“I don’t think I speak for all (opponents), but the disability community’s core message is that if assisted suicide is legal, some people’s lives will be lost due to mistakes, coercion and abuse, and that’s an outcome that can never be undone.

There is inherent discrimination in assisted-suicide laws. Most suicidal people receive suicide prevention. Assisted suicide laws would carve out an exception to that, and that exception would apply to people who are elderly, ill, disabled, and those are devalued groups in society. … Assisted-suicide laws would say, ‘these certain people, we not only agree with their suicide but give them the means to carry it out.’ We’re saying it comes down to social justice. Equal rights means equal suicide prevention.”

And

“It’s really not about physical pain. If you look at Oregon reports, about reasons people want to commit suicide, the reasons are things like feeling like the person has lost their autonomy, they’ve lost their dignity, they can’t do the things they used to do. They feel like a burden on their families. Those are psychosocial reasons that relate to the disability that people have when they have an advanced stage or chronic condition.”

On the other hand, Dr. Quill portrayed assisted suicide as little more than a benign discussion:

“Whether or not this practice is legalized, seriously ill patients are asking us to talk about it, they’re asking us to consider it” said Quill, founding director of the palliative care program at URMC and a board-certified palliative care consultant. (Emphasis added)

But to the question “Why do people with a terminal illness want to end their lives?”, Dr. Quill telling states:

“Some of it has to do with severe symptoms. I would say that’s not the majority. The majority is people who are tired of dying. It’s going on way too long for them. The kind of debility and weakness that accompany it, particularly for people that are used to being in charge of their lives, is very, very, very hard. Some of those people want to talk about what options they have to accelerate the process.” (Emphasis added)

This is very different from the way physician-assisted suicide has been sold to the public as a necessary last resort for terminally ill people in “unbearable pain”. However, as a 2014 article  “Dignity, Death, and Dilemmas: A Study of Washington Hospices and Physician-Assisted Death” admits, pain is not even a requirement for receiving physician-assisted suicide  in Oregon and Washington state:

The authorizing legal statutes in both states make no reference to the experience of severe pain or intolerable suffering as an indication for a patient to make a request for physician-assisted death but rely entirely on the entitlement due a patient in respect of their personal dignity. A patient rights framework provides the primary moral structure… (Emphasis added)

Thus, physician-assisted suicide is really about power and control over death, not the  suffering of the individual. And it is this power and control that has led European countries like the Netherlands to expand physician-assisted suicide even to non-terminally ill people who cannot or have not made the death decision themselves such as babies with deformities and people with dementia, mental illness or other impairments.

Closer to the US, the Canadian Supreme Court  has legalized physician-assisted suicide but still  without formalized rules, even on conscience rights.  In the province of Quebec, legal injection euthanasia kits  can be distributed to any doctor who wants them.

The Assisted Suicide Agenda in the US

It is alarming that the influential American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine that had this same Dr. Timothy Quill in the article as a recent past president and honoree of their Visionary award. But it should not be surprising that the AAHPM has changed its former position of opposition to physician-assisted suicide to a position of “studied neutrality” towards what it now calls “physician-assisted death”.  Neutrality is progress to physician-assisted suicide activists like Dr. Quill and organizations like Compassion and Choices that need to neutralize medical opposition as much as possible while quietly setting up relentless campaigns to legalize assisted suicide in every state. If enough states give in, a new Supreme Court decision may even overturn the Vacco v Quill decision and legalize physician-assisted suicide throughout the US.

But in the meantime, trying to sell “neutrality” to doctors and convincing the media to change the term “physician-assisted suicide” to  “physician-assisted death” cannot mask the inevitable and lethal damage done not only to individuals but also to our medical and legal institutions that can no longer ensure ethical protection for our lives.

“Good” News about Dying in America?

nancyvalko assisted suicide, conscience rights, euthanasia, medical ethics

This month Medscape, a subscription news service for medical professionals, published the article “Good News about Dying in America” by Dr. George Lundberg. Dr. Lundberg is the former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)  and editor-at-large of Medscape itself as well as a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

But the title “Good News about Dying in America” is ironic because this article is really a homage to the pro-death movement. In the article, Dr. Lundberg approvingly chronicles a recent history of the “right to die” movement in the US including the rise of legalized physician-assisted suicide and his part in it.

Although he writes that he is not looking forward to his own death, he maintains that

To accomplish medical and cultural change, one needs to work at the levels of moral beliefs and ethical standards with professional and individual leadership.Subsequent changes in state and federal laws and regulations may be needed. Economic drivers can move it along. But first, you have to get their attention.” (Emphasis added)

Dr. Lundberg congratulates himself for getting this attention started by publishing the anonymous 1988 JAMA article “It’s Over Debbie”  which Lundberg claims is a “factual tale of a caring physician using intravenous morphine to end the horrid pain-wracked life of a young woman with terminal ovarian cancer.”

However, when you read this short article, you read about a doctor in training who, under the cloak of anonymity, writes about being on call at a hospital and awakened in the middle of the night to see a patient he had never met before. He describes “a 20-year-old girl named Debbie was dying of ovarian cancer. She was having unrelenting vomiting apparently as the result of an alcohol drip administered for sedation.” He writes that her condition was“a cruel mockery of her youth and unfulfilled potential” but that Debbie’s only words to him were “Let’s get this over with”. An older, dark-haired woman staying with Debbie was assumed by the young doctor to be her mother.

Then, in the anonymous doctor’s own words, he writes :

The patient was tired and needed rest. I could not give her health, but I could give her rest. I asked the nurse to draw 20 mg of morphine sulfate into a syringe. Enough, I thought, to do the job. I took the syringe into the room and told the two women I was going to give Debbie something that would let her rest and to say good-bye. (Emphasis added)

After giving Debbie the the lethal overdose, the doctor writes:

I waited for the inevitable next effect of depressing the respiratory drive. With clocklike certainty, within four minutes the breathing rate slowed even more, then became irregular, then ceased. The dark-haired woman stood erect and seemed relieved.

Quite a different story from what Dr. Lundberg  proudly portrays as a caring act. Is the deliberate killing of a newly met patient without request, explanation or actual consent by a doctor in training really part of Dr. Lundberg’s  vision of “(t)he cultural change we need now is to allow death to occur when its time has come and to do so with dignity and without undue pain and suffering for the patient to the greatest extent possible?”

Dr. Lundberg writes further on other “breakthrough” moments in medicalized killing after the “It’s Over Debbie” article:

Next was Dr Timothy Quill and his disclosure in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1991 that he prescribed barbiturates at the request of a leukemia patient to allow her to end her life. Then, beginning in 1990, Dr Jack Kevorkian and his suicide machine assisted in the deaths of more than 100 patients; the right message writ large but by a deeply flawed messenger. (emphasis added)

As a medical professional myself, it is horrifying that such influential medical people not only have embraced the concept that it is acceptable and even compassionate to medically kill people, but now promote it.

And there is a jarring apparent lack of empathy and understanding of the challenges serious illness poses to patients and their families at the end of Dr. Lundberg’s article:

hospitals interested in their patient safety statistics might do well to note that much of what is chalked up as deaths related to medical error is actually occurring with the frail elderly, often in critical care units (CCUs). Many of these patients probably should not be in the CCU anyway. Maybe not even in hospitals. …. Help your safety statistics; let the dying die at home. (Emphasis added)

While Dr. Lundberg’s article is appalling to those of us who refuse to kill our patients or help them kill themselves, it is important for all of us to understand that many of our alleged “experts” are leading us into a cultural as well as medical and legal war over human extermination.

Some Canadian Veterinarians Offer to Teach Doctors about Euthanasia

nancyvalko assisted suicide, euthanasia, medical ethics

In February 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court unanimously voted to legalize physician-assisted suicide.  In September 2015, it was revealed that Canada’s Quebec province was preparing euthanasia kits with lethal injections for distribution to doctors for assisted suicide.

In December, Canada’s National Post published an article titled “‘We can definitely help’: What vets can teach doctors about assisted dying“ that reports:

Before every euthanasia, Dr. Amy Wilson prays things will go smoothly — that her patient will sedate well, that she’ll hit the vein with the catheter on the first try, that there will be no sudden, involuntary spasms or grunts for breath that can be agonizing for owners.
Wilson, like all veterinarians, is trained to put suffering animals to death as humanely as possible. She does it more often than she wishes she had to, but she does it well. Now, as Canada continues to debate the way forward on assisted dying, she and other vets say there is much they can teach doctors about a different kind of animal — humans

One argument long promulgated by assisted suicide/euthanasia proponents is that we should put people out of their misery just as we do for our pets.

