SHS is Closed for the New Year Holiday

My best to all.

Village Voice Lays Off Nat Hentoff

Ever wonder why print media is sinking beneath the waves? Here's an example. The Village Voice has laid off my pal Nat Hentoff, who has churned out thoughtful and even prescient columns there for 50 years. From the story:

The troubled Village Voice laid off three employees Tuesday, including Nat Hentoff, the prominent columnist who has worked for the paper since 1958, contributing opinionated columns about jazz, civil liberties and politics..."Nat Hentoff wrote liner notes for every great musician that I've ever loved, from Billie Holiday to Bob Dylan and Aretha Franklin, and that's not even what he's been writing about for the last 30 years," said Tom Robbins, a Voice staff writer.

Not surprisingly, the Times failed to note that Hentoff is one of the country's most prominent pro life columnists, who has fought abortion (leading some VV colleagues to shun him), written against assisted suicide/euthanasia, unethical medical experiments on babies with disabilities, infanticide, the dehydration of Terri Schiavo, the "duty to die," in favor of mandatory testing of newborns for HIV, etc., for decades. Indeed, I would say that standing up for human exceptionalism and the sanctity/equality of human life as a prominent atheist, is as worthy of mention in this story as his splendid work in jazz and his absolutist belief in civil liberties. Along this line, Nat Hentoff was named a Great Defender of Life by the Human Life Foundation a few years ago. Perhaps the Times found that aspect of his career too embarrassing to mention.

Man with Disabilities "Not Worth Saving"

The next time you are tempted to scoff at folk with disabilities who worry that they many people think their lives are not worth living, remember this story. Two medical technicians from the UK have been arrested for allegedly deciding that the life of a man with disabilities wasn't "worth saving" from a heart attack. From the story:

It is alleged that staff in the control centre heard the two medics making disparaging comments about the state of the house.

A police source, who asked not to be named, said that the ambulancemen were then heard discussing Mr Baker and saying "words to the effect that he was not worth saving". The source said that the two men were allegedly first heard commenting on the untidy state of the house and then saying that it was not worth bothering to resuscitate Mr Baker. They are said to have discussed what to tell ambulance control and decided to say that Mr Baker was already dead when they got there.

Friends and colleagues who have disabilities report similar stories of disdain occurring here when seeking medical care, for example, of people on ventilators being pressured to sign DNRs by hospital personnel even though they were not undergoing usually life-threatening procedures. A friend who is legally blind had her white cane thrown down a METRO escalator in Washington D.C., as her assailant told her she belonged in a concentration camp. She also reports not being picked up by cabs. Then there is the general public applause for Jack Kevorkian and suicide tour guides for helping people with disabilities kill themselves.

Human exceptionalism demands that each of us be deemed to be of equal objective moral worth. It is an ideal we have never achieved, admittedly. But unless bigotry against people with disabilities is especially shocking when it impacts care in the medical context.

End the Bias: We Need Newspapers

It is no secret that the newspaper business is in severe trouble. A big part of the problem is technological: The Internet has destroyed the classified sections, for example, and many younger people no longer read newspapers, causing circulation to decline.

But in my view, another huge issue is liberal bias, particularly about socially controversial issues involving stories that are part of what is known as the "culture war." I have been deeply involved in stories of that sort for many years and have seen the bias first hand over and over again--sometimes in the sneering attitude exhibited by the stories, but more often in the important facts not printed and the issues not pursued--as well as a decided scorn toward people of a certain moral persuasion. It has gotten so bad that many reporters are blinded by their own--or the notorious group-think narratives--and report it rather than the actual story at hand. This obvious and unremitting bias and disdain has permanently alienated about 1/3 of potential newspaper readers, which is suicidal in the current business atmosphere!

I take a back seat to no one in my desire to see reform in the journalism business, including concerted efforts to make it fairer and less condescending toward those with whom liberal reporters and editors disagree. But we need our newspapers (and I don't just say this because Secondhand Smokette is employed as a political columnist by the San Francisco Chronicle). Thus, I agree with Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star Ledger, when he writes in "All I Want for Christmas is a Newspaper," that bloggers "are no replacement for real journalists." Alas, and all too typically, he misses the bigger picture. From the column:

The common thread here, whether the subject is foreign, national or local, is that the writer in question is performing a valuable task for the reader--one that no sane man would perform for free. He is assembling what in the business world is termed the "executive summary." Anyone can duplicate a long and tedious report. And anyone can highlight one passage from that report and either praise or denounce it. But it takes both talent and willpower to analyze the report in its entirety and put it in a context comprehensible to the casual reader.

This highlights the real flaw in the thinking of those who herald the era of citizen journalism. They assume newspapers are going out of business because we aren't doing what we in fact do amazingly well, which is to quickly analyze and report on complex public issues. The real reason they're under pressure is much more mundane. The Internet can carry ads more cheaply, particularly help-wanted and automotive ads.

Talk about myopic. If more reporters acted like real journalists instead of obvious ideological advocates, the problem with newspapers caused by technology would be far less acute because there would be tens of millions more people willing to shell out $1 for the local fish wrap.

Please, newspaper professionals, get a clue. Stop the bias and convince those you have alienated to give you another try. We need our newspapers!

More Stem Cell Excuses from ESCR Advocates

It is a given that President Obama will dismantle the funding limitations on ESCR imposed by President Bush. Even though Bush's plan still resulted in about $160 million in human embryonic stem cell NIH funding, "the scientists" complain that it is his fault the field has not proved as fruitful as expected. From the story:

Though optimistic about the effects of a new federal policy, research institutes caution that the fruits of this research will take time and that cures are not around the corner. "There's still a lot of basic science to be done....The [Bush] policy has set research back five to six to seven years in this country," Devitt said.

Oh please. First, thanks to Bush probably more money was thrown at ESCR than ever would have otherwise been the case--think Proposition 71 among other state agendas. Second, according to the Rockefeller Institute, the field has received a whopping $2 billion in research funds in the USA alone! Third, as the story acknowledges, there will probably not be any more money provided by the NIH under the new policy. Thus, while it will be more convenient for researchers not having to segregate federally funded research from that which didn't use approved lines, and while newer lines will be able to be used in federally funded projects--it is hard to believe that these inconveniences have held back the field five or six years. Otherwise, why would countries that have not operated under the Bush restrictions, gotten no further along than have USA scientists?

The most pressing problems for ESCR have been the technical difficulties associated with the field and patent disputes. But that isn't good for the politics of the thing. So expect Bush to continue to be a convenient excuse for the failure of field--so far--to fulfill the hype. In this sense, he might be worth his weight in political gold.

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown Refuses to be Bullied Into Support for Assisted Suicide

Just as during the Kevorkian saga, some have claimed that the "cure" for "suicide tourism"--in which dying and disabled people fly to Switzerland to be made dead--has been legalization of assisted suicide. And just as in Kevorkian's day, family members and others have gone public, using their pain as a political weapon to demand that suicide killings of the ill and disabled be made easier so that family and friends can attend the demise in the suicidal person's home, rather than forcing the soon-t0-be dead patient to travel elsewhere to find someone willing to give them the poison cup. But PM Gordon Brown is unbowed. From the story:

Gordon Brown has made clear the government has no intention of legalising assisted suicide. The prime minister said he was "totally against laws on that [issue]" in an interview with the leader of the Catholic church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, for the Today programme.

"It's not really for us to create any legislation that would put pressure on people to feel they had to offer themselves because they were causing trouble to a relative or anything else," he said on the Today programme.

"I think we've got to make it absolutely clear the importance of human life is recognised in this."

Good for Gordon Brown. He's not only right morally, but it is the right policy. If society doesn't value everyone's life equally, the result will be discrimination and oppression--as in the Netherlands where doctors kill hundreds of patients every year who have never asked to be legalized. Moreover, legalizing assisted suicide for the terminally ill--the first stop on that particular train--would not stop suicide tourism. Many of those who go to Switzerland to die are not terminally ill. Hence, once it became legal for one category of patients to receive assisted suicide, once society deemed suicide to be a necessity in some cases, the same whipsawing would take place to force society to expand the law to permit others to be killed.

The best way to stop suicide tourism is for family members and society to refuse to accommodate the desire by compassionately and lovingly help the patient search for another way of dealing with their pain and disapproving of actions that cooperate with the death circus. Acceding to the culture of death merely whets its appetite.

Rhode Island Developmental Disabilities Council Hears Human Exceptionalism Call

The Rhode Island Developmental Disabilities Council has picked up on my call to defend human exceptionalism. Here's the link. I am most pleased.

Coup de Culture: Promoting Incest Between First Cousins

I have opined that there are three cultural paradigms that threaten to supplant traditional Judeo-Christian/humanistic values as the foundational value system of society; utilitarianism (which we have addressed often here at SHS), hedonism (which we have rarely addressed here), and radical environmentalism (which we are beginning to get into more often). Put this story in the hedonism file. Scientists are saying that the legal prohibition against marriage between first cousins should be lifted. From the story:

Babies born as a result of marriage between first cousins have the same risk of having genetic defects as babies born from women over 40 years old.

Two scientists, who call for the lifting of the taboo on first-cousin families, say that cousins who want to get married should not feel ashamed about it. Women in their forties, who decide to get pregnant, are not made to feel guilty about their decision and the same should be applied to first-cousin families, consider Professor Diane Paul of the University of Massachusetts in Boston and Professor Hamish Spencer of the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand.

Well, then why not let siblings marry if they agree to be sterilized?

I don't see the issue of genetic difficulties in offspring as the primary problem here. Introducing sexuality within families would be disastrous, it seems to me. But in the modern age, hedonism--by which I mean indulging in every sensual or emotional desire of the moment, whether sex between cousins or stampeding and killing an employee of Walmart to make sure you get that sale item, etc.--is becoming all the rage. We are told there should be few limits and no moralizing. This advocacy "study" is just one more example of the struggle we are in.

Wellsphere Adds SHS as a "Top Health Blogger"

I was contacted recently by Wellsphere and asked permission to have SHS linked to its site as "a top health blogger." I was very pleased to agree. Wellsphere seems to be a cross between My Space and Beliefnet: There are many blogs on bioethics, medicine, and other matters that might be of interest to SHSers, as well as the ability to comment, ask questions, etc.. Registration is necessary, but if you have a hankering, you might want to check it out.

"Suicide Counsellors" Show Futility of Legalization

Jack Kevorkian was the ground breaker in modern times: A man made world famous helping people with disabilities, the terminally ill, and the existentially suffering kill themselves. For that, he now makes $50,000 a speech. In Australia, Philip Nitschke has counseled the suicides of people who were not close to being terminally ill, and even argued it should be available to "troubled teens." Ditto the suicide clinics in Switzerland, where the Supreme Court recently granted a constitutional right to assisted suicide for the mentally ill.

In Germany, another one of these death fanatics has apparently set up shop. The government has obtain an injunction. From the story:

German police have issued a temporary restraining order against controversial euthanasia advocate Roger Kusch, prohibiting him from aiding any more people who want to end their own lives. The former Hamburg justice minister has helped at least five people to take their lives since June. Only one of those five was very seriously ill.

One answer suggested as a response to this morbid business is to legalize assisted suicide for the terminally ill. That would be folly, since it would accede to the premise that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering. Once that door is opened, the rest will eventually enter the way water flows through the breach in a dam.

Moreover, legalization would not put these vultures out of business. They would merely say they have to help the people that the "unduly restrictive" law doesn't permit to end their suffering. And it would be harder to stop them then because we will have said that at least in some circumstances, it is right to help kill.

This is just common sense. Look at the Netherlands where some doctors with suicidal patients who might not qualify for euthanasia under the law refer patients to an online site that teaches them how to commit "autoeuthanasia," e.g., the latest euphemism for suicide.

Assisted suicide is a radical change in ethics that will prove, over the long run, impossible to meaningfully restrain once the basic premise becomes popularly accepted. And that is the argument we should be having. The very narrow debate in which we are now engaged to limiting assisted suicide to the terminally ill not only doesn't comport with the evidence of the consequences of assisted suicide consciousness, it is willful self delusion.

Montana Medical Association Cop Out on Physician-Assisted Suicide

The coalition against assisted suicide is made up of many branches that constitute a rare alliance among people on all sides of the ideological and religious/secular divides that are literally tearing this country and much of Western Civilization apart. Thus, disability rights activists--generally secular, politically liberal, and pro choice on abortion--work energetically with pro life activists on the issue, while agreeing to leave the abortion issue alone. Medical professional organizations and doctors--generally pro choice on abortion--work with Catholic Church on this issue, despite bitterly disagreeing on issues such as contraception. You get the drift.

But I have been worrying in recent years that some physicians groups and doctors don't take this issue with sufficient seriousness--and indeed as I have noted, one of the tactics of the pro assisted suicide forces is to get medical leaders to assume an attitude of "studied neutrality" to legalization. My concern in this regard was heightened by the quotes from the head of the Montana Medical Association published in the American Medical News about the Montana judge imposing a constitutional right to assisted suicide. From the story:

American Medical Association policy opposes physician-assisted suicide because the practice is "fundamentally inconsistent with the physician's role as healer." Officials with the Montana Medical Assn. said the organization has no policy on doctor-aided dying and will not file an amicus brief when the case is appealed.

The AMA usually does not join state litigation unless the state medical society asks for help. MMA officials said they had no plans to request the AMA to file a brief. MMA President Kirk L. Stoner, MD, said the society would get involved only if its members or the Supreme Court asks it to weigh in.

Physician-assisted suicide "is not something we've discussed recently," Dr. Stoner said. "We don't have a real reason to get involved right now. There are bigger fish to fry."

What bigger fish could there possibly be to "fry" than whether doctors should be relieved from homicide laws in order to help kill their patients? Unless, I guess, one believes that venerable medical ethics don't matter all that much.

If the MMA hasn't discussed the issue lately, it sure should now! With a signature of one judge's pen, it is literally off of the doorstep and in the parlor. What could be more important for the MMA to discuss? Such terminal nonjudgmentalism is an abdication of professional responsibility. Disgraceful.

Credibility PETA Style

In my observation, PETA has very little regard for facts, and one might even say, less for truth. I think this is exemplified in a minor contretemps with the office of Governor Sarah Palin--who its leaders hate for obvious reasons. PETA claimed that Palin's office threatened to sue over a parody on line video game. Palin's office denied any such threat and in a series of frustrating exchanges found out how surrealistic in can be to deal with PETA ideologues. From the story:

Here's the full exchange as it happened, according to the folks at PETA:

From: McAllister, William D (GOV) Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 11:26 AM...Subject: The PETA Files--Your website claims we have threatened to sue you. What do you base this on? Be specific.
Bill McAllister, Director of Communications/Press Secretary
Office of Governor Sarah Palin

From: Ingrid Newkirk ...Dear Mr. McAllister, We base this on a phone call. Why don't you ask in your office and be specific as to on what grounds you can sue us? We know that we can use the game as it's pure parody. I thought people in Alaska had a sense of humor? Ingrid Newkirk

From: McAllister, William D (GOV)...That's not very specific. Who called? Name and title given? Did you even attