Home | Join/Donate | Current Voices | Liturgical Calendar | What's New | Affirmation | James Hitchcock's Column | Church Documents | Search
Home | Join/Donate | Current Voices | Liturgical Calendar | What's New | Affirmation | James Hitchcock's Column | Church Documents | Search
About Medicine & Morality News & Comments
Updated April 30, 2006Other Medicine & Morality Pages
DOCUMENTS | ARTICLES & ARCHIVES | STEM CELL RESEARCH | BROCHURE ON EUTHANASIA
WFF's Online Journal on Bioethics and Health Care Issues
Topics on About Medicine & Morality include "end-of-life" issues, organ donation, and all matters of concern to families and to all who care for seriously ill people of every age who are especially at risk in our contemporary culture -- people who are precious in the sight of God, despite their fragility or disability -- people who are always entitled to our love, and our informed and intelligent care.
We invite reader suggestions and contributions to About Medicine and Morality. Submissions should be typed, 500 to 1000 words. Favorable consideration will be given to subjects and issues of widest interest to our readers.
Submissions may also be e-mailed. Please include your name, complete address and telephone/fax, and e-mail address.
Select excerpts and/or articles (some with comments by Nancy Valko, RN , contributing editor of Voices ) on current news stories on issues of bioethics, medicine and morality, with links to the complete story.
Go to Terri Schiavo for news. articles, Church Documents, Statements, etc
Other sites: www.terrisfight.orgPosted April 30, 2007
The Respect Life Apostolate of the Archdiocese of St. Louis reports the Komen Foundation for breast cancer supports Planned Parenthood; suggests
alternatives.St. Louis Archdiocese - Respect Life Committee statement -http://stlprolife.org/KomenfortheCure.html
Position Statement on Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Issued 7 June 2006; revised 29 March 2007The Respect Life Apostolate of the Archdiocese of St. Louis acknowledges the beneficial work of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, formerly known as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, in the area of breast cancer detection, prevention, research and treatment. Due to its policy allowing affiliates to offer financial support to abortion providing facilities and its endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, the Respect Life Apostolate neither supports nor encourages participation in activities that benefit Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
This position is based on the following facts:
1. Public records indicate that Susan G. Komen for the Cure ("Komen") affiliates in at least 22 states (Missouri is not among them) have provided sizable grants to local Planned Parenthood chapters for breast health care services.1
• Despite Komen donations for breast health care services, Planned Parenthood (the largest single abortion provider in the country) stated in its 2004-2005 annual report that 9,900 more abortions were performed and 26,000 fewer breast exams were provided in 2004 than in 2003. 2
• Donors cannot control how an organization designates its funds. Therefore, money donated for a specific service, i.e. breast health care, directly frees up funds to support other areas of an organization’s agenda, i.e. contraception services, “safe” sex education and abortion services.
2. The Komen website dismisses the link between procured abortion and increased risk of breast cancer.3 However, the research of Joel Brind, Ph.D., a professor of Endocrinology and founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and the work of Dr. Janet Daling,4 a leading cancer epidemiologist and pro-choice advocate, invalidate a dismissal of the link. Daling said, “I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of what is.”5
3. Komen endorses embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of embryonic human life, stating that “embryonic stem cells…have the most potential” for cancer stem cell research.6 The destruction of human life at any stage of development is never morally acceptable. Embryonic stem cell research is also unnecessary since adult stem cell research has a proven record of cures and treatments.
Based on these documented facts, the Respect Life Apostolate (RLA) does not endorse Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The RLA encourages you to contact Susan G. Komen for the Cure (5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250 ? Dallas, TX 75244) and call for an end to all associations between Komen affiliates and Planned Parenthood, recognition of the link between breast cancer and abortion, and a refusal to support research that leads to the destruction of any human life. Our hope is that the Komen Foundation will focus all funds on research to find causes and cures for breast cancer and refuse to give financial or other support to any abortion provider or organization that promotes the destruction of human life.
Rather than supporting any Komen fundraising, the Respect Life Apostolate encourages you to direct your donations to the following local hospitals that provide breast cancer services and patient support groups:
St. John’s Mercy Medical Center
Mail to: SJMMC Donations
12800 Corporate Hill Drive
St. Louis, MO 63131
Check: David C. Pratt Cancer Center
Memo: Breast Cancer DevelopmentSt. Mary’s Health Center
Mail to: St. Mary’s Health Center Foundation
6420 Clayton Road
St. Louis, MO 63117
Check: St. Mary’s Health Center Foundation
Memo: Empower and Engage Breast Cancer Program (patient support)DePaul Health Center
Mail to: DePaul Foundation
12303 DePaul Drive
Bridgeton, MO 63044
Check: DePaul Health Center
Memo: Breast Cancer ProgramsSSM St. Joseph Health Center
Mail to: St. Joseph Health Center
Foundation Office
300 First Capitol Drive
St. Charles, MO 63301
Check: St. Joseph Health Center Foundation
Memo: Breast Cancer ProgramsSt. Anthony’s Medical Center
Mail to: St. Anthony’s Medical Center – Cancer Center
10010 Kennerly Road
St. Louis, MO 63128
Check: St. Anthony’s Cancer Center
Memo: designate for breast cancer research or patient support services1 Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation & Planned Parenthood: The Visible
Link. Right to Life of Indianapolis, August 2005.2 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (2007). 2004-2005 Annual
Report. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/report-05.pdf>3 see "Factors That Do Not Increase Risk of Breast Cancer." Susan G. Komen
for the Cure. 27 March 2007.
<http://cms.komen.org/Komen/AboutBreastCancer/AbcFactorsNotRelatedtoRisk>.4 see Daling JR, Malone KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS, Risk of breast
cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion., Journal of the
National Cancer Institute 86: 21, 1584-92, Nov 2, 1994.5 "The Cover Up." Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. 27 March 2007.
<http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/coverup3.htm>.6 “Cancer Stem Cell Research Shows Promise.” Frontline: The Susan G. Komen
Breast Cancer Foundation’s Newsletter. (Fall 2006). 29 March 2007
<http://cms.komen.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/komen_document/006137.pdf>.Posted April 19, 2007
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPSDATE: April 18, 2007
FROM: William Ryan
O: 202-541-3200
H: 202-686-1824FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CARDINAL WELCOMES SUPREME COURT DECISION UPHOLDING FEDERAL PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN
Washington, DC—Cardinal Justin Rigali welcomed the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart.
Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia, is Chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The full text of his statement follows:
“Today, after a decade of struggle in legislatures and courts, the U.S. Supreme Court finally upheld a federal law prohibiting the brutal and inhumane partial-birth abortion procedure. This is the first time in 34 years that the Court has upheld a ban of any type of abortion.
“The Court’s decision does not affect the legal status of the great majority of abortions, and does not reverse past decisions claiming to find a right to abortion in the Constitution. However, it provides reasons for renewed hope and renewed effort on the part of pro-life Americans. The Court is taking a clearer and more unobstructed look at the tragic reality of abortion, and speaking about that reality more candidly, than it has in many years.
“Especially welcome is the Court’s explicit recognition of certain key facts: that abortion is the taking of a human life, and that government has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving this life at every stage; that 'respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child'; that abortion may also cause grief and sorrow for women, which is only made worse when the reality of the procedure has been withheld from them until it is too late; and that the ethical integrity of the medical profession, as well as the fabric of our society, is threatened by the acceptance of practices that are difficult to distinguish from infanticide.
“The Court also acknowledges that in some past decisions, the usual rules for constitutional review were distorted by an unwarranted hostility to legislative efforts to respect unborn human life. We hope today’s decision marks the beginning of a new dialogue on abortion, in which fair-minded consideration will be given to the genuine interests of unborn children and their mothers, to the need for an ethically sound medical profession, and to society’s desperate need for a foundation of respect for all human life.”
Posted April 18, 2007
Quotes from the Supreme Court 5-4 decision April 18, 2007, which upheld the
2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act:Complete decision: < http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/05-380.html >
Judge Anthony Kennedy presented the majority decision on the "Partial Birth Abortion" Act:
"The Act does not regulate the most common abortion procedures used in the first trimester of pregnancy, when the vast majority of abortions take place. In the usual second-trimester procedure, "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraska's, is a variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as "intact D&E." The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull. [...]
"Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. For these reasons the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed.
"It is so ordered."
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.
"I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980-983 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).
Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting, wrote, in part:
"Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.
"I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices. […]
"The Court offers flimsy and transparent justifications for upholding a nationwide ban on intact D&E sans any exception to safeguard a women's health. Today's ruling, the Court declares, advances "a premise central to [Casey's] conclusion"--i.e., the Government's "legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life." Ante, at 14. See also ante, at 15 ("[W]e must determine whether the Act furthers the legitimate interest of the Government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child."). But the Act scarcely furthers that interest: The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion. […]
" In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court--and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. ...
"For the reasons stated, I dissent from the Court's disposition and would affirm the judgments before us for review."
See complete decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380Posted April 13, 2007
AP in USA Today - Bush calls for 'culture of life'
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, at the national Catholic prayer breakfast, stressed his opposition to easing restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, a reference to a bill he's threatened to veto.
"In our day there is a temptation to manipulate life in ways that do not respect the humanity of the person," Bush said Friday. "When that happens, the most vulnerable among us can be valued for their utility to others instead of their own inherent worth."
The Senate on Wednesday voted 63-34 to pass the measure that it hopes will lead to new medical treatments. The vote, however, fell short of a veto-proof margin needed to enact the law over Bush's objections. The House is expected to approve a similar measure in the weeks ahead.
"We must continue to work for a culture of life where the strong protect the weak and where we recognize in every human life the image of our creator," Bush said.
Posted April 11, 2007
Pro-Life Official Hails Reintroduction of Genuine Cloning Ban
WASHINGTON (March 29, 2007) — The Pro-Life Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) applauded Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for reintroducing the “Human Cloning Prohibition Act” today.
Shortly before the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a similar bill in 2003, the bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities urged Congress to “ban this practice outright,” adding: “Cloning dehumanizes human procreation, treating new human life as a mere laboratory product made to specifications. Whether used to bring cloned human embryos to live birth (so-called “reproductive” cloning), or to exploit them as sources of “spare parts” for other humans (so-called “therapeutic” cloning), human cloning diminishes us all. The allegedly lofty goals proposed for cloning cannot outweigh the grim reality of the activity itself.”
“The Human Cloning Prohibition Act has clear precedent domestically and overseas,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, Director of Planning and Information for the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. “Five states and over 20 countries have similar complete bans on cloning. The United Nations has urged its member nations to enact such bans to preserve human dignity and protect women's health.”
Ms. McQuade added: “The cloning agenda poses a tremendous risk to women, as it would require exploiting countless women as egg factories. Women have died from the hormonal manipulation required for egg extraction. Others have become seriously ill or lost their natural fertility at a young age.”
“We urge other senators to support and co-sponsor this vital legislation to protect women as well as embryonic humans from exploitation,” Ms. McQuade said.
Posted October 19, 2006
News: Oregon changes “Physician-Assisted Suicide” to “Physician Assisted Death”
Commentary:
by Helen Hull Hitchcock
“Suicide” or “Death”?All suicide is death, but not all death is suicide. The implication of “Physician Assisted Suicide” is that the person who will made dead by his physician’s assistance has made this choice voluntarily. “Physician Assisted Death” does not have the same connotation; the language suggests that a physician could “assist” in causing death for other reasons — even if this is not the stated intention of those who advocated the change in terminology. It is, after all, the physician who chooses to “assist” in causing the death. The new language eliminates the the volitional aspect on the part of the recipient of “death assistance”.
Posted August 10, 2006
International Conference on Ethics Features Dissenting Theologians
An international conference on theology and ethics was held in Padua, Italy July 8-11, 2006, as reported in the National Catholic Reporter August 11 (link to complete story appears below).
The conference, according to NCR's John Allen, was principally organized by Jesuit John Keenan, of Boston College who "spearheaded an effort to raise $450,000" for expenses of travel for participants. Titled “Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church”, the conference featured theologians known for their dissent from Church teachings on a range of issues -- such as American feminists, Sr. Margaret Farley, of Yale, and Lisa Sowell Cahill of Boston College; Fr. David Hollenbach, SJ, of Boston College, Spanish Redemptorist Fr. Marciano Vidal (whose works were criticized by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2001), and Jean Porter of Notre Dame (who accused the US of "practices of torture" and criticized the Church's “authoritarian, top-down church government, culminating in the papacy itself. It is difficult to see how the concentration of power in one individual is consistent with the rule of law”, she said).
The report by NCR's John Allen did not give a full list of those in attendance, and did not comment on the source of funding for the Padua conference.
Link to John Allen's report on this international conference on ethics organized by John Keenan, "Global South ethicists take center stage":
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006c/081106/081106m.php
Posted March 30, 2006
Pro-Life Spokeswoman Renews Call for “Holly’s Law” After Two More Women Die from RU-486
WASHINGTON (March 29, 2005) — An official of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) expressed continued support today for the “RU-486 Suspension and Review Act of 2005,” known as “Holly’s Law.” Deirdre A. McQuade, Director of Planning and Information at the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, addressed a congressional press conference sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, the bill’s author, and other supporters of the legislation.
“The Bishops’ Conference opposes every abortion as the taking of innocent human life,” said Ms. McQuade. “However, the RU-486 method compounds this offense by also threatening the lives, fertility, and well-being of healthy women.”
...For the complete news release click title for link to USCCB website.
Posted August 15, 2005
Is Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming (OAR) A Moral Procedure To Retrieve Embryonic Stem Cells?
William Burke, M.D., Ph.D., Patrick Pullicino, MD, PhD., and The Rev. Edward J. Richard, MS, DThM, JD
August 15, 2005
Posted May 26, 2005
The National Catholic Bioethics Center
Press Release 5/26/2005Statement on the Passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, H.B. 810
The National Catholic Bioethics Center is strongly opposed to the decision of the U.S. House of Representatives to relax the funding restrictions imposed by President Bush in 2001 on human embryonic stem cell research. H.R. 810, which President Bush has promised to veto, will provide federal funds for the destruction of frozen embryos to create additional stem cell lines beyond those currently approved for research.
Interestingly, the debate on this bill won the support of some politicians previously, or otherwise, considered to be "pro-life". This raises many questions related to the stability and breadth of support for the pro-life cause in the legislature. Some whose voting record on abortion has been consistent with their pro-life stance in the past have failed to carry over this same commitment to embryonic human life. For others, it seems that their interest in the advancement of cures for their own maladies has swayed their opinion to vote in favor of medical research with no proven success, rather than the preservation of life at its most delicate stage.
Most troubling to pro-life Americans is the fact that the United States Congress has, for the first time in history, voted to override the conscience of millions of Americans by placing them is a situation of funding with their tax dollars research which they find morally repugnant.
For further information contact Mark Bradford, Director of Development.
Posted May 18, 2005
USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat Press Release
DATE: May 18, 2005
FROM: William Ryan O -202-541-3200
H -202-686-1824
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CARDINAL URGES CONGRESS NOT TO FUND RESEARCH THAT
REQUIRES DESTROYING HUMAN EMBRYOS WASHINGTONCardinal William H. Keeler has urged Congress to reject a bill which would use federal funds to encourage researchers to destroy new human embryos from fertility clinics for stem cell research....
The full text of Cardinal Keeler’s letter can be found on the Web at
www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell/keeler517.pdf.Posted May 18, 2005
One of the most important bioethics cases is about to be argued in the Court of Appeals in the UK. Leslie Burke has a degenerating neurological disease that may eventually prevent him from swallowing. He is fully competent. He wants a feeding tube if and when. He sued for the right and won. But the General Medical Council--which sets standards of medical treatment in the UK--supported by the UK government, appealed, claiming that the decision of whether Burke lives or dies by dehydration belongs with doctors!
http://www.willtolive.co.uk/les_burke/main/contact_details.shtml
Posted May 17, 2005
White House Bioethics Council Issues Paper on Stem Cell Research
The President’s Council on Bioethics, has just published a White Paper titled, "Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells", which proposes methods of obtaining stem cells without destroying embryonic human beings.
Posted April 29, 2005
Press Release from the National Catholic Bioethics Center (ncbcenter.org)
April 28, 2005
Statement on the National Academies' Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
The National Catholic Bioethics Center was dismayed to discover that on Tuesday, The National Academies released guidelines intended to foster "responsible practices" for those engaged in privately funded human embryonic stem cell research. The following statement was offered in response by one of the Center's staff ethicists, molecular biologist Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.:
"The National Academies' decision to sanction the generation of embryonic humans by SCNT (cloning) precisely in order to extract or strip-mine their stem cells is an unethical recommendation that dehumanizes and commodifies human beings at their earliest and most vulnerable stage. Science must adhere to higher standards. It shouldn't promote or encourage in any fashion the destruction of the weaker members of the species in the interests of the powerful and the more developed. These ethically bankrupt guidelines just released by the National Academies remind us how the regulation of certain critical areas within the life sciences may ultimately require independent and extra-scientific bodies in order to achieve any meaningful ethical oversight."
Dr. John Haas, President of the Center, observed that "it is impossible to establish ethical guidelines for fundamentally unethical activities." The NCBC urges the ethical use of adult stem cells for research and therapy, an avenue which has already shown tremendous promise and even successful therapies.
For further information, contact Mark Bradford, Director of Development.
Posted March 3, 2005
March 2, 2005Re: United Nations Commission on the Status of Women Beijing Platform for Action
Dear Madam Ambassador,
Women for Faith and Family strongly supports the amendment that says that the Beijing document did NOT create a right to abortion.
Sincerely,
Helen Hull Hitchcock, President
Women for Faith & Family
PO Box 300411, St. Louis, MO 63130
Ph: 314-863-8385; Fax: 314-863-5858
WFF web site: http://www.wf-f.orgPosted March 3, 2005
From: USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:53:04 -0500
Subject: Statement on Parental Notice Before Teen's Abortion HearingDATE: March 3, 2005
FROM: William Ryan
O: 202-541-3200
H: 202-686-1824FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BISHOPS' SPOKESWOMAN Applauds HEARING ON Law requiring PARENTS TO BE NOTIFIED BEFORE A TEEN'S ABORTION
WASHINGTON-- Today the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee holds the first hearing on The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, H.R. 748. The bill was introduced by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.) with 105 original cosponsors. This Act would require abortion doctors to notify parents before doing abortions on teenaged girls from out-of-state unless parental involvement or judicial authorization under the girl's home state law has been satisfied.
"It is wrong to take a child away from her parents to another state for a secret abortion, yet abortion advocates support this practice and admit that it happens all the time," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq., Director of Planning and Information for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. "The overwhelming majority of Americans believe parents should be involved in abortion decisions involving their teenaged daughters.
"This horrible practice exposes teens to the dangers of surgery without the benefit of their medical records or history, and without necessary medical follow-up, said Ruse. "We applaud the House Constitution Subcommittee for conducting today's hearing on the Act, and urge the Congress to pass this law to help to protect vulnerable girls from exploitation.
USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Posted March 2, 2005
Pope John Paul II, Angelus message February 27, 2005 (from hospital)
"The penitential climate of Lent, which we are now living, helps us to better understand the value of suffering that in one way or another, touches all of us. It is in looking at Christ and following Him with patient trust that we are able to understand how every human form of pain has within it the divine promise of salvation and joy. I would like this message of comfort and hope to reach everyone, especially those who are going through difficult moments, those who suffer in body and spirit.
"To Mary, Mother of the Church, I renew my entrustment: 'Totus tuus'. May she help us in every moment of life to fulfill God's holy will. May my paternal blessing reach everyone."
Posted February 25, 2005
Friday Fax
February 18, 2005
Volume 8, Special ReportUN Adopts Pro-Life Declaration Against Human Cloning
In a monumental victory for the pro-life movement, the UN today adopted a declaration condemning human cloning. The UN called on Member States to adopt urgent legislation outlawing all cloning practices "as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life."
Costa Rica, which led the effort for a cloning ban, called the declaration a success for those who seek to promote ethical scientific research.
"This is a powerful message to the world that this morally questionable procedure is outside the bounds of acceptable experimentation, said Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, one of the main NGOs involved in the negotiation. "By adopting this declaration, the international community is united in condemning all human cloning as exploitative and unethical. This should encourage similar bans in legislatures around the world including in the US Senate, said Ruse.
The declaration, introduced today by Honduras, came on the last day of a week-long special session devoted entirely to resolving this issue. The declaration proved at the last minute to be an acceptable compromise to countries that have appeared staunchly divided all week. The declaration also marks the end of three years of UN deadlock over human cloning.
Countries were divided mainly over whether to protect "human life or the "human being. Costa Rica, Uganda, the United States and others who sought to ban all forms of human cloning, supported "human life. Countries including Belgium, Singapore and the United Kingdom, who wanted to ban only cloning that would result in born human beings, insisted on protecting the "human being, which according to some international legal documents would protect only those already born.
The declaration also calls on countries to "prevent the exploitation of women." Cloning requires harvesting eggs from women, and delegates from developing countries feared their women being turned into inexpensive "egg farms." The declaration calls on wealthier nations to direct attention and funding to pressing medical issues such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. It also condemns all applications of any genetic engineering techniques that threaten human dignity.
The declaration sets an international ethical standard that sends a clear signal to countries that encourage human cloning. For instance, in the United Kingdom, two "licenses" for research cloning have been issued. The first is currently subject to a legal challenge on the basis that the cloning "license" is unlawful and unnecessary. It is due to be heard in the High Court shortly. Cloning opponents in the United Kingdom welcomed the UN's resolution and look forward to Member States fulfilling their international obligations.
Copyright 2005 C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
New York, New York 10017
Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212) 754-9291
E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.orgPosted February 25, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Subject: Statement on Oregon Assisted Suicide Case
DATE: February 22, 2005
FROM: William Ryan
O: 202-541-3200
H: 202-686-1824BISHOPS, SPOKESWOMAN APPLAUDS SUPREME COURT DECISION TO REVIEW OREGON ASSISTED SUICIDE RULING
Washington"Today the Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the use of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide in the state of Oregon. The question before the Supreme Court is whether Oregon doctors may "opt out" of federal standards governing the safe use of controlled substances and prescribe them with the intent to assist in suicides. The case is Gonzales v. Oregon.
"Federally controlled drugs should be used to heal and comfort patients, not to kill them," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq., Director of Planning and Information for the Pro-Life Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Since 1984, Congress has provided that federal licenses to prescribe these drugs can be withheld from physicians who use them to endanger "public health and safety," regardless of what a state's law may allow.
"This case has never been about the federal government 'overturning' Oregon law," Ruse clarified. "Rather, it is about whether Oregon doctors can exempt themselves from federal law and prescribe federally controlled substances with the intent of causing their patients' deaths." "Oregon's state law does not give its doctors a right to overturn federal law," Ruse said.
"We are hopeful the Court will uphold the uniform enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act and stop the use of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicides," said Ruse.
USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Posted February 22, 2005
HEALTH CAN ONLY BE SACRIFICED FOR HIGHER ENDS
VATICAN CITY, FEB 21, 2005 (VIS) - John Paul II has written a Message to Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, and to participants in a study congress on the theme: "The Quality of Life and the Ethics of Health," being held in the Vatican from February 21 to 23.
The Holy Father writes that "in the first place, it is necessary to recognize the essential quality that distinguishes each human being by the fact of being created in the image and likeness of the Creator Himself. ... This level of dignity and quality belongs to the ontological order and is constitutive of the human person, it endures in every moment of life, from the first instant of conception up to natural death, and it is fully realized in the dimension of eternal life. Consequently, man must be recognized and respected in any condition of health, illness or disability."
