media

New York Times: A PUSH FOR MORE ORGAN TRANSPLANTS IS PUTTING DONORS AT RISK

nancyvalko advance directives, assisted suicide, brain death, brain injury, civil rights, euthanasia, law, media, medical ethics, organ donation

A bombshell article in the July 20, 2025, New York Times titled “A Push forA Push for More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk” states:

“People across the United States have endured rushed or premature attempts to remove their organs. Some were gasping, crying or showing other signs of life.” (Emphasis added).

and:

“Organ transplantation had another record year in 2024. That’s great news for all the recipient patients. But there is increasing scrutiny on the costs of the regulatory incentives pushing this success. An alarming number of donors were still alive as transplantation began. “ (Emphasis added)

The next day, the US HHS (Health and Human Services) published a report, “HHS Finds Systemic Disregard for Sanctity of Life in Organ Transplant System,” that reported:

“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the leadership of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., today announced a major initiative to begin reforming the organ transplant system following an investigation by its Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) that revealed disturbing practices by a major organ procurement organization.

Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,” Secretary Kennedy said. “The organ procurement organizations that coordinate access to transplants will be held accountable. The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor’s life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.” (Emphasis added)

HRSA directed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to reopen a disturbing case involving potentially preventable harm to a neurologically injured patient by the federally-funded organ procurement organization (OPO) serving Kentucky, southwest Ohio, and part of West Virginia. Under the Biden administration, the OPTN’s Membership and Professional Standards Committee closed the same case without action.

Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HRSA demanded a thorough, independent review of the OPO’s conduct and the treatment of vulnerable patients under its care. HRSA’s independent investigation revealed clear negligence after the previous OPTN Board of Directors claimed to find no major concerns in their internal review.

HRSA examined 351 cases where organ donation was authorized, but ultimately not completed. It found:

  • 103 cases (29.3%) showed concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation.
  • At least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time organ procurement was initiated—raising serious ethical and legal questions.
  • Evidence pointed to poor neurologic assessments, lack of coordination with medical teams, questionable consent practices, and misclassification of causes of death, particularly in overdose cases. (All emphasis added)

Vulnerabilities were highest in smaller and rural hospitals, indicating systemic gaps in oversight and accountability. In response to these findings, HRSA has mandated strict corrective actions for the OPO and system-level changes to safeguard potential organ donors nationally. The OPO must conduct a full root cause analysis of its failure to follow internal protocols—including noncompliance with the five-minute observation rule after the patient’s death—and develop clear, enforceable policies to define donor eligibility criteria. Additionally, it must adopt a formal procedure allowing any staff member to halt a donation process if patient safety concerns arise.

Secretary Kennedy will decertify the OPO if it fails to comply with these corrective action requirements [PDF].

HRSA also took action to make sure that patients across the country will be safer when donating organs by directing the OPTN to improve safeguards and monitoring at the national level. Under HRSA’s directive, data about any safety-related stoppages of organ donation called for by families, hospitals, or OPO staff must be reported to regulators and the OPTN must update policies to strengthen organ procurement safety and provide accurate, complete information about the donation process to families and hospitals.

These findings from HHS confirm what the Trump administration has long warned: entrenched bureaucracies, outdated systems, and reckless disregard for human life have failed to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is restoring integrity and transparency to organ procurement and transplant policy by putting patients’ lives first. These reforms are essential to restoring trust, ensuring informed consent, and protecting the rights and dignity of prospective donors and their families.

HHS recognizes House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie’s (KY-02) bipartisan work to improve the organ transplant system and looks forward to working with him and other issue-area champions in Congress to deliver reforms.” (All emphasis added)”

CONCLUSION

As I wrote in my October 18, 2022, blog “PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU AGREE TO BE AN ORGAN DONOR”:

“But are ethical lines being crossed in the zeal to obtain organs to transplant?

While most people presume that organs can be removed and transplanted only after “all efforts to save your life have been exhausted” and brain death has been determined, that presumption is no longer necessarily true. (Emphasis added)

Now, organ donation can occur with a person who is in a coma and considered close to death but who does not meet the criteria for brain death. In those cases, an organ donor card or relatives who have agreed to withdraw a ventilator (a machine that supports or maintains breathing) and have the person’s organs removed for transplant if or when the heartbeat stops. This was called DCD or donation after cardiac death until some doctors found that the stopped heart could be successfully restarted it in the patient receiving the transplant!

Now, that ethically questionable procedure is called donation after circulatory death (also DCD) since circulation stops when the heart stops.