However, pets become at risk for many reasons:

According to the American Humane Association, the most common reasons why people relinquish or give away their dogs is because their place of residence does not allow pets (29%), not enough time, divorce/death and behavior issues (10% each). The most common reasons for cats are that they were not allowed in the residence (21%) and allergies (11%).

Many are then taken to animal shelters. About twice as many animals enter shelters as strays compared to the number that are relinquished by their owners but nevertheless about 1/3 each year, approximately 2.7 million animals, are euthanized.

According to the website Petful, pets in animal shelters in the United States are euthanized every year for three major reasons: illness, aggression and overpopulation.

Regarding illness, the website states:

Because most shelters operate on tight budgets, the cost of treating every animal’s illness is impossibly high.Many shelters have veterinarians to prescribe medications and perform exams for sick animals, but the decision to euthanize must still be made sometimes after considering several factors:
•The severity of the illness
•The chance of recovery
•How infectious the disease is
•The cost of treatment
•The length of treatment
•The adoptability of the pet

Do we really want to adopt a veterinary standard that makes it acceptable to euthanize people as well as pets when illnesses are too expensive or  personalities are too difficult or simply when there are too many of them around?

Effects of Euthanasia on Veterinarians

Although the National Post article is generally supportive of veterinarians teaching doctors to perform euthanasia, it does document the emotional distress that can affect even veterinarians who perform euthanasia:

Studies suggest people whose jobs require them to kill animals are at risk of a phenomenon known as PITS – perpetration-induced traumatic stress. Euthanasia was one of the reasons Rothenburger (a veterinarian) chose to leave practice; she now specializes in pathology. When she used to perform euthanasia, “I put this filter on: This was ending suffering. That was the role I had to play. But it often wasn’t easy, and it’s hard to keep your professional persona on when you’re trying not to shake while you’re injecting the medication, or not cry with the owners until you’ve done your job.”

Studies have documented a higher suicide risk among vets than the general population. A 2010 survey by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association found 19 per cent of those who responded had seriously thought about suicide, half reported experiencing burnout and 27 per cent were taking anti-depressants. Rothenburger belongs to a closed Facebook page called Not One More Vet. “It’s a safe place for vets to talk about things they need to get off their chest,” she says, “like compassion fatigue, and maybe that tough euthanasia.” (Emphasis added)

Many years ago, my adult children and I had to have our beloved cat Callie euthanized because of an inoperable cancer. We decided to stay with Callie throughout the procedure because we wanted to surround her with love until the end. However, the procedure had some unexpected difficulties and we all found the process stressful and incredibly sad.

When we left, I told my children that if anyone ever tried to euthanize me for any reason, they had better stop them.

People are not animals and they must not be treated like animals.

“What Kind of Mother is 8 Months Pregnant and Wants an Abortion?”

nancyvalko abortion, disability, euthanasia, family, grief, medical ethics, prenatal testing

Just after Christmas, the popular fast news website Yahoo News published the article “What Kind of Mother Is 8 Months Pregnant and Wants an Abortion?”  “as an example of one of our best of 2015.” (emphasis added)

In this story, an anonymous woman called “Kate”, a married mother of one daughter, found out at almost 8 months that her unborn second daughter had Dandy-Walker Syndrome, a genetic disorder that can result in mental and physical disabilities. A subsequent test was said to show severe brain abnormalities.

Kate, now an administrator of the website “Ending a Wanted Pregnancy” which includes a Poor Prenatal Diagnosis Index, decided to have an abortion-for her unborn daughter’s sake. Adoption and keeping the baby were mentioned as options but were rejected by Kate without explanation.

As Kate relates her story:

The doctor said, “We expect your baby to have moderate to severe mental retardation; she’s going to have moderate to severe physical disability; she is probably never going to walk or talk; she will possibly never be able to lift her head; she is going to have seizures all of the time… (and) Babies like this one are not generally comfortable enough to sleep.”