"Under pressure from affluent societies," the Pope says, "a notion of the quality of life is being favored which is at the same time both reductive and selective, and which consists in the capacity to enjoy and to experience pleasure, or even in the capacity for self-awareness and participation in social life. As a consequence, any kind of quality of life is denied to human beings not yet or no longer capable of expressing their intelligence and will, and to those no longer capable of enjoying life as a series of sensations and relationships."
Later in his Message, the Pope refers to the moral dimension of the concept of health, "that cannot be overlooked." After recalling the spread of alcoholism, drugs and AIDS, he adds: "How much of life's energy, and how many young people's lives, could be saved and kept healthy if each individual had the moral responsibility to know how to promote better prevention and the conservation of that precious good we call health!
"Of course, health is not an absolute good," John Paul continues, "especially when it is seen as simple physical well-being, mythicized to the point that it restricts or overlooks higher ends, even proposing reasons of health in the refusal of nascent life. This is what happens in so-called 'reproductive health.' How can we not recognize in this a reductive and deviant concept of health?" Health, the Pope highlights, "can only be sacrificed to attain higher ends, as is sometimes asked in service towards God, towards the family, towards our brothers and sisters or towards society as a whole. Health must be guarded and cured as the mental-physical and spiritual equilibrium of the human being. Squandering health because of various disorders, especially those associated with the moral degradation of the individual, represents a serious ethical and social responsibility."
Source: Vatican Information Service 2/21/2005
Posted February 4, 2005
Catholic center, now in Phila., pioneered bioethics
Sun, Jan. 30, 2005 - The Philadelphia Inquirerby Kristin E. Holmes
"When the National Catholic Bioethics Center was founded in 1972, abortion was illegal and no one had ever heard of HIV/AIDS or the potential of stem cells to cure.
The Catholic Health Association of the United States was looking for a think tank, one that would consider the ethical issues of the day from a Catholic perspective.
"The church is always looked at as reactionary and behind the curve," said the center's president, John Haas, "but the truth is we were in front of the curve. We have one of the oldest bioethics centers in the country."
The nonprofit center has just moved its staff of 12 from headquarters in Boston to Philadelphia, where it will carry on its mission to "promote and safeguard the dignity of the human person in health care." While the center upholds Catholic teachings, it operates independently of the church hierarchy and raises its $1.6 million annual budget from grants, contracts and private donations.
The center provides consultation services, conducts research, and publishes two journals and at least one book annually on bioethical issues. The latest is an update of its Handbook on Critical Life Issues, which examines such topics as the theology of suffering, euthanasia, organ transplantation, and stem cell research."
To read the complete article http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/religion/10767611.htm?1c
Posted November 22, 2004
Nancy Valko was interviewed and quoted in the following article. Click the title to take you to the Birmingham News:Defining death: Question of brain death can complicate the ethics of organ donation
Monday, November 15, 2004
By Dave ParksPosted November 12, 2004
Vatican City (Vatican Information Service) - November 12, 2004In a welcoming address at the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry International Conference on palliative cures, the Holy Father said, "Medicine always places itself at the service of life. Even when it knows it cannot defeat a serious pathology, it dedicates its own capabilities to alleviating suffering. To work with passion to help the patient in every situation means to be aware of the inalienable dignity of every human being, even those in the extreme conditions of a terminal state."
On the topic of euthanasia, he said, "dramas caused by an ethic which seeks to establish who can live and who must die. ... Even when motivated by sentiments of a poorly understood compassion, ... euthanasia, instead of redeeming the person from suffering, suppresses them." He stated that compassion, when wrongly understood, "leads to snuffing out life in order to alleviate pain, thus overturning the ethical statute of medical science. ... true compassion, on the contrary, promotes every reasonable effort to favor the patient's healing."
In closing remarks, John Paul II said, "science and technology, in any case, can never give a satisfactory answer to the basic questions of the human heart. Only faith can answer these questions. The Church intends to offer her specific contribution by the human and spiritual accompaniment of the ill."
In a Message to the president of the Association of Italian Catholic Doctors, Domenico Di Virgilio, on the occasion of the organization's 23rd national congress, dated November 9, the Holy Father reaffirms the ethical principles on which the Hippocratic Oath are based: "There are no lives that are not worth living; there is no suffering, no matter how grave, that can justify killing a life; there are no reasons, no matter how noble, that make plausible the creation of human beings, destined to be used and destroyed."
"May the conviction that life must be promoted and defended from conception till natural death always inspire you in your decisions: what will distinguish you as Catholic doctors is precisely the defense of the inviolable dignity of every human being. May you never neglect the spiritual dimension of the human being in your work of safeguarding and promoting health."
Posted September 14, 2004
Euthanizing Babies
"Why does accepting euthanasia as a remedy for suffering in very limited circumstances inevitably lead to never-ending expansion of the killing license? "Blame the radically altered mindset that results when killing is redefined from a moral wrong into a beneficent and legal act", writes Wesley Smith in an article on the new legalization of infant euthanasia in the Netherlands in the September 13 edition of the Weekly Standard. "If killing is right for, say the adult cancer patient, why shouldn't it be just as right for the disabled quadriplegic, the suicidal mother whose children have been killed in an accident, or the infant born with profound mental retardation? At that point, laws and regulations erected to protect the vulnerable against abuse come to be seen as obstructions that must be surmounted. From there, it is only a hop, skip, and a jump to deciding that killing is the preferable option," Smith writes. He points out that "mercy killing" of infants and young children is not something new to Dutch medical practice, but until now it has been illegal. Further, euthanizing babies and children is not confined to the Netherlands; it is also increasing in Belgium, where a similar movement to legalize it is in progress.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His next book, Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World will be released in October.
Read the full article, "Now They Want to Euthanize Children", on the Weekly Standard web site: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp
Posted August 30, 2004
From: USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:21:12 -0400
To: Info@wf-f.org
Subject: Life Issues ForumLIFE ISSUES FORUM
August 27, 2004
For Immediate Release
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Judged Unconstitutional
by Gail QuinnOn August 26, a federal judge in Manhattan, Richard Conway Casey, issued a ruling in which he called partial-birth abortion "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized." Nonetheless, he believed he was compelled to rule that a ban on the brutal procedure is unconstitutional.
The ban on partial-birth abortion was signed into law by President Bush in November 2003. It was immediately challenged in three federal court districts by the abortion industry. Earlier this summer a judge in San Francisco, writing a decision in strong support of partial-birth abortion, ruled the ban unconstitutional. The Nebraska decision has yet to be issued.
As one reads Judge Casey's decision, you can almost feel his utter distress about the procedure that was discussed in his courtroom--its ethics, its brutality. He says
...the fetus's arms and legs have been delivered outside
the uterus while the fetus is still alive.
With the fetus's head lodged in the cervix,
the physician punctures the skull with scissors or crushes the head with forceps....
The physician
then drains the fetus's skull by suction, or by using a finger,
and the skull collapses.
Judge Casey also explains that the fetus could be moving at the time the skull is crushed, and that the procedure can "subject fetuses to severe pain."
How on earth, one may ask, if the Judge was aware of the horrible and painful things done to kill unborn children by partial-birth abortion, could he rule that banning it is unconstitutional?
The simple answer is the Supreme Court and its decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973) and their progeny, Stenberg v. Carhart (2000).
Roe made abortion legal but said it could be prohibited late in pregnancy, as long as there is an exception for the mother's health. But health, as defined by the Supreme Court in Doe, was nothing more than a farce. It defined health as including "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age."
Judge Casey called attention to the fact that purported safety advantages offered by the abortionists in support of partial-birth abortion "do not rise above the realm of the hypothetical." And he noted that their justifications for the procedure were "incoherent", "false," or "merely theoretical."
Still, the judge said he was faced with differing medical opinions, and that the Supreme Court in Stenberg has ruled that where differing medical opinions exist in regard to abortion, "a health exception is constitutionally required." Despite the sheer inhumanity of the partial-birth abortion procedure, Casey said that lower court judges who disagree with the higher court nevertheless have a constitutional duty to obey its rulings.