If circulation does not stop within 60 minutes, the organs are deemed to be too damaged for transplant and the patient dies without donating organs.

IT GETS WORSE

A September 29, 2022, article in Medpage titled “No Brain Death? No Problem. New Organ Transplant Protocol Stirs Debate-Is it ethical to pull the plug in patients who aren’t brain dead, then restart their hearts?” reported on a new procedure to get more organs:

“With little attention or debate, transplant surgeons across the country are experimenting with a kind of partial resurrection: They’re allowing terminal patients to die, then restarting their hearts while clamping off blood flow to their brains. The procedure allows the surgeons to inspect and remove organs from warm bodies with heartbeats.” (Emphasis added)

The article also said that this new procedure is being criticized by doctors like Dr. Wes Ely and the American College of Physicians, who warned that the procedure raises “profound ethical questions regarding determination of death, respect for patients, and the ethical obligation to do what is best.”

and

“PRESUMED CONSENT AND LAW

Another problem is “presumed consent,” which is the assumption that everyone is willing to donate his/her organs unless there is evidence that they would not want to donate. Illinois narrowly avoided a “presumed consent” statute a few years ago in which people who didn’t want to donate had to file an opt-out document with the Secretary of State. (Emphasis added)

Some countries already have “presumed consent” laws, most recently in England, which states:

“it will be considered that you agree to become an organ donor when you die, if:

  • you are over 18;
  • you have not opted out;
  • you are not in an excluded group”

Even more horrifying, there have also been proposals to link organ donation and assisted suicide as “a potential solution to the organ scarcity problem”. Countries like Belgium and the Netherlands already allow this.

CONCLUSION

Organ donation can truly be “the gift of life”, and innovations such as adult stem cells. The donation of a kidney or part of a liver by a living person generally poses no ethical problems and holds much promise to increasingly meet the needs of people with failing organs. I have a grandson whose life was saved by a stem cell transplant, and another relative who has had 2 kidney transplants.

Personally, I have offered to be a living donor for friends, and my family knows that I am willing to donate tissues, such as bone, corneas, and skin, that can be used after natural death.

Everyone can make his or her own decision about organ donation, but we all must have the necessary information to make an informed decision. (Emphasis added)

SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES MAY DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

nancyvalko abortion, culture, education, law, media, medical, nursing, Planned Parenthood, pro-life

Supreme Court clears way for states to kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid – POLITICO

A stunning 6-3 Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2025 has now cleared the way for states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, concluding that federal law doesn’t allow health care providers or patients to sue if a state violates a provision of federal law guaranteeing the Medicaid patients can visit their preferred provider.

According to Politico:

“The decision rejected a challenge to South Carolina’s 2018 expulsion of Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. It will likely allow other conservative states to similarly expel reproductive and sexual health clinics — shrinking the already narrow network of providers available in the health insurance program for low-income Americans.”

and

“Defunding” Planned Parenthood is a goal of many conservatives, who object to its abortion services. Federal law has long banned federal money from being used for abortions. But Planned Parenthood clinics provide many other health care services that are typically eligible for payment under Medicaid.

Thursday’s ruling will make it easier for states to deprive Planned Parenthood — and other clinics that provide abortions — from receiving Medicaid payments for any of their non-abortion-related care.”

BACKGROUND

As I wrote in my December 14, 2018 blog, “Why is the US Supreme Court Ducking the Issue of States Defunding Planned Parenthood?”:

“Most of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding is from Medicaid reimbursements for preventive care, and some is from Title X. At least 60% of Planned Parenthood patients rely on public health programs like Medicaid and Title X for preventive and primary care.” (Emphasis added)

According to a Lozier Institute Report, in its latest report 2016-2017, Planned Parenthood received “$543.7 million in funds from all levels of government in that fiscal year…primarily from the Medicaid program”. (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Ironically, although the brief by Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast  to the Supreme Court insisted that their clinics “..provide essential medical care to thousands of low-income Louisiana residents through Medicaid” and “offer a range of services, including annual physical exams, screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer, contraception, pregnancy testing and counseling, and other preventative health services”, the reality is that there are many more places, such as federally qualified community health centers (which do not provide abortions) that provide more comprehensive health care services than those offered by Planned Parenthood.

On a personal note, several years ago my late daughter Marie secretly went to a Planned Parenthood clinic for a possible sexually transmitted disease. She finally admitted this to me when her symptoms grew worse. I immediately took her to my own gynecologist who had to perform surgery to remove part of her cervix to deal with the damage.

