medical ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They describe the program they started in California:

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

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

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

The authors of this study conclude that there is:

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

When Food and Water Withdrawal is Recommended to Hasten Death

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

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

He wrote:

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

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

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

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

It took 4 long days for him to die.

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Great News: Governor Finally Vetoes Delaware Assisted Suicide Bill

nancyvalko assisted suicide, conscience rights, euthanasia, law, medical ethics, nursing, pro-life

In an excellent article in the Christian Post on June 28, 2024, reporter Samantha Kamman reported:

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

Ms Kamman explains that:

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

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

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

Ms. Kamman reported NAPN’s response:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion-Great News

On September 20, 2024, Delaware Governor Johns Carey vetoed HB 140, saying that:

“As I have shared consistently, I am simply not comfortable letting this piece of legislation become law. For the reasons set forth above, I am hereby vetoing House Bill 140 with House Amendment 1 by returning it to the House of Representatives without my signature.” (Emphasis added)

“Jessica Rodgers, Coalitions Director for the Patients’ Rights Action Fund told LifeNews she was delighted by the news.

“Thanks to the tireless efforts of Delaware advocates who have shown up year after year after year, assisted suicide will not be coming to their state. I have been amazed and humbled at the work of these doctors, nurses, disability rights advocates, and all who care for their vulnerable neighbors,” she said. “Time and again when the call was put out to take action, they answered. And you answered- you called and emailed Governor Carney’s office and you made the difference.”

And just in time!

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:

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

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

As Life News reported on June 13, 2024:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now as the Wall Street Journal reports:

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

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

        FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE?

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

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

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

        As she writes:

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

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

        NOW THE PRO-ASSISTED SUICIDE MOVEMENT IS EXPANDING

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

        The article notes that:

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

        The article continues:

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

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

        CONCLUSION

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

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

        The petition states:

        “Dear Representative Jeffries and Representative Scalise,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        As the article states:

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

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

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

        and

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

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

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

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

        And:

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

        ADVOCATING FOR BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS

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

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

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

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

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

        CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 25, 2024

        Sheryl Crosier

        Simon’s Law

        (314) 443-3770

        Sheryl@SimonsLaw.org

        HB-0200 Passes Utah Legislature

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Features and benefits of HB-0200 include:

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

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

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

        CONCLUSION

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

        I remember when it used to be!

        NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRO-LIFE NURSES JOINS ASSOCIATION CHALLENGING CHEMICAL ABORTION IN LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASE

        nancyvalko abortion, law, medical, medical abortion, medical ethics, nursing

        Washington, D.C. — The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses (NAPN) has proudly joined the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, an association of medical organizations suing the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its reckless removal of essential safeguards for the use of chemical abortion drugs.

        The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, other medical organizations, and individual doctors argue that the FDA’s actions not only blatantly disregard established protocols for drug safety but also gravely jeopardize women’s health. This case now heads to the Supreme Court asking that the Court hold the FDA accountable for its callous disregard for women’s health and safety.

        The lawsuit, brought forth by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and others, highlights the following concerns:

        • Removal of safety standards: The FDA removed safeguards for mifepristone and misoprostol, even though its own label states that nearly 1 in 25 women who consume these drugs will end up going to an emergency room.
        • Increased patient risks: The removal of abortion drug safety standards could lead to a greater number of complications, including hemorrhage, life-threatening infection, and incomplete abortions.
        • Lack of informed consent: Remote prescription practices and the elimination of in-person doctor visits endanger women, particularly those at risk for ectopic pregnancies.

        https://nursesforlife.org/press-releases

        NAPN President Dorothy Kane issued the following statement on behalf of the organization:

        “Nurses are on the front lines witnessing the serious harms to women caused by the FDA’s reckless removal of essential safeguards for the use of chemical abortion drugs. Women deserve the ongoing, in-person care of a medical professional when taking high-risk drugs. The FDA has compromised patient safety and shown a callous disregard for women’s health and safety. This case is about safeguarding women’s health, protecting the integrity of the healthcare profession, and committing to evidence-based care.”

        For more information on the legal case, visit Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal organization representing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine: https://adflegal.org/case/us-food-and-drug-administration-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine

                                                                       ###

        The National Association of Pro-Life Nurses (NAPN) is dedicated to promoting respect for every human life from conception to natural death, and to affirming that the destruction of that life, for whatever reason and by whatever means, does not constitute good nursing practice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        FINDINGS OF THE POSITION PAPER

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

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

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

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

        RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

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

        The statement also cites:

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

        CONCLUSION

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

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

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