This decision shows clearly how Roe v. Wade and the cases that flow from it have taken out of the hands of the American people the right to prohibit some of the most heinous and painful acts committed on the youngest and most vulnerable in the human family. Roe v. Wade must be overturned.
Gail Quinn is executive director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C.
USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
From: USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:20:30 -0400
To: Info@wf-f.org
Subject: Statment on NY Partial-Brith RulingDATE: August 26, 2004
FROM: Sr. Mary Ann Walsh
O: 202-541-3200
H: 301-587-4762FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BISHOPS' OFFICIAL BLAMES ROE V. WADE FOR NEW RULING AGAINST PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN
WASHINGTON-- A federal judge in the Southern District of New York found August 26 that partial-birth abortion "is a gruesome, brutal, barbaric, and uncivilized medical procedure," but said that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act must be struck down under the dictates of Roe v. Wade.
"Today Roe v. Wade once again made the unthinkable constitutional," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq., spokesperson for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. "Because of Roe, killing a child in the process of being born is called a constitutional right rather than an act of barbarism."
New York Judge Richard Conway Casey ruled against the Act because it did not include a health exception as required by Roe. The government argued that the abortion method was never medically necessary, a conclusion shared by the American Medical Association.
"The crucial question of medical necessity was never answered in this trial," said Ruse. "At every turn where medical records were sought, the medical institutions refused to produce them. In essence, the abortion doctors said 'just trust us,' and no hard evidence was considered," Ruse said.
"The health exception, is a farce," said Ruse. "As created by the Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton, the health exception is 'all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age., It's the quintessential exception that swallows the rule -- so broad that you could drive a truck, or a fully-formed unborn baby, right through it."
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the National Abortion Federation and several individual abortion doctors. Earlier this month the Department of Justice appealed an adverse ruling in a similar case in California; a third case is still pending in a Nebraska federal court.
As partial-birth abortion was debated on the national stage over the last several years, many people refused to believe it existed. But testimony from the ACLU's team of abortion doctors about their methods for killing children in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy revealed partial-birth abortion to be every bit as real and as horrible as the pro-life community claimed. Full transcripts of the trial are available at www.usccb.org/prolife.
Stephen Chasen, MD, an ACLU witness, testified that he didn't know whether partial-birth abortion hurts the baby. When Judge Casey asked him if he had "any care or concern for the fetus whose head you were crushing," Chasen answered, "No." A fetal neurobiology expert testified that such abortions would cause "severe and excruciating pain" to the child.
"Partial-birth abortion promises nothing but pain, for everyone involved," said Ruse. "We applaud the Justice Department for its vigorous defense of the Act, and encourage an appeal of this ruling," she said.
USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
From: USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:48:09 -0400
To: Info@wf-f.org
Subject: New Poll on Stem Cell Research FundingDATE: August 23, 2004
FROM: Sr. Mary Ann Walsh
O: 202-541-3200
H: 301-587-4762FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW POLL: AMERICANS PREFER FUNDING STEM CELL RESEARCH THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE DESTROYING HUMAN EMBRYOS
WASHINGTON-- Despite exaggerated recent claims about the benefits of embryonic stem cell research, Americans strongly prefer funding research that does not require destroying human embryos. They also strongly oppose human cloning for either reproductive or research purposes.
These are the chief findings of survey questions commissioned by the Pro-Life Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The questions are part of a national survey conducted by International Communications Research, which polled over one thousand American adults by telephone in mid-August.
The poll suggests that Americans are closely divided on federal funding of stem cell research that requires destroying human embryos, with 43 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed. However, when given a choice between funding all stem cell research (both adult and embryonic), and funding only alternatives such as adult stem cell research to see if there is no need to destroy embryos for research, Americans clearly prefer funding only adult stem cell research by a margin of 61 percent to 23 percent. Opposition to funding embryonic stem cell research is stronger among women, low-income Americans, seniors, and regular churchgoers.
The survey also shows that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the use of human cloning to create embryos for medical research, 80 percent to 13 percent.
"Cloning embryos for their stem cells is the logical next step in the embryonic stem cell research agenda," says Richard Doerflinger, Deputy Director of the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. Americans also oppose cloning to provide children to infertile couples, 82 percent to 11 percent.
"Polls on embryonic stem cell research often fail to mention that the research requires destroying human embryos," says Doerflinger. "Yet this fact is essential to understanding the moral issue. Some polls also make exaggerated claims about the (hypothetical) medical benefits of embryonic cells, while ignoring the documented benefits of alternative research that poses no moral problem. No instrument for testing public opinion should mislead the public on these crucial aspects of the issue."
Poll questions and results are attached.
SEC,CNS,RNS,Crux
Questions asked by International Communications Research, a national research firm headquartered in Media, Pennsylvania. A weighted sample of 1001 American adults was surveyed by telephone August 13-17, 2004, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
1. Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person's tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for such experiments?
Support 43.3%
Oppose 46.9%
Don't know 9.0%
Refused 0.8%2. Stem cells for research can be obtained by destroying human embryos. They can also be obtained from adults, from placentas left over from live births, and in other ways that do no harm to the donor. Scientists disagree on which source may end up being most successful in treating diseases. How would you prefer your tax dollars to be used this year for stem cell research?
(Options rotated)
Supporting all methods, including those that require destroying human embryos,
to see which will be most successful 23.0%or
Supporting research using adult stem cells and other alternatives, to see if there is no need to destroy human embryos for research. 61.4%
Neither (volunteered) 8.0%
Don't know 6.7%
Refused 0.8%3. Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to try to create children for infertile couples?
Yes 11.1%
No 82.1%
Don't Know 6.4%
Refused 0.4%4. Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?
Yes 13.3%
No 79.8%
Don't Know 6.1%
Refused 0.7%USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Posted August 4, 2004
DATE: August 3, 2004
FROM: David Early
O 202-541-3200
H 703-534-4775FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BISHOPS' OFFICIAL COMMENDS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ACTION ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION
WASHINGTON - This week the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal of a June ruling by a federal judge in the Northern District of California declaring the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in violation of Roe v. Wade.
"The American Medical Association says that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary," said Gail Quinn, Executive Director of the Catholic bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. "To say that it is a fundamental constitutional right, as the federal judge in California did," said Quinn, "makes a mockery of the Constitution."
"We commend the U.S. Department of Justice for appealing this dreadful decision. There is no place in a civilized society for this cruel and dangerous practice," said Quinn.
USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Posted June 24, 2004
Dear all,
Earlier this year, there was an article about Ron Wilkison titled "Warehousing the Disabled" (reprinted and online at:http://www.wf-f.org/Wilkison-Giganti.html). Ron has been in a St. Louis nursing home since a few months after he had severe brain injury from a truck accident in 1999. Ron has been the subject of news articles in Pennsylvania (where his parents live) and recently on a local TV news station here in St. Louis.Ron's parents have been trying to get guardianship of Ron since his wife divorced him and remarried over 2 years ago but lawyers for Workman's Comp (after initially agreeing to transfer Ron to a better, cheaper facility near Ron's parents) continue to fight tooth and nail to keep Ron in the St. Louis nursing home where Ron receives no therapy and just a weekly visit from me for stimulation. Ron's parents have spent thousands on lawyers as well as monthly visits to come from Pennsylvania to see Ron. At the present time, the guardian is a lawyer appointed by the court but when Ron was recently hospitalized for pneumonia, Ron's mom was at the hospital trying to direct medical care-not the guardian/lawyer.
Even though Ron's parents were next in line for guardianship in court papers, a St. Louis County judge ruled last year that the parents could not have guardianship unless they proved how Ron's health care expenses would be paid since Workman's Comp refuses to pay for his care in Pennsylvania.(Ironically, Ron's mom contacted Medicaid in Pennsylvania and they indicated that they would cover the expenses if Ron was transferred but this has seemed to make no difference in the case.)