Planned Parenthood had missed the diagnosis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They describe the program they started in California:

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

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

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

The authors of this study conclude that there is:

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Gallup Poll: Most Americans Favor Legal Euthanasia

nancyvalko Alzheimer's, assisted suicide, end-of-life, euthanasia, faith, family, grief, law, media, medical ethics, pro-life, suicide

A shocking Gallup poll titled Most Americans Favor Legal Euthanasia published on August 2, 2024, stated that 71% of Americans polled “believe doctors should be ‘allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family request it’.”

and

“Sixty-six percent of Americans believe doctors should ‘be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide’” for terminal patients living in severe pain who request it.”

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

However, as Gallup reports,:

” Most U.S. subgroups are somewhat more inclined to support doctors ending patients’ lives through painless means than to agree with doctors assisting patients in dying by suicide. Among the exceptions are Democrats and women, who are about equally likely to say both euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide should be legal. Democrats (79%) are more likely than Republicans (61%) or independents (72%) to favor legal euthanasia.” (Emphasis added)

The Perceived Morality of Doctor-Assisted Suicide

Gallup says that:

“Americans’ feelings on the morality of doctor-assisted suicide are more mixed than their views on its legality, with a slim majority (53%) agreeing that the procedure is morally acceptable and 40% calling it morally wrong. More than half of Americans have considered doctor-assisted suicide as morally acceptable since 2014. In contrast, from 2001 to 2013, this sentiment was generally at or below 50%.” and that “Religiosity has the most significant impact on one’s perceptions of morality regarding this question.”

Not surprisingly, Gallup reports that “Americans in regions allowing doctor-assisted suicide are also among the most likely to say it is moral.” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

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

For decades, I have personally and professionally cared for many patients, friends, and relatives who were disabled or dying- either at home or in a health facility.

Pain can be controlled without killing the patient but, just as important, is helping both the patient’s and family’s emotional distress and fears.

I ask two questions: what do you want and what are you afraid of?

With patients, fear of a terrible death or being a burden on the family are usually the biggest fears. With families, fear of not being able to care for their loved ones adequately can be overwhelming. Luckily, there are many options and services available. Families and friends also need support and encouragement. Loneliness can be devasting and laughter can be therapeutic for everyone.

I have found that when patients and their relatives are allowed to talk honestly and get the support they need, relationships and old regrets can mended. A good death is possible.

I feel blessed as a nurse to witness the healing power of caring.

Share this:

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE?

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

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

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

As she writes:

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

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

NOW THE PRO-ASSISTED SUICIDE MOVEMENT IS EXPANDING

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

The article notes that:

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

The article continues:

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

The petition states:

“Dear Representative Jeffries and Representative Scalise,

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

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

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

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

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

The Legalization of Cannabis (Marijuana) and the Effects on Pregnant Women and Their Babies

nancyvalko culture, Drugs, law, media, medical, mental health

With 30 US states now fully legalizing marijuana/cannabis, others decriminalizing or only allowing it for medicinal use and only 4 states where it is illegal, the use of marijuana has risen exponentially.

And this is not the marijuana of the 1960s and 1970s.

According to a May 9, 2023 article in KFF Health News, legal marijuana is more potent than ever and still largely unregulated. Even worse, ” Marijuana-related medical emergencies have landed hundreds of thousands of people in the hospital and millions are dealing with psychological disorders linked to cannabis use, according to federal research.”

Now there is growing concern about the negative effects, especially on pregnant women, their babies and teenagers.

According to a May 26. 2023 article in Medscape titled “How Has Cannabis Legalization Affected Pregnant Mothers?”;

“”Severe morning sickness was a major risk factor for care in the emergency department or hospital for cannabis use,” said Myran. “Prior work has found that people who use cannabis during pregnancy often state that it was used to manage challenging symptoms of pregnancy such as morning sickness.”

“Most acute care events (72.2%) were emergency department visits. The most common reasons for acute care were harmful cannabis use (57.6%), followed by cannabis dependence or withdrawal (21.5%), and acute cannabis intoxication (12.8%).”

Compared with pregnancies without acute care, those with acute care related to cannabis had higher rates of adverse neonatal outcomes such as birth before 37 weeks’ gestational age (16.9% vs 7.2%), birth weight at or below the bottom fifth percentile after adjustment for gestational age (12.1% vs 4.4%), and neonatal intensive care unit admission in the first 28 days of life (31.5% vs 13%).”

