suicide

Trump Pardons 23 Pro-Life Activists the Day before the March for Life

nancyvalko abortion, end-of-life, medical ethics, mental health, nursing, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, suicide

In a January 23, 2025 article in the New York Post titled “Trump pardons ‘peaceful’ pro-lifers imprisoned for protesting outside abortion clinics” states:

” President Trump pardoned nearly two dozen pro-life activists Thursday who were convicted under a federal law of illegally trying to block abortion clinic entrances or otherwise keep women from undergoing the procedure.

The pardons, Trump said in the Oval Office, will go to 23 “peaceful protestors” who were prosecuted under the Biden administration. He did not reveal the names of those who will be pardoned. 

“Twenty-three people were prosecuted who should not have been prosecuted. Many of them are elderly people. They should not have been prosecuted,” the president said. “This is a great honor to sign this.”

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, enacted in 1994 by former President Bill Clinton, prohibits use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate or otherwise interfere with “any class of persons [in] obtaining or providing reproductive health services.”

The law also has the same stipulations allowing free access to places of worship — but conservatives say Democratic administrations have been more interested in prosecuting abortion clinic obstruction.”

MY FIRST TIME AT AN ABORTION CLINIC

I was a new nurse when Roe v Wade legalized abortion.

I was shocked and saddened while my other medical colleagues thought this was great.

“What would you do if you found out you were pregnant?”, they asked.
I told them I would have the baby and consider adoption. They thought that was crazy.

I later joined the St. Lous Archdiocese Pro-Life Commitee, the first in the US, and donated items to the Birthright organization that offers “free, confidential resources to any woman regardless of age, race, circumstances, religion, marital status or financial situation.”

In 1987, I was invited to join a group holding signs outside the Planned Parenthood Clinic in St. Louis offering information and help to the women entering. I was nervous walking with my then 2-year-old daughter but there were strict rules about staying on the sidewalk and I was relieved to see the signs with phone numbers and offers to help the women entering the clinic.

But suddenly my 2-year-old daughter dropped my hand and ran to play on the grass in front of the clinic. I panicked, picking her up and running to the sidewalk. I had heard that we could be arrested. Luckily, we weren’t.

CONCLUSION

I am glad President Trump pardoned those peaceful pro-life people but being pro-life is about more than picketing.

Every pro-life person I know is also a person who reaches out to anyone in need.

I know I have been blessed by helping single moms in difficult circumstances, families caring for children with disabilities, people considering suicide, women regretting their abortion, older people facing their impending death, and others.

Being pro-life is not just about ending the horror of legalized abortion but rather about cherishing and caring for all lives!

That is why I am so proud of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses’ button that simply says “I care”.

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:

We Will Not Comply

nancyvalko aging, Alzheimer's, assisted suicide, conscience rights, culture, dementia, disability, education, end-of-life, euthanasia, law, pro-life, suicide, ventilators/life support

In an excellent article in the June 28, 2024 Christian Post Reporter titled “‘Despair over hope’: Pro-life nurses group ‘will not comply’ with Delaware’s assisted suicide bill”,

As reporter Samantha Kamman reported:

“A national coalition of pro-life nurses (NAPN, the National Association of Prolife 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)

THE 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-two personal stories

My Daughter Marie Killed Herself Using an Assisted Suicide Technique

In 2009, I lost a beautiful, physically well 30-year-old daughter, Marie, to suicide after a 16-year battle with substance abuse and other issues. Her suicide was like an atom bomb dropped on our family, friends and even her therapists.

Despite all of our efforts to save her, my Marie told me that she learned how to kill herself from visiting suicide/assisted suicide websites and reading Derek Humphry’s book Final Exit. The medical examiner called Marie’s suicide technique “textbook final exit” but her death was neither dignified nor peaceful.

Marie was not mere collateral damage in the controversy over physician-assisted suicide. She was a victim of the physician-assisted suicide movement, seduced by the rhetoric of a painless exit from what she believed was a hopeless life of suffering.