Now, Ron's ex-wife (on behalf of their daughter since she has relinquished guardianship herself) is petitioning the court to keep Ron in St. Louis so that their daughter can visit with him every few weeks, despite Ron's parents long-standing and written offer to take the daughter to Pennsylvania for visits. (Ron's daughter was 5 months old when the accident happened in 1999.)
According to Ron's mom Sherry, at a court hearing yesterday in St. Louis, her lawyer reported that new, outrageous arguments are now being made. According to Sherry (who was not allowed in the courtroom but talked with her lawyer afterwards), it has now even being suggested that Ron's parents may be really after withdrawal of treatment so Ron would die and Missouri allegedly has more protective laws than Pennsylvania so Ron would be "safer" here than in the parents' state! Ironically, there is another argument that Ron's parents would want all sorts of expensive rehab for Ron and cause even more expense for Workman's Comp. (Sherry has denied both contradictory arguments.) And, once again, the argument is being made by the Workman's Comp lawyer that Ron is in a permanent "vegetative" state and thus won't get better so he might as well just stay at the nursing home in St. Louis.
Another irony is that just recently, Ron's mom has offered Ron tastes of foods and he has swallowed them. At one point, he even sucked a bit of gravy from a fork according to Ron's mom, Sherry.
The suspicion is that the court case will go on and on in the hope that Ron will eventually just die or the parents will just give up. (And, of course, the lawyers and court will continue to be paid.) Another hearing is to be scheduled next month.
This case was initially just about guardianship but now the focus seems to have shifted to Ron's so-called permanent "vegetative" state and inability to recover. Even Judge Greer isn't entertaining the idea of just leaving Terri Schiavo permanently under the guardianship of a court-appointed lawyer but that is what seems to be happening to Ron Wilkison and his parents.
Nancy Valko, RN.
Posted May 19, 2004
Arizona Debates Right-to-Die Internet Registry
Nancy Valko Comment: Some states also have proposed similar registries for organ donation. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable driving around with either but especially with both! (See excerpt and link to story below.)
But seriously, one of the problems with these registries is that such decisions against treatment are almost never needed immediately, especially in emergencies when doctors are trying to determine whether a sudden respiratory or cardiac arrest is a terminal event or a condition that can be reversed or helped. Not to mention notification of family members and the time needed to closely read such a document. (Many of my patients have told me that they want an advance directive specifically because they don't want to be resuscitated if they will be "like Nancy Cruzan" without realizing that we doctors and nurses don't possess that foresight.)
Many people who would use such a registry may also not realize that their directive may be interpreted as "if in doubt, don't treat me," thus accepting a future death rather than even the possibility of disability-or even recovery. There is a difference between a "Do Not Resuscitate" order in the case of a dying person and an advance directive that may be intepreted as a presumption not to treat. - NV
Fox News story - Wednesday, May 19, 2004
A bill introduced in the Arizona Legislature would make that state among the first to have a free online registry for residents to file end-of-life directions - or living wills (search) - for medical treatment.
The health care directives registry would make information about treating patients' life-threatening conditions available to hospitals and health care workers so they can know whether patients want to be on life support (search) or whether they should be allowed to die. Arizona, which has a huge senior citizen population, would be the first state to provide such a service for free; North Carolina and Hawaii charge for the service.
The hope is that the service could prevent cases like that of Florida's Terri Schiavo, who has been on life support in a vegetative state since 1990. Schiavo's parents want to keep her on life support but her husband says she would want to be allowed to die. ,,, (Complete story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120324,00.html) broken link 6/27/2005
Posted April 30, 2004
US Bishops Pro-Life Director Corrects CFFC Claims -- AgainThe director of the US Bishops' Pro-Life Activities Secretariat, Gail Quinn, responded to the misinformation in a letter by Frances Kissling of "Catholics for a Free Choice" published in the Washington Post. The PLA Secretariat is a consistently powerful voice for the Church's defense of life -- womb to tomb. Its web site, <http://www.usccb.org/prolife/index.htm> provides an amazing amount of useful information, including the revealing transcripts from "Partial-birth Abortion" hearings. -- hhh
Letter to the editor, Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54892-2004Apr29.html broken link 6/27/2005The Catholic View on Abortion
Friday, April 30, 2004; Page A28
Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice [letters, April 22] pretended to clarify Catholic teaching on abortion, but her group, as the U.S. bishops' conference has repeatedly explained, is not a Catholic organization. Its closest ties are to the National Abortion Federation (NAF).Ms. Kissling directed the NAF before heading Catholics for a Free Choice. In 1991, in an interview in Mother Jones magazine, she summarized her relationship to the church as follows: "I spent 20 years looking for a government that I could overthrow without being thrown in jail. I finally found one in the Catholic Church."
The Catholic Church teaches that every human being, from conception to natural death, has a fundamental right to life, which must not be infringed.
Laws that seek to exclude the unborn child or any class of humanity from this fundamental respect and protection are unjust laws that all should oppose.
GAIL QUINN
Executive Director
Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
WashingtonPosted April 23, 2004
DATE: April 22, 2004
FROM: William Ryan, USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
O: 202-541-3200
H: 202-686-1824FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BISHOPS' OFFICIAL CONTRASTS "CHOICE" MARCH WITH ABORTION TRIALS; SAYS WOMEN DESERVE BETTER THAN ABORTION
WASHINGTON-"As abortion activists gather this weekend to protest what they see as new threats to 'choice,' abortion providers are in court describing the grisly reality behind the political slogan," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq., Director of Planning and Information for the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Her comments came in regard to the so-called March for Women's Lives that will take place here April 25. The National Organization for Women, a sponsor of the event, describes it as "the most significant and massive abortion rights march in over a decade." The reason for the urgency, according to organizers, is the new threat to "choice" arising chiefly from the ban on partial-birth abortion.
As "pro-choice" activists prepared for the march, federal courtrooms coast-to-coast heard graphic testimony, with little media coverage, about exactly what happens to unborn babies during partial-birth abortions. Lawsuits were filed against the federal ban when it was enacted last November, and trials began March 29 in federal courts in Nebraska, New York, and California. The Nebraska and California trials recently ended, though no rulings have been issued. The New York trial is still underway.
"The trials this month create a telling backdrop for the 'pro-choice' demonstration this weekend," Ruse said. "The star witnesses, seasoned abortion doctors, have taken the stand to describe in astonishingly frank terms how they crush the skulls and dismember the bodies of infants in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. This is the true face of 'choice.'"
(Transcripts of the trials, available in full at www.usccb.org/prolife, also include testimony from a pediatric pain specialist about the "excruciating pain" experienced by unborn children and by medical experts say the procedure is "never necessary.")
The "March for Women's Lives" comes 31 years after the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision. "Roe v. Wade has been a social experiment on the lives of women and children," Ruse said. "After thirty-one years we know almost nothing about abortion's impact on women's health, on marriages, or on surviving siblings-we don't even know with certainty how many children have died."
"Legalized abortion has been an unstudied, unchecked experiment," she said.
Maternal health risks, fetal health complications, and rape account for only about 7% of abortions annually, according to statistics gathered by abortion supporters. The two overarching reasons that women have abortions, according to their statistics, are a lack of practical resources and emotional support.
"In other words, women abort their babies because they need practical help and emotional support and no one will give it to them," Ruse said. "This is the dirty secret of the pro-choice movement. Abortion is a reflection that we have failed to meet the needs of women."
"No compassionate person wants a woman to go through the personal tragedy of abortion," she added. "Women deserve better than abortion."
USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat
Posted April 20, 2004
Richard Doerflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote on the Pope's recent address on giving food and water to deeply disabled persons in an article published on the "Life Issues Forum" of the Committee's web page. With Mr. Doerflinger's permission, we provide introductory paragraphs and a link to the complete article on the USCCB web site.
USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities - Life Issues Forum
Pope's Speech is About Human Dignity
by Richard M. Doerflinger
April 9, 2004Pope John Paul II recently gave a speech on our obligation to care for patients in a "vegetative" state. From some reactions, you would think he had brought back the Spanish Inquisition.
One harsh reaction came from Arthur Caplan, University of Pennsylvania bioethicist. His MSNBC commentary, "Must we all die with a feeding tube?", conjured a "cruel" scenario where patients are "forced to endure medical treatment that they do not want." He says the pope is attacking patient autonomy.
But Caplan is wrong about the problem, and wrong about the Holy Father's speech.
Here's the problem. Twenty years ago, many ethicists started urging broad policies for withdrawal of assisted feeding not because it is especially ineffective, burdensome, or unwanted by patients, but, as ethicist Daniel Callahan warned, because the ethicists felt that "a denial of nutrition may in the long run become the only effective way to make certain that a large number of biologically tenacious patients actually die." Adding to the problem, health insurance policies now often reward undertreatment, and chronically disabled patients who can survive with basic care are frowned upon once they exceed the average cost allotment for their condition.
Even in the "tube feeding" cases that have divided families and sparked headlines, the patients generally said nothing clear in the matter; some family members want to continue their care while others want to let them die. Some relatives have said the patient is essentially already dead an "empty shell" with no dignity.
What does this trend have to do with patient autonomy? Not much. If these patients had no human dignity, there would be no reason to respect their autonomy either.
This is the central problem the Holy Father addressed. ... (read complete article on USCCB web site:
www.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/lifeissues/040804.htmPosted April 18, 2004
Re: Memorandum from USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat - PBA physicians testimony and Pro-Abortion March
Comment - Helen Hull Hitchcock
The USCCB Pro-Life Committee, to its everlasting credit, is posting transcripts of the chilling testimony of physicians who commit Partial-birth Abortions (Excerpt and link provided in their Memorandum below). Committee spokesman, Cathy Cleaver Ruse comments that the issue is "not for some abstract notion of 'choice', but, as the testimony shows, it is for a very real, very cruel, and very painful way of killing nearly viable and even post-viable unborn children."
But there is evidently a radical disconnect within the conference of bishops -- and it centers on a pro-abortion Catholic presidential contender.
Posted April 14, 2004
http://www.lifenews.com/bio263.html
Ethicists Do Battle Over Pope's Comments on Euthanasia, Disabled
by Paul Nowak
LifeNews.com Staff Writer
April 10, 2004Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In the wake Pope John Paul II's proclamation that feeding tubes are necessary medical care for all who need them, Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, reacted writing an editorial for MSNBC entitled, "Must we all die with a feeding tube?" Caplan's essay is sparking opposition from pro-life advocates.
"The Pope's order spells trouble for your health care -- not only because it threatens to undermine a powerful social consensus in the United States about your right to refuse medical treatment, but also because it means you can no longer be sure whether a hospital will respect your request or that of your loved ones making a decision for you," says Caplan."
Caplan cited the 1990 case of Nancy Cruzan, the Missouri woman who became brain damaged after a car crash.
John Ashcroft, then Attorney General of Missouri, insisted that a feeding tube remain to nourish her, despite her family's wishes that she be left to die. The Supreme Court ruled that food and water tubes constitute medical treatment, and can be withdrawn if it can be shown that it is the patient's wish.
Thus, Caplan argues that the Pope's command on March 20 infringes on the "fundamental" right to control one's medical care even if it means one's own destruction."
But Nancy Valko, a representative of Nurses for Life and a leading monitor of end-of-life issues, disagrees with Caplan's assessment.
She said that the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA), which passed Congress as part of a budget reconciliation bill required health care providers to provide information on legal documents allowing for the withdrawal of medical treatments.
The first living wills, explains Valko, were drafted by an attorney with a euthanasia group to address the refusal of "heroic measures," restricted to when an individual was actually dying and required the patient's own signature.
After that Cruzan decision, the documents deteriorated in a vague form were instead of only the patient, any "surrogate," such as friends or family, could refuse any medical treatment, even simple a simple IV as a "feeding tube" or antibiotic as "life support," even when the patient is not dying. Even worse, any vague statement by the patient can be taken as "clear and convincing" evidence that the individual wishes to die.
"It also should not be surprising that the Pope's statement, the Schiavo case, and the now fairly frequent media stories about people waking up after even years in a 'vegetative' state are considered threats to the lethal evolution of the so-called "right to die" into what has become really medicalized, private killing with little or no legal or ethical protections for vulnerable people," said Valko.
"Unfortunately, the traditional common sense ethic of neither prolonging nor hastening/causing death is now being misrepresented as an attack on people's rights," Valko concluded. "In Caplan's world, the only ethical thing we have to fear is being 'forced' to live too long rather than a legal and ethical system that too often believes some people are a waste of health care dollars and really better off dead."
Expanding on the Catholic Church's pro-life policies on assisted suicide and euthanasia, the Pope stated to the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations that removing the feeding tube of a disabled patient is immoral and amounts to "euthanasia by omission."
Pope John Paul II also said that the lexicon used to describe such patients -- as being in a "vegetative state" was degrading and inhuman.
Posted March 23, 2004
Missouri Children's Health Insurance Bill -- HB 1307 -- Bi-Partisan House Bill adds the term "Unborn Children" to the definition of those eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
For Further information contact: State Rep. Matt Muckler (D-Ferguson) 573-751-4726 or State Rep. Bob Dixon (R- Springfield) 573-751-9809
To review the House Bill go to:
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/biltxt/intro/HB1307I.htmPosted March 23, 2004
Austin Ruse: U Senate Continues Debate Today On Federal Amendment Defending Traditionaly Marriage
Dear Colleague,
As you read this a Senate hearing will be underway looking into a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Senate staff tell us that a markup of such an amendment could begin as early as next week.
Spread the word.
Yours sincerely,
Austin Ruse
PresidentCULTURE & COSMOS
March 22, 2004 Volume 1, Number 32
US Senate Hearing Begins Today on Federal Marriage Amendment
The US Senate continues debate today on a federal amendment to the Constitution that would defend traditional marriage. The amendment, first introduced in the House of Representatives by Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) in May of 2003, states that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and that neither the federal nor state constitutions can introduce measures to allow that title to be granted to other partnerships. The hearing in defense of traditional marriage was called by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the Judiciary committee, and will be the third hearing requested by Cornyn in under a year.
There is a sense of urgency to the proposed amendment because of the growing number of cities that are allowing same-sex marriages. In a previous hearing Cornyn said that "the only reason we are discussing this today is the work of aggressive lawyers, and a handful of activist judges.traditional marriage has always been the law in all 50 states renegade judges (and some local officials) are attempting to radically redefine [it]."
In addition, at the national level he said that marriage continues to be defined traditionally, as can be seen from the Defense of Marriage Act, a bipartisan measure passed in 1996. President George Bush has inserted himself into the debate, promising that the administration will defend the Defense of Marriage Act, but also called for an amendment to the Constitution at the end of February.
Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) will testify in the first panel, and is one of five Senators sponsoring the amendment. According to Allard," this definition is neither new nor radical. It is a concept embraced by a majority of Americans of all religions, races and political affiliations. It is my belief that protecting the tradition and union of marriage is among the important policies the Congress should address." House Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), also expected to testify, has said, "giving an option to marry to same sex couples has zero effect on the marriages of opposite sex couples." Representative John Lewis (D-GA), the final Congressional witness is also scheduled to testify in opposition.
Teresa Collett, a professor at St. Thomas Law School will testify on constitutional law, and in previous testimony said "either the state will continue to regulate marriage out of concern for the well-being of the family or it will view it as a means of individual fulfillment. In the past it has not been necessary to address the nature of marriage because of the societal consensus that marriage was about family formation. Today we confront differing views, and we must choose."
Katherine Spaht, of the Louisiana State University Law Center and Reverend Richard Richardson of the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston are both expected to testify as proponents of the amendment. Phyllis G. Bossin, chair of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association, was quoted by the Washington Post as saying that a constitutional amendment protecting marriage was "problematic" and is expected to testify along with Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School against the amendment.
In previous hearings Cornyn said that defense of traditional marriage is not discriminatory. "Millions of Americans who support the traditional institution of marriage should not be slandered as intolerant. The institution of marriage was not created to discriminate or oppress-it was established to protect and nurture children." Senior Senate staff say that a markup of the amendment could begin within a week of the hearing.
Copyright---Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500
Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Web sitePosted March 22, 2004
PATIENTS IN THE VEGETATIVE STATE ARE ALWAYS HUMANVATICAN CITY, MAR 20, 2004 (VIS) - Today in the Clementine Hall John Paul II received 400 participants in an international congress promoted by the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC) and by the Pontifical Academy for Life.
After recalling that conference members focussed on the theme of the clinical condition known as the "vegetative state," the Pope affirmed that "the intrinsic value and the personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the specific circumstances of their life. Human beings, even if they are seriously ill and impaired in the exercise of their highest functions, are and always will be human beings and will never become 'vegetables' or 'animals'. Our sisters and brothers who are in a 'vegetative state' fully preserve their dignity."
"Physicians and health workers, society and the Church have a moral duty toward these persons which they cannot shirk, without neglecting the requirements of professional deontology as well as Christian and human solidarity. Sick people in a vegetative state, waiting to recover or for a natural end, have the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, hygiene, warmth, etc)."
The Holy Father emphasized that water and food, even when administered artificially, are "a natural means of preserving life, not a medical procedure. Therefore, their use must be considered ordinary and appropriate and as such, morally obligatory."
The probability that there is little hope for recovery, "when the vegetative state lasts longer than a year, cannot ethically justify abandoning or interrupting basic care, including food and hydration, of a patient." Death by starvation or dehydration carried out "consciously or deliberately is truly euthanasia by omission."
The Pope recalled the "moral principal according to which even the slightest doubt of being in the presence of a person who is alive requires full respect and prohibits any action that would anticipate his or her death. . The value of the life of a man cannot be subjected to the judgement of quality expressed by other men; it is necessary to promote positive activities to counteract pressure for the suspension of food and hydration, as a means to putting an end to the life of these patients."
"Above all," he added, "we must support the families" that have a patient in the vegetative state. "We cannot leave them alone with the heavy human, economic and psychological weight." Society must promote "specific programs of assistance and rehabilitation; economic support and help at home for the family; . and support structures when there are no family members able to address the problem." In addition, he said, volunteers provide "fundamental support to help the family to escape isolation and to help them to feel a valuable part of society and not abandoned by social institutions."
John Paul II ended by emphasizing that "in these situations spiritual and pastoral help is especially important in order to understand the deeper meaning of a seemingly desperate situation."
AC/PATIENTS VEGETATIVE STATE/. VIS 040322 (500)
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/a0_en.htmPosted March 2, 2004
WAREHOUSING THE DISABLED: the case of Ron Wilkison
"Wall of Shame" - Jefferson City, MO -- Press Release 2/26/2004 Women for Faith & Family sent a letter of support to Missouri pro-life legislators whose pictures were displayed as a "Wall of Shame" in the rotunda of the Missouri Capitol building at a pro-abortion rally on February 17.
Posted February 19, 2004
Bioethics Challenged by a "New Paradigm," Says Papal Envoy
Cardinal Sounds a Warning for World Day of the SickLOURDES, France, FEB. 10, 2004 (Zenit.org).- How can the prevailing mentalities and even the law justify the elimination of human beings in certain circumstances?
This question was answered in Lourdes by Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers and John Paul II's special envoy to World Day of the Sick celebrations, which end Wednesday.
Posted February 16, 2004
Cloning Turns a Human Being Into "Industrial Material," Warns Vatican Bioethics Expert
"Insistence on this path of so-called therapeutic cloning, with 'amazing' ends, conveys the idea that it is a political battle", Bishop Elio Sgreccia said in a statement on Vatican Radio February 13 about reports of cloning of human beings in Korea. "That is, there is a desire to attain freedom to do whatever one wishes with the human embryo from the industrial point of view," he said.
From the moral point of view, no form of human cloning can be justified. It is "asexual reproduction," he said. The cloned human being lacks a father or a mother, since it comes from the genetic code of only one individual, the bishop added.
"This desire to control the total constitution of a human individual is, in itself, immoral," he stressed. Bishop Sgreccia is vice-chairman of the Pontifical Academy for Life and director of the Bioethics Center of the University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.
(To read complete report go to Zenit.org: Code: ZE04021307 Date: 2004-02-13
Posted February 4, 2004
Warehousing the Disabled: the case of Ron Wilkison - By Kristin Giganti
A little over four years ago, on September 30, 1999, Ron Wilkison's life changed forever. The 31-year-old New Castle, Pennsylvania, native was on the job about an hour south of St. Louis, Missouri, driving for Midwest Delivery. Unable to stop in time, Ron's vehicle skidded onto a four-lane highway and collided with a tractor-trailer. The outlook for Ron was grave: He survived, but suffered a severe brain injury.Ultimately, what made Ron's future so precarious was not his actual injury, but the warped way society and many in the medical community increasingly view victims of debilitating brain injuries....
NOTE: to read the complete story, click on the title above.
Posted January 14, 2004
New Research Shows Dangers of Condoms in HIV Prevention
Availability of condoms statistically increase promiscuity and risk of contracting HIV according to medical experts who presented their findings on the "ABC" approach to the HIV/Pandemic in Washington, DC last week. The presentations, hosted by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, were critical of the insistence by some NGOs and policy makers that the "C" (condom) approach will stem the tide of the pandemic....
NOTE: to read more of this story, click on link above.
Posted January 3, 2004
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Comments on FDA Proposal to Change "Emergency Contraception" from Prescription to Over-the Counter
On December 5, 2003, the USCCB addressed the Food and Drug Administration on the subject of making drugs for so-called "Emergency Contraception" (EC) available over-the-counter, without prescriptions. The letter to the FDA and a summary of the statement, which was signed by USCCB general counsel Mark Chopko, appears below. The complete statement is accessible on the bishops' web site (click link above.)
The full statement includes discussion of a) The Abortifacient Properties of EC and the Implications for Informed Consent; b) Public Health Concerns; c) Potential for Coercion of Pharmacists.
NOTE - see also "Breaking News" page: December 17, 2003 - for USCCB news release on EC "Plan B".
December 5, 2003
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) - Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, Maryland 20852
Subj: Docket No. 2001P-0075 (concerning a proposal to "Switch Status of Emergency Contraceptives From Rx to OTC")Dear Sir or Madam:
On November 25, 2003, the Food and Drug Administration announced a meeting of the Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs, to be held on December 16, 2003, for the purpose of considering a proposal to make Plan B or levonorgestrel-only "emergency contraception" ("EC") available without a prescription. 68 Fed. Reg. 66113 (Nov. 25, 2003). The agency invited written comments. Id
On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, we submit the following comments in opposition to the proposal to make EC available without a prescription.
Interest of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia. All active Catholic bishops in the United States are members of the Conference. The Catholic Church, the largest religious denomination in the United States, has over 66 million adherents in over 19,000 parishes throughout the country. The Conference advocates and promotes the pastoral teaching of the bishops in such diverse areas as education, family life, health care, social welfare, immigration, civil rights, and the economy.Our opposition to the proposal to make EC available over-the-counter stems from our concerns for promoting the dignity of human life, maintaining public health, and protecting family life.
Approval of over-the-counter use of EC is objectionable for several reasons.
1. EC can have an abortifacient effect. To make it more widely available through over-the-counter use would conflict with a trend in law and medicine which recognizes the human embryo as a human subject and a patient deserving of protection.
2. Many women are currently unaware that EC can have an abortifacient effect. This is a matter that would be of deep concern to many women were they aware of it. Over the counter use will only guarantee continued unawareness by excluding the participation of physicians who might otherwise provide this information.
3. EC carries significant risks and is contraindicated for many women. Indeed, the package insert says that EC is not to be used as a routine method of contraception. Making EC available over-the-counter would eliminate the clinical oversight necessary to ensure that EC is not used routinely. In particular, it would eliminate the clinical monitoring and follow-up needed to address the risk of ectopic pregnancy, a potentially life-threatening condition.</