And:

“There is no known safe level of cannabis consumption, and its use by pregnant women has been linked to later neurodevelopmental issues in their offspring. A 2022 US study suggested that cannabis exposure in the womb may leave children later in life at risk for autism, psychiatric disorders, and problematic substance abuse, particularly as they enter peak periods of vulnerability in late adolescence.”

and

“In the US, prenatal cannabis use is still included in definitions of child abuse or neglect and can lead to termination of parental rights, even in states with full legalization.”

Even worse, marijuana-as well as opioids, nicotine and other drugs-can lead to Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS). According to Stanford Medicine Children’s Health:

“Neonatal abstinence syndrome is what happens when babies are exposed to drugs in the womb before birth. Babies can then go through drug withdrawal after birth. The syndrome most often applies to opioid medicines” but also “Depressants such as barbiturates, or alcohol, or marijuana” (All emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

It is a symptom of an increasingly dysfunctional society when so many of us turn to drugs, alcohol, the internet, etc. to escape reality and/or amuse ourselves instead of coping with reality.

Marijuana and other drugs are too often portrayed as harmless and fun, especially after marijuana legalization.

Groups like teenagers and especially pregnant women and their babies are particularly vulnerable.

Everyone needs to know the facts.

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

RECENT HISTORY

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

We stated that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOW A NEW PCHETA BILL HAS NOW BEEN PROPOSED

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses: We Care About All Lives

nancyvalko abortion, Alzheimer's, AMA, ANA, assisted suicide, Cancer, culture, dementia, disability, drug addiction, education, end-of-life, grief, law, media, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

Recently, I was contacted by a college political science professor who is writing a paper about “pro-choice and pro-life viewpoints” and she wanted to know more about the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses.

I was delighted and we had a long conversation about what motivates pro-life people-and especially nurses.

I told her about our National Association of Pro-life Nurses and the why and how we do what we do. Our motto since the organization began in the 1970s is “Take my hand, not my life”.

The professor seemed surprised that the pro-life movement is founded on caring rather than the common misperception of politics and political power.

Instead, as I told her, the pro-life movement is about helping people in crisis situations from conception to death and educating people about upholding the excellent, life-giving ethics and laws that protect all lives from conception to natural death.

It is also not about being judgmental but rather about truly caring and offering help to desperate people in crisis situations and the people around them before-or even after- a person has chosen abortion or is considering medically assisted suicide. (see “Pro-Life and Other Resources for Help and Information to Protect Human Life”)

And this works!

Many people are surprised when they find out that even NBC News admits that:

“More than 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers operate in the country, outnumbering abortion clinics nearly 3 to 1 by some estimates. Critics, as well as supporters, have said the number of women seeking support at them has grown quickly in the 11 months since federal abortion rights were overturned, which resulted in the closing of abortion clinics in dozens of states. ” (Emphasis added)

And as pro-life nurses who care for everyone-not just in hospitals and crisis pregnancy centers, but also in prisons, at home in poor and sometimes dangerous areas, in homeless situations, etc., we are truly interested in helping instead of judging people.

Our message is “We Care” and I have yet to meet a pro-life nurse who isn’t also involved in some sort of volunteer work.

CONCLUSION

In my 50+ years as a nurse, I have worked in burn units, medical and surgical units, burn units, dialysis, intensive care, oncology (cancer), hospice and home health. I have also cared for relatives and friends with terminal illnesses, dementia, critical heart defects, cancer, disabilities, severe psychosis, suicide, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, etc. but never once was I tempted to end a life.

Just as doctors used to take the Hippocratic Oath that said ” I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor
will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”, new nurses used to take the Nightingale Pledge that said ” I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous, and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug.”

Unfortunately, today these oaths are little used or changed to allow for formerly illegal practices and this has harmed both professions and to the detriment of healthcare and public trust.

I have also been a newspaper reporter and writer for several publications but  in 2015, I started my blog “A Nurse’s Perspective on Life, Healthcare and Ethics” to report on the many healthcare ethics controversies and I often use my personal and professional stories to show resources and how to help people in difficult circumstances.

Most of all, I have seen the power of “I Care/We Care” to help people and their families at some of the most desperate times of their lives and I am proud to be a member of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses.

Please join us and/or follow NAPN on Facebook.

What Will It Take? Part Two -Does Abortion Really Help Women?

nancyvalko abortion, bereavement, culture, hospice, law, media, medical ethics, mental health, Planned Parenthood, prenatal testing, pro-life

In August 2019, I wrote a blog titled “Pro-abortion Desperation in Missouri” about the last Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Missouri losing its license because of numerous health and safety violations but continued to operate only because of several temporary injunctions by a judge.