Adding to our family’s pain, at least two people close to Marie became suicidal not long after her suicide. Luckily, these two young people received help and were saved, but suicide contagion, better known as “copycat suicide”, is a well-documented phenomenon. Often media coverage or publicity around one death encourages other vulnerable people to commit suicide in the same way.

The Effect on our Healthcare System

Think the assisted suicide won’t affect you or our healthcare system?

Think again.

As I wrote in my 2018 blog “They are Lying to Us“:

“Several years after Oregon’s law was passed, I was threatened with termination from my job as an intensive care unit nurse after I refused to participate in a deliberate overdose of morphine that neither the patient nor his family requested after an older patient experienced a crisis after a routine surgery.

The patient had improved but did not wake up within 24 hours after sedatives used with a ventilator were stopped. It was assumed that severe brain damage had occurred and doctors recommended removing the ventilator and letting the patient die.

However when the ventilator was removed, the patient unexpectedly continued to breathe even without oxygen support. A morphine drip was started and rapidly increased but the patient continued to breathe.

When I refused to participate in this, I found no support in my hospital’s “chain of command” so I basically stopped the morphine drip myself, technically following the order to “titrate morphine for comfort, no limit.”

The patient eventually died (without food or other treatment) after I left but ironically, a later autopsy requested by the family showed no lethal condition or brain injury as suspected.

The physician who authorized the morphine demanded that I be fired.

I was spared because I argued that I followed the order to “titrate morphine for comfort” by stopping the morphine when he was comfortable!

The family never knew the real story.

We need to reject legalized healthcare provider assisted suicide not only for seriously ill, elderly and disabled but also for ourselves, our loved ones and the integrity of our medical system!

NAPN Position Paper on AMA Considering New Resolutions on Assisted Suicide

nancyvalko AMA, assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, law, medical ethics, nursing, suicide, VSED

A May 1, 2023, article by Dallas R. Lawry, DNP, FNP-C, AOCNP® from the University of California, San Diego in the Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology titled “Rethinking Medical Aid in Dying: What Does It Mean to ‘Do No Harm?’” at Rethinking Medical Aid in Dying: What Does It Mean to ‘Do No Harm?’ – PMC (nih.gov) reveals that:

“Until 2019, the American Medical Association (AMA) maintained that MAID (medical aid in dying aka assisted suicide) was incompatible with their code of ethics and a physician’s responsibility to heal (AMA, 2022)“.

 But now, the AMA Medical Code of Ethics is considering two provisions that support both positions on MAID, including: “Physicians who participate in MAID are adhering to their professional, ethical obligations as are physicians who decline to participate” (AMA, 2019, 2022; Compassion & Choices, 2022) (Emphasis added)

Now, such ethical dissonance has now led the AMA to considering two new resolutions  at the Interim meeting of the AMA House of Delegates on November 10-14, 2023:

“Resolution 4 is to change the position of the AMA on Medical Aid in Dying (Resolution Link).

Resolution 5 is for the AMA to adopt a neutral stance on Medical Aid in Dying (Resolution Link).”

and, as Alex Schadenberg writes:

“It is important to note that Resolution 4 would remove the AMA statement on not performing euthanasia or participating in assisted suicide:

Physicians must not perform euthanasia or participate in assisted suicide. A more careful examination of the issue is necessary. Support, comfort, respect for patient autonomy, good communication, and adequate pain control may decrease dramatically the public demand for euthanasia and assisted suicide. In certain carefully defined circumstances, it would be humane to recognize that death is certain and suffering is great. However, the societal risks of involving physicians in medical interventions to cause patients’ deaths is too great in this culture to condone euthanasia or physician- assisted suicide at this time.

Both resolutions use the term Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) rather than Physician Assisted Suicide. The term Medical Aid in Dying is not limited to assisted suicide, it also includes euthanasia. The assisted suicide lobby wants to legalize euthanasia (medical homicide) in America.”