In that moment, I had to shift my thinking. I was hoping for special ed, and had been focusing on questions like: How much should you save to know your special-needs daughter will be OK after you die? I was thinking about long-term care and mild to moderate disability. Instead, I had to think about a baby who was probably not going to live very long, and the longer she lived, the more pain she would be in. That realization – that I was more scared of her living than of her dying — is what made the choice for me.

Kate then tells how difficult and expensive ($25,000) it was to find an abortionist to perform such a late abortion. Kate’s doctor eventually found one in Colorado, far from Kate’s home in Boston and Kate endured a four day abortion procedure.

Kate relates the procedure:

The whole first day was counseling and testing to make sure it was safe to do the procedure. They want to make sure you completely understand what is going to happen and that no one is pressuring you into the decision. At the end of the day, I signed all the paperwork, and the doctor injected the baby with a drug that, over a few hours, slowed her heart to still. It was a very, very difficult day. Euthanizing the baby is, obviously, a very hard thing to do. (emphasis added)

On the fourth day, labor was induced and Kate delivered her dead daughter.

Kate’s 2 year old daughter cried when Kate told her that her expected sister was “gone”. Three years after the abortion, Kate says

Now, every six months or so, we talk about it again — her understanding of it evolves as she grows. At this point, she knows the baby died because she was sick in a way the doctors couldn’t fix, because she had holes in her brain, and you need your whole brain to be healthy.

Kate’s story was obviously meant to generate sympathy for a distraught mother and thus show why abortion should continue to be legal. However, the shocking description of the third trimester abortion and the continued effect on the mother and sister undermine the narrative that abortion is the best option in such a difficult situation.

ANOTHER SIDE TO THE LATE-TERM ABORTION DECISION

Personally, I know what it is like to be told that your baby has severe problems and might die. I was told just a short time after my daughter Karen was born that she had an inoperable heart defect and would live just “2 weeks to 2 months.” I know the panic and fear that mothers like Kate must feel but in my case, as in many others, the doctor turned out to be  wrong about her terminal diagnosis.

Although my Karen later died of complications from pneumonia before her open heart surgery, I treasure the almost 6 months we had together and I have no regrets.

Today, I also have a wonderful stepdaughter who has Turner’s Syndrome, one of the conditions listed in the Poor Prenatal Diagnosis Index on the  “Ending a Wanted Pregnancy” website, and she is now a kind, generous woman who has no mental or physical disabilities.

In both these cases, abortion would have “solved” nothing.

Unfortunately, stories like Kate’s are desperately discouraging to women and families facing a difficult prenatal diagnosis. Tragically, the article also ignores the help and resources available to help such children and their families.

For example, the article does not mention groups like local Birthright centers and the website Prenatal Partners for Life which is “dedicated to providing families, either expecting, or those who have had, a child with special needs or a life limiting condition, the support, information, and encouragement they need to make informed decisions involving their preborn or newborn child’s care.” There are also support and information websites for specific conditions like the Dandy-Walker Alliance , the condition that Kate’s baby had.

And anyone who reads pro-life news sites such as Life News  and NRL News Today  has read many inspiring stories of hope and even unexpected happiness when a woman chooses life for her baby despite a difficult or even terminal diagnosis.

These and other other websites also contain information about Project Rachel, an organization that helps women, men and even families to heal after abortion.

CONCLUSION

I am not writing this blog to condemn Kate or other women who have had abortions. My heart goes out to them and I wish I could have had a chance to personally offer help, options, encouragement and information. I consider these women as additional victims of the abortion mentality that has so infected our society.

However, I do have a problem with abortion supporters who use such tragic stories to garner sympathy and support for their political agenda of legal abortion at any time for any reason and paid for by taxpayers as “reproductive health”.

Women and their babies deserve better.

LIVING WITH “LIVING WILLS”

nancyvalko advance directives, disability, end-of-life, euthanasia, food and water, futility

In the early 1970s when I was a young ICU nurse, none of us medical professionals had even heard of a “living will”. There was a universal presumption for life and “quality of life” was something to be improved, not judged.

Nevertheless, sick people could and did refuse treatment and even check themselves out of the hospital against medical advice. When patients appeared to be dying, they or their families could agree to a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order. Overly aggressive or useless treatments could be discouraged when such measures were considered medically futile or excessively burdensome for the patient. But one thing we didn’t do was offer to withhold or withdraw medical care like tube feedings to cause or hasten a patient’s death.

Unknown to us, all this began to change after Louis Kutner, a Chicago lawyer, wrote an article in the Indiana Law Journal titled Due Process of Euthanasia: The Living Will, A Proposal” in 1969. (emphasis added). By 1970, The Euthanasia Society of America (later renamed the Society for the Right to Die) distributed 60,000 living wills. In 1976, California passed the nation’s first “living will” law. Now, there are proposals to eventually include even physician-assisted suicide in “living wills”.

I use the common term “living will” to represent the wide variety of end of life documents that have evolved since the original “living will”, including the newest but problematic one called POLST (physician orders for life-sustaining treatment).

I wrote a 2001 article “Of Living Wills and Butterfly Ballots”   because I was concerned that many people were signing such documents with little knowledge of the history and problems with such documents that I witnessed as a nurse and ethics committee member. However, with the crucial help of a sympathetic media, court cases involving seriously brain-injured people like Terri Schiavo and government mandates such as the 1990 Patient Self-Determination Act have resulted in the heavy promotion of “living wills” as simple, worry-free documents. Now the federal government is set to begin paying healthcare providers for talking to all Medicare beneficiaries about such documents.

CAN “LIVING WILLS” BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH?

Recently, I talked to lawyers who expressed confusion and concern over the “living wills” they were asked to draw up. In addition, Medscape, a subscription website for medical professionals, and the American Medical News have published recent articles such as “Advance Directives May Be Hazardous to Your Health”  and “Clearing Up Confusion on Advance Directives”. The last article even warns

“misinterpretations of end-of-life documents too often result in lost lives or unwanted care” such as when “physicians incorrectly assume that DNR means not to treat a patient who is critically ill”.

When even doctors and lawyers are confused, there is a big problem. In the real world of medicine, I even heard some doctors say that if in doubt, it might be legally safer not to treat than to treat someone with a “living will” in an emergency because of lawsuits where a patient with a “living will” survived or had serious impairments.

SHOULD I EVEN HAVE A “LIVING WILL”?

When “living wills” first came out, I felt I was safer not to have one to make sure I received treatment. Later, I changed my mind. I felt it was safer to designate someone I trusted with the legal authority to make decisions if I was unable to speak for myself rather than just leave it to my family members, some of whom vigorously disagreed with my stance for feeding brain-injured people like Terri Schiavo.

I never tell people that they must or must not have a “living will” but everyone should be fully informed. I do encourage people to check out information sites like the Pro-Life Healthcare Alliance’s “Informed-A Guide to Critical Medical Decisions”  which has sections explaining ventilators, CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation), feeding tubes, misuse of opioids and sedatives as well as end of life considerations.

There are also several informative and protective “living will” documents from organizations like the Patients Rights Council and the American Life League. The National Right to Life Committee even has such documents online and specific to state laws.

SOME POINTS TO CONSIDER BEFORE SIGNING A “LIVING WILL” STYLE DOCUMENT

Here are some of my personal recommendations as a nurse before signing a standard “living will” or even a protective one.

1. Make sure the document is as short as possible, simple to understand and that the presumption for life is expressly stated so that if doctors are in doubt about your wishes, they should treat you.

What most people do not know is that “living will” style documents often go unread by doctors and nurses until a critical situation develops and time is of the essence. Even worse, some doctors and nurses still assume or misinterpret “living wills” as meaning the patient does not want treatment, especially if the patient is older or disabled.

2. Avoid vague terms like “significant recovery” and “terminal event” that have no objective medical standard and can easily be misinterpreted.

I’ve seen patients who have just had a stroke or head injury incorrectly judged “terminal” or “incurable” by doctors. Such patients often get better with time and treatment. And, of course, any treatment that is medically futile or excessively burdensome to the patient can be ethically withdrawn later. I add the emphasis because now futility and burden are too often assumed to mean an inadequate “quality of life” or economic burden to the family or society.

3. Designate one person you trust to make your medical decisions with a backup person or persons.

Sometimes when only one person is the designated decision maker, he or she may be unavailable or incapacitated so a backup is important especially in a critical situation.

4. Consider not checking off particular treatments or conditions to be automatically refused.

Personally, I wanted a positive “living will” that only designates my decision maker and his/her right to make decisions about my care rather than signing a “living will” to refuse future treatment or set possible future conditions where I would want treatment stopped or withheld. Instead, I want all current options, risks and benefits of treatment fully explained to my decision maker based on my current condition.

5. Many “living wills” contain a section on pain with such sentences such as “I want my doctor to give me enough pain medicine to relieve my pain”. You might consider adding a phrase like “without hastening my death.”

I have seen unnecessarily high doses of pain medicine deliberately given to make a patient unconscious while food and water were stopped. Often, this was called “comfort care” instead of terminal/palliative sedation  but the result was hastening or causing death by dehydration and/or suppression of breathing.

Everyone wants and deserves adequate pain control at the end of life. Carefully increasing doses of pain medication and other measures work in virtually any situation and family members should advocate this for their loved ones.

CONCLUSION

There may be no perfect “living will” but as a former hospice nurse and family caregiver myself, I believe that dying people have a right to a good death with as few medical interventions as possible for comfort without deliberately hastening or causing death. The time before death may be short or long but I believe that people have the right to die at their own natural pace.

Death is not something to get over with as soon as possible. As some people with terminal illness have told me, they hated being treated as if they were already dead when they were still alive. They wanted to hear jokes, be with family and friends, go to church, etc. And since hearing is thought to be the last sense to go, I interacted with my dying patients in comas just as I did with my conscious patients.

The process of coming to terms with  death can be difficult at times but it also can be a meaningful time to review a life with all its joys and sorrows as well as a time for family and friends to show love, support and even healing.

Germany Legalizes Assisted Suicide-As Long As It Is “Free”

nancyvalko assisted suicide, euthanasia, medical ethics, nursing

While the UK Parliament overwhelmingly defeated a physician-assisted suicide bill in September 2015, less than two months later the German parliament has passed a law legalizing some assisted suicides. As Reuters News reported:

“The bill, which was upheld with 360 out of 602 votes, criminalizes organizations that assist patients in terminating their own lives for profit. It is meant to prevent the commercialization of the procedure as a “suicide business.”

However, single instances of suicide assistance – by a doctor or relative – do not contradict the new law. A husband who helps his terminally ill wife to die would not be prosecuted.

“Commercial” assisted suicide would be punished by up to three years imprisonment, even if doctors allegedly perform the procedure to relieve suffering.

Why Germany?

The law is a surprise to many, especially since Germany has long been sensitive to the issue of euthanasia following its’ history in World War II when the Nazis used the practice to kill over 200,000 people with mental and physical disabilities as well as millions of Holocaust victims.

Actually, the 1945 Hadamar Trial involving euthanasia by healthcare professionals at the Hadamar psychiatric clinic was the first mass atrocity trial in the US zone of Germany following World War II. As a nurse, I was particularly horrified when I first read about the famous study of the willing participation of nurses titled “Killing while caring: the nurses of Hadamar”

What can we expect?

Former Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries said the new German assisted suicide law “will open an era of great legal uncertainty” and will certainly be appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court.

But If efforts to stop the German law fail, the law will doubtless be expanded in the future as other countries in Europe have done.

Although ignored or dismissed in the US, the expansion and problems of euthanasia/assisted suicide in European countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland show the danger of first accepting a supposedly “limited” assisted suicide law.

For example, the Netherlands now uses lethal injections to dispatch infants with disabilities and adults of any age even without physical illness or consent. Belgium has done planned organ donation after euthanasia by lethal injection with the Ethics Committee of Eurotransplant even formulating recommendations for organ donation after euthanasia.  And Switzerland has a booming business with assisted suicide organizations like Exit and Dignitas even though a study showed that 16% of assisted suicide deaths in Switzerland are of people who have no underlying illness.

Conclusion

As the late Richard John Neuhaus wisely said ” I believe in the slippery slope the same way I believe in the Hudson River. It’s there.”

But until we are ready to recognize the potent logic about the disastrous and unintended consequences when we legalize “just a little bit” of legalized medical killing, we may find that the slippery slope has no bottom.