The clinic finally closed only after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision returned abortion law to the states.

Unfortunately, the pro-abortion choice response to that decision has resulted in terrible turmoil and animosity.

Now the attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches with few arrests and prosecution of peaceful pro-life demonstrators are continuing unabated.

To try to portray abortion as a positive empowerment for women, Planned Parenthood has tried the “Share Your Story” and “Shout Your Abortion— Normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality” campaigns to increase abortion support and activism. (The National Association of Pro-life Nurses countered with “Shout out Your Adoption!“, pointing out that “Adoption is a wonderful act of love and one of the best alternatives to abortion.”)

Now Planned Parenthood has another strategy for increasing abortion support and activism originally published in MS Magazine on 4/12/2022 and titled “A Firsthand View of the Crisis Ahead for Abortion Rights—and What We Should Do About It”

The article states:

“Since it seems we can no longer rely on the courts to protect these rights, our only solution is to pass a new federal law that will protect abortion rights in all 50 states. The Senate’s recent failure to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act makes it clear that we will need a greater pro-choice majority than we have today to pass this new legislation.

This will not happen in one election cycle, and it will take a commitment of time, energy and resources beyond that which we have been expending to date. We have to get all the voters who support reproductive rights registered and encourage them to vote. We have to elect representatives at all levels of government who will protect our reproductive rights that are currently under attack. (Emphasis in original)

THE TRAUMA OF ABORTION

And as a nurse, I have seen the mental and/or physical trauma after abortion in both friends and patients.

For example, one friend felt she had to have an abortion because the doctor said her unborn baby had little or no brain, which may not have even been true according to the doctor I knew who read the ultrasound. That doctor was devastated to learn that an abortion was done.

Knowing that I was pro-life, my friend said she didn’t want to talk about the traumatic 28 hour induced abortion but, after 5 years, she called me and said she needed to know how the hospital disposed of the body. She also revealed that she secretly hung an ornament for that baby on the Christmas tree every year.

And I wrote a November 2016 blog “Why Talk About Abortion” about one of my elderly hospice patients who told me that she was afraid to die because of a secret abortion she had 60 years ago because she believed that abortion was an “unforgivable sin” and she would go to hell. She also felt her now swollen belly due to her terminal condition was God punishing her for the abortion.

My heart went out to this woman who was suffering so much, more emotionally than even physically.

We talked for a long time and in a later visit about God’s love and forgiveness. I told her about Project Rachel, a healing ministry for women (and even men) wounded by abortion. I gave her the phone number and offered to be with her to meet a counselor or priest, but she insisted that my talking with her was enough to help. I felt it wasn’t, but she seemed to achieve a level of peace and she even started smiling! 

Rose died comfortably and apparently in her sleep about a week later.

SOME RESOURCES TO HELP WOMEN WHO ARE CONSIDERING ABORTION OR OTHERS WHO ARE HURTING AFTER AN ABORTION

  1. Support After Abortion “aspires to shift the conversation to compassion and support for those impacted by abortion” (including men)
  2. Project Rachel for women and even including how to talk to a friend who has had an abortion
  3. Birthright An organization with many resources and help
  4.  American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists states it “Promotes Dignity for BOTH our Patients!”
  5. There are also organizations like Prenatal Partners for Life and Be Not Afraid that provide support, information, resources and encouragement for carrying to term with an adverse prenatal diagnosis.

6. CareNet helps find a crisis pregnancy center in your area

CONCLUSION

Serrin M. Foster of Feminists for Life in her 2018 National Review article “Women Deserve Better than Abortion: The Ultimate Exploitation of Women” perhaps said it best:

 “The reality is that there is no such thing as a safe abortion. Few unborn human beings escape a violent death, but what is underreported is the mortality of healthy pregnant women killed during or as a result of abortion.

When we know how much a woman grieves from reproductive loss through miscarriage or stillbirth, who would choose abortion? According to the Guttmacher Institute, those who have abortions come primarily from the poorest among us (75 percent), women of color (61 percent), women pursuing post-secondary degrees that would lift them out of poverty (66 percent), and mothers who already have dependents (59 percent). Half of all abortions are performed on a woman who has already had one or more abortions, proving that abortion solves nothing. Abortion isn’t empowering, and it’s not something to celebrate. Abortion is a symptom of, not a solution to, the problems faced overwhelmingly by women who don’t have what they need and deserve. Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better.”

And ALL of us deserve a better and more peaceful society!

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

nancyvalko Covid 19, culture, drug addiction, economics, end-of-life, media, medical ethics, suicide

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.