NURSES AND ASSISTED SUICIDE

In 1995, the American Nurses Association stated:

“The American Nurses Association (ANA) believes that the nurse should not participate in assisted suicide. Such an act is in violation of the Code for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (Code for Nurses) and the ethical traditions of the profession. “ (Emphasis added)

But in 2017, the ANA revised its’ position on VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking) “with the intention of hastening death” to “People with decision-making capacity have the right to stop eating and drinking as a means of
hastening death.” (Emphasis added)

In 2019, the American Nurses Association revised their position on assisted suicide titled “The Nurse’s Role When a Patient Requests Medical Aid in Dying”, stating that nurses:

“• Remain objective when discussing end-of-life options with patients who are exploring medical aid in dying.

• Have an ethical duty to be knowledgeable about this evolving issue.

• Be aware of their personal values regarding medical aid in dying and how these values might affect the patient-nurse relationship.

• Have the right to conscientiously object to being involved in the aid in dying process. (But “Conscience-based refusals to participate exclude personal preference, prejudice, bias, convenience, or arbitrariness”)

• Never “abandon or refuse to provide comfort and safety measures to the patient” who has chosen medical aid in dying (Ersek, 2004, p. 55). Nurses who work in jurisdictions where medical aid in dying is legal have an obligation to inform their employers that they would predictively exercise a conscience-based objection so that appropriate assignments could be made” (All emphasis added)

But while the ANA is states that “It is a strict legal and ethical prohibition that a nurse may not administer the medication that causes the patient’s death“, it is silent when some states with assisted suicide laws like Washington state’s where Governor Jay Inslee signed a new expansion to the law in April 2023 to “allow physician assistants and advanced nurse practitioners to be one of the medical providers who sign off on the procedure”, “eliminates a two-day waiting period for prescribing the drugs” and “allow the necessary drugs to be mailed to patients instead of picked up in person”. (Emphasis added) https://www.axios.com/2023/04/24/washington-death-with-dignity-law

CONCLUSION

NAPN opposes both AMA resolutions and the ANA policy on assisted suicide, not only for the safety and welfare of our most vulnerable people but also because there are now many state and national medical professional organizations that support assisted suicide, and other problematic ethical issues and this will have a discouraging effect on idealistic, ethical people considering or remaining in health care which would be devastating to our trust in the healthcare system itself.

Is Donation after Circulatory Death a “Game Changer” for Heart Transplant?

nancyvalko assisted suicide, brain death, brain injury, culture, disability, end-of-life, euthanasia, futility, law, medical ethics, organ donation, suicide, ventilators/life support

In 2002, I wrote a paper titled “Ethical Implications of Non-Heart-Beating Organ Donation” (NHBD) and presented it at Trinity College at a medical ethics conference. At that time, brain death organ donation was well-known, but NHBD was virtually unknown to the public although it comprised about 2% of organ donations at that time.

As I wrote then:

“It is now apparent that the number of organs from people declared brain dead will never be enough to treat all patients who need new organs. ” and “doctors and ethicists have turned to a new source of organs — patients who are not brain dead but who are on ventilators and considered “hopeless”. In these patients, the ventilator is withdrawn and organs are quickly taken when cardiac death (DCD) rather than brain death is pronounced.”

Now, the term “Donation after Circulatory Death” (DCD) is used instead and means:

“Circulatory death occurs when the heart has irreversibly stopped beating and when circulation and oxygenation to the tissues irreversibly stops.” (Emphasis added)

However, with heart transplantation, the heart will be restarted as explained in a March 24, 2023 Medscape article “A ‘Game Changer’ for Heart Transplant: Donation After Circulatory Death Explained”.

In the article, Adam D. DeVore, MD, MHS is interviewed by Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH and explains how this works and why he is excited:

“Adam D. DeVore, MD, MHS: In the field of heart transplant, DCD or donation after circulatory death is really a game changer. For decades now, we’ve been doing heart transplants from donors who die or have been declared brain dead.

There’s a whole population of potential donors who have very similar neurologic injuries — they’re just not technically declared brain dead — whose organs the family would like to donate. We didn’t have a way before.”

“There are two mechanisms. The family would withdraw care. Somebody affiliated with the hospital would declare that the donor has died. There’s usually a standoff period. That is a little variable, but it’s around 5 minutes.” (All emphasis added)

and added that then:

“…There are then two ways where that heart could be resuscitated or revived, outside the body on the organ care system. Or it could remain in the body through normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), or they’ll go on cardiopulmonary bypass and re-perfuse the heart in the room, and then look at the heart and try to evaluate it before donation. The rest of that donation looks just like every other brain-dead donation.”

…I remember when we were first starting this, I was thinking of how we would explain this to potential recipients and what would this look like. It turns out that something terrible has happened, and families that want to donate organs are relatively enthusiastic and less focused on the details.” (All emphasis added)

ETHICAL CONCERNS

In another March 23, 2023 Medscape article titled “Does New Heart Transplant Method Challenge Definition of Death?, Sue Hughes, a journalist on Medscape Neurology, writes:

“The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.” (Emphasis added)

When the NRP technique was first used in the US, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

“The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.” (Emphasis added)

Harry Peled, MD, Providence St Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, California, co-author of a recent Viewpoint on the issue said that:

“There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the US definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule.

“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Peled points out.

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.” (Emphasis added)

Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York City, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP, stating that:

“”Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.” and “We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

Ms. Hughes also wrote in her article that:

“Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.”

And in the US, “348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.” And “It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD. ”

So how important is it to have strict medical ethics standards in organ donations?

In a February 9, 2023 Transplant International article titled “Organ Donation After Euthanasia in Patients Suffering From Psychiatric Disorders: 10-Years of Preliminary Experiences in the Netherlands“, it was reported that:

“Over the ten-year study period 2012–2021 59,546 patients underwent euthanasia of whom 58,912 suffered from a somatic (physical) disorder. The number of patients that underwent euthanasia for an underlying psychiatric disorder was 634 (1.1%). An estimated 10% (5955) of patients who undergo euthanasia in general are medically eligible to donate one or more organs (11).” (Emphasis added)

Organ transplants can be wonderful and lifesaving, but we must know all the facts, be able to trust our healthcare providers, and especially not allow the “slippery slope” of legalized assisted suicide/euthanasia to get any steeper.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Suicide Discrimination!

nancyvalko assisted suicide, medical ethics, suicide

When I was asked by my late daughter Marie’s best friend to join her on a family and friends fundraising walk for suicide prevention last Sunday, I hesitated.

I was in the process of reading yet another disturbing article about assisted suicide, this time a Journal of Clinical Psychiatry article titled “Working with Decisionally Capable Patients Who Are Determined to End Their Own Lives”  and I found it outrageous that the suicide prevention groups I know exclude potential physician-assisted suicide victims.

As a nurse, I have personally and professionally cared for many suicidal people over decades including some who were terminally ill. To my knowledge, none of these people went on to die by suicide except one-my own daughter.

Almost nine years ago, my 30 year old daughter Marie died by suicide using an assisted suicide technique she found after searching suicide and assisted suicide websites and reading assisted suicide supporter Derek Humphry’s book “Final Exit”.

Marie was a wonderful woman who achieved a degree in engineering despite struggling off and on with substance abuse and thoughts of suicide for 16 years. She was in an outpatient behavioral health program at the time of her suicide. Her suicide was my worst fear and it devastated all of us in the family as well as her friends. Two people close to Marie also became suicidal after her death but were fortunately saved.

For years before and after Marie’s death, I have written and spoken to groups around the country about the legal and ethical problems with assisted suicide as well as suicide contagion  and media reporting guidelines for suicide.

So it was with mixed feelings that I participated in the suicide prevention walk but now I am glad I did.

“WORKING WITH DECISIONALLY CAPABLE PATIENTS WHO ARE DETERMINED TO END THEIR OWN LIVES”

I finally finished reading this article after the walk and found that while the authors of this Journal of Clinical Psychiatry article insist that they are only discussing “decisionally capable” people with “advanced medical illness”, they write:

“The 24% increase in US suicide rates from 1999 to 2014 has led to greater efforts to identify, prevent, and intervene in situations associated with suicidality. While the desire to kill oneself is not synonymous with a mental illness, 80%–90% of completed suicides are associated with a mental disorder, most commonly depression. Understandably, psychiatrists and other clinicians face strong moral, cultural, and professional pressures to do everything possible to avert suicide. Hidden within these statistics are unknown numbers of individuals determined to end their lives, often in the context of a life-limiting physical illness, who have no mental disorder or who, despite having a mental disorder, were nevertheless seemingly rational and decisionally capable and in whom the mental disorder did not seem to influence the desire to hasten death.”

Tragically, the authors also state:

“In reviewing the either sparse or dated literature in this field, surveys from the United States and Canada support that most psychiatrists believe that PAD (physician aid in dying, a euphemism for assisted suicide) should be legal and is ethical in some cases and that they might want the option for themselves.”

And

“Although we see ‘assisted death’ as an option of last resort, we instead ask whether on certain occasions psychiatrists might appropriately not seek to prevent selected decisionally capable individuals from ending their own lives.” (All emphasis added)

This flies in the face of long-standing professional suicide prevention and treatment principles.

Notably, the article ends with an addendum, the 2017 Statement of the American Association of Suicidology (AAS): “Suicide is not the same as ‘Physician Aid in Dying’”

That concludes:

“In general, suicide and physician aid in dying are conceptually, medically, and legally different phenomena, with an undetermined amount of overlap between these two categories” but “Such deaths should not be considered to be cases of suicide and are therefore a matter outside the central focus of the AAS.” (Emphasis added)

WHY I AM GLAD I WENT ON THE SUICIDE PREVENTION WALK

The Sunday walk was sponsored by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), a group that I discovered states it is trying to “Develop an updated AFSP policy position on assisted death (other common terms include physician assisted suicide or Death with Dignity Laws)”

The next day, I was able to contact a policy person at their Washington, DC office and, unlike other suicide prevention group representatives I have contacted in the past, I found this woman surprisingly interested and receptive to the idea that we should not discriminate against certain people when it comes to suicide prevention and treatment. She even asked for my contact information.

Of course, the AFSP may decide to exclude potential assisted suicide victims like other organizations have done but at least I tried and that’s the best tribute I can give to my daughter now.

 

Six Things You Need to Know about Physician-Assisted Suicide

nancyvalko assisted suicide, disability, medical ethics, suicide

This article was originally published in The Public Discourse on December 19, 2017

Six Things You Need to Know about Physician-Assisted Suicide

by Nancy Valko, RN ALNC

Pull quote: Is the real healthcare crisis not enough physician assisted suicide laws? Or
is it the staggering and increasing number of people losing their battles
with mental illness and committing suicide?

It has been twenty years since Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law took
effect after a public referendum. Since then, four other states have
legalized physician-assisted suicide.

Polls seem to show strong public support for physician-assisted suicide. They ask questions like this one from a  2017 Gallup poll: “When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you think doctors should or should
not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patient
requests it?”

Unfortunately, most people have only a vague idea about what such laws
actually say and do. Here are six things you must know before you decide
whether to support or oppose physician-assisted suicide.

1. Pain or any other suffering is not a requirement for a person seeking
assisted suicide; “a disease that cannot be cured” can include manageable
conditions like diabetes as well as terminal illnesses like cancer.

None of the US laws are restricted to patients experiencing pain, which can
be addressed in ways that do not deliberately kill the patient. In 2016, for
example, almost half of patients using assisted suicide in Oregon cited their reason for seeking death as “Burden on family, friends/caregivers” while just 35 percent cited “Inadequate pain control or concern about it.”

2. Medical professionals participating in physician-assisted suicide are
immune from accountability and standards of due care.

“No person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional
disciplinary action for participating in good faith compliance with”
Oregon’s law. Thus any licensed doctor (or other healthcare provider), with
or without experience and regardless of his or her medical specialty, can
write a lethal overdose prescription for a patient as long as he or she
claims to be in “good faith compliance.” As a legal standard, this test is
effectively meaningless, because it relies only on the physician’s word.

The physician is not required to be-and often is not-the patient’s primary
care doctor. Many physicians do not want to be involved in this process,
according to “Compassion & Choices,” an organization that promotes the legalization of physician-assisted suicide throughout the United States. When one doctor (or many) conclude that it would be irresponsible to give a lethal overdose to a patient, such
organizations encourage patients to find a doctor with lower standards.

No other medical intervention has such immunity protection from lawsuits or
criminal investigation. In addition, no other medical intervention is so
devoid of standards for the clinical expertise or education required of the
physician involved.

3. Physician-assisted suicide does not involve the stringent documentation
and oversight required for other medical interventions.

In all jurisdictions where physician-assisted suicide is allowed, to
prescribe a lethal overdose the doctor need only fill out the required state
forms that include a consultation with a second physician who agrees.
Neither doctor is required to have a professional relationship with the
patient before the physician-assisted suicide request.

Documentation of physician-assisted suicides relies on doctors’
self-reporting. There is no requirement that the actual taking of the lethal
overdose be witnessed by a medical professional or anyone else. This means
that there is no safeguard against medical complications, coercion by family
members, or other problems.

The Oregon law also specifies that, “Except as otherwise required by law, the information collected shall not be a public record and my not be made available for inspection by the public”, after which the original forms are destroyed.

Unfortunately, the immunity protections and secrecy surrounding even the minimal self-reporting in state-level assisted-suicide laws eliminate the possibility of future potential lawsuits or prosecutions for abuse. They keep alive the myth that there are strong safeguards in the law that eliminate problems like coercion or elder abuse.

4. The cause of death must be falsified.

States with physician-assisted suicide laws require that the cause of death is reported as death from an underlying condition rather than the lethal overdose, supposedly to ensure the patient’s privacy. But this clearly violates the standards set for coroners
and medical examiners by the Centers for Disease Control. Those standards require accuracy in determination of death because “The death certificate is the source for
State and national mortality and is used to determine which medical conditions receive research and development funding, to set public health goals, and to measure health status at local, State, national, and international levels.”

Falsified death certificates also quietly function to smooth over any problems with life insurance policies that have suicide clauses denying death benefits if the insured commits suicide within two years of taking out a policy. And since doctors are only required to “recommend that the patient notify next of kin” about the plan for assisted suicide, the rest of the patient’s family may never know the real cause of death. This means that they are also deprived of the chance to reassure their loved ones of their
support and willingness to help take care of them until their natural death.

5. Assisted suicide laws promote discrimination against suicidal people.

The usual standards for caring for a suicidal person include intensive management to prevent suicide attempts. These are changed in physician-assisted suicide: “If, in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician, a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counseling.” Only the evaluation of a patient’s competence, not the diagnosable mental disorders that afflict more than 90 percent of people who die by suicide, is required . It is shocking that only 3.8 percent of those seeking physician-assisted suicide in Oregon were referred for psychiatric
evaluation in 2016. Patients with dementia and with clinical depression that had existed for years before they contracted a physical illness have died under the Oregon law.

6. Suicide is contagious.

A 2015 article in the Southern Medical Journal titled “How Does Legalization of
Physician-Assisted Suicide Affect Rates of Suicide?” studied Oregon’s and Washington’s rates of non-assisted suicide after assisted suicide laws were passed. Despite claims that assisted suicide laws would reduce other suicides or only substitute for them, the authors reached the disturbing conclusion that “Rather, the introduction of PAS (physician assisted suicide) seemingly induces more self-inflicted deaths than it inhibits.”

This does not surprise me. In 2009 my thirty-year-old, physically healthy daughter Marie died by suicide. She killed herself using a technique she learned after visiting assisted suicide/suicide websites and reading Final Exit (1991) by Derek Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society (an organization that merged with another group to form Compassion & Choices). The medical examiner called her suicide “textbook Final Exit.”

Adding to our family’s pain, at least two people close to Marie became suicidal not long after her suicide. Luckily, they were saved, but suicide contagion, better known as “copycat suicide,” is a well-documented phenomenon. Often media coverage or publicity around one death can encourage other vulnerable people to commit suicide.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide rates have been
increasing since 2000 after decades of decline. Suicide is now the tenth leading cause of death in the United States, with more than 44,000 people dying by suicide every year. Suicide costs society over $56 billion a year in combined medical- and work-loss costs, not to mention the enormous toll suicide takes on family and friends. Oregon’s suicide rate is more than 40 percent higher than the national average.

Is the real healthcare crisis not enough physician-assisted suicide laws? Or is it the staggering and increasing number of people losing their battles with mental illness and committing suicide?

No matter what Compassion & Choices says, physician-assisted suicide is not a civil right or just one of an assortment of morally neutral end-of-life options. It’s time to stand up and fight to keep the medical profession from abandoning its most fundamental ethical principles.

Nancy Valko, RN, ALNC, is a longtime writer and speaker on medical ethics issues who recently retired from critical care nursing to devote more time to consulting and volunteer work. She is also a spokesperson for the National Association of Pro-Life Nurses.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Defending Physician-assisted Suicide

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, medical ethics, mental health, nursing, suicide

In a recent letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal,  Dr. David Grube, national medical director of Compassion and Choices, defended physician-assisted suicide by stating:

“I knew that the people who requested it didn’t want to end their life. They loved life but realized they had an incurable, terminal disease and didn’t want to suffer needlessly as the inevitable end of life approached.

The proof is that more than one-third of terminally ill Oregonians who obtain the medication never take it, but they get great comfort in knowing they have access to it if they need it, which helps them suffer less.” (Emphasis added)

Is this really the crucial argument to upend our medical and legal ethics to legalize physician-assisted suicide?

Especially when more than 33% of people approved for assisted suicide don’t use the lethal overdose prescriptions, this should be a wake-up call for assisted suicide activists as well as suicide prevention groups and the rest of society.

As a former oncology (cancer) and hospice nurse who cared for many terminally ill patients including relatives over decades, I encouraged my patients and family members to talk about all their concerns. I found very few who wanted to end their lives out of fear of future suffering. I  reassured my patients and relatives that we would make them as comfortable as possible and support them until their natural death. Not one died by suicide and all died with true dignity.

But this was before physician-assisted suicide began to be legalized, glamorized and  promoted by activists, especially through sympathetic media outlets.

WHERE IS THE FOLLOW UP ON THE PATIENTS WHO DON’T TAKE THE LETHAL OVERDOSE?

What happened to these patients who decided not to take the lethal overdose? Did they unexpectedly improve or find their symptoms adequately treated? Was the terminal diagnosis wrong? Did they find the physical, emotional and spiritual support to continue living?

Unfortunately, those writing state assisted suicide reports are apparently not interested in this important information that could help save other lives.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE UNUSED LETHAL OVERDOSE?

Another concern is what happens to the lethal overdose that the patient does not take?

In any home health situation, every unused dose of a controlled medication must be accounted for and disposed of carefully. We know how important it is to keep such medication out of a child’s reach or from misuse by a family member or friend. Keeping overdoses for possible future ingestion is obviously dangerous, especially when our nation is in the middle of an opioid crisis that now kills almost 100 Americans every day.

However when it comes to unused lethal overdoses in assisted suicide, Death with Dignity’s advice is that:

“Anyone who chooses not to ingest a prescribed dose or anyone in possession of any portion of the unused dose must dispose of the dose in a legal manner as determined by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency or their state laws, if any.”

CONCLUSION

When even assisted suicide supporters admit data suggests that the “distress prompting patients to request these lethal medications primarily stems from their fear over losing control at the end of life” but claim that the more than 33% who don’t take the prescribed lethal overdose should still have it to supposedly “get great comfort in knowing they have access to it if they need it”,  physician-assisted suicide is further exposed as a terrible response to human fear and despair.

As our National Association of Pro-life Nurses states, patients need us to take their hands, not their lives.

 

Can There Really Be a “Safer” Physician-assisted Suicide?

nancyvalko assisted suicide, Compassion & Choices, end-of-life, medical ethics, mental health, suicide

In August, I wrote a blog “Physician-assisted Suicide and the Palliative Care Physician”  about Dr. Jessica Nutik Zitter,  a palliative care doctor in California who approved of physician-assisted suicide, would want it for herself but had still had serious some qualms about actually writing for the lethal overdose herself.

In the end, Dr. Zitter decides that assisted suicide can be rendered “safe” by being rare and practiced by specially trained medical practitioners as “just one tool in the toolbox of caring for the dying-a tool of last resort.”

Thus, Dr. Zitter, perhaps unknowingly, gives support to the Compassion and Choices goal of “normalizing” and “integrating” physician-assisted suicide into standard medical practice. Note  their own description of their activities:

“We help clients with advance directives, local service referrals and pain and symptom management. We offer information on self-determined dying when appropriate and provide emotional support through a difficult time. 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. Compassion & Choices devotes itself to creative legal and legislative initiatives to secure comprehensive and compassionate options at the end of life.” (Emphasis added)

Now in her new article “De-Medicalizing Death”, Dr. Zitter is excited about a new University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Health Centers’ program where “only” 25% of patients went on to commit physician-assisted suicide after an “intake process…conducted by trained psychotherapists (psychologists and clinical social workers) instead of physicians”.

Ironically, current physician-assisted suicide laws tout the “safeguard” that “If, in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician, a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counseling.” (Emphasis added),  But that only means evaluating a patient’s competence, not the diagnosable mental disorders that afflict more than 90 percent of people who die by suicide, is required. Thus, it should not be surprising that only 3.8% of people using physician-assisted suicide in Oregon were even referred for psychiatric evaluation in 2016, unlike the standard of care for other suicidal people.

Also, the UCLA new intake process for physician-assisted suicide that so excites Dr. Zitter paradoxically undermines the common media depiction of a terminally ill person in unbearable pain desperate for immediate relief:

“The intake consisted of an extensive set of questionnaires designed to assess all possible sources of distress. Any patient with physical or psychiatric needs was referred on to the appropriate services. But as the UCLA committee expected, most of what patients needed was to discuss their feelings about their approaching death and process their grief and sense of loss. This mirrors data from the entire state of California as well as Oregon, which suggest that the distress prompting patients to request these lethal medications primarily stems from their fear over losing control at the end of life. It is not, as many may think, due primarily to physical suffering.” (Emphasis added)

And

“Anne Coscarelli, psychologist and founding director of the Simms/Mann–UCLA Center for Integrative Oncology, described the conversations that came from this intake process as revelatory and comforting for the patients. Several patients ultimately completed legacy projects, such as video or written messages and stories, for their children and grandchildren. This invitation to talk, which opens up a discussion that most of us are taught to avoid, turned out to be a game-changer”. (Emphasis added)

And, I would add, this “game-changer” ultimately resulted in most patients NOT dying by assisted suicide.

As a former hospice and oncology nurse, this kind of listening and support is very familiar to me. We gave our patients such care along with symptom control and our patients died with real dignity with their families supported as well.

Personally, I was never even once tempted to help end any of my patients’ lives.

CONCLUSION

Dr. Zitter is like many people. The idea of controlling one’s own death or avoiding watching a loved one slowly die is very seductive. But, as Dr. Zitter has unwittingly discovered, suicide is the loneliest kind of death and very amenable to intervention.

On the other hand, the legalization and approval of physician-assisted suicide reinforces the underlying despair that leads even many healthy people to think death is the solution to their problems.

When “Losing autonomy” and “Less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” are the top two end of life concerns of Oregon’s assisted suicide victims in 2016, we have a bigger societal problem than an alleged lack of enough lethal overdose prescriptions.

We need true caring and support, not abandonment to suicide of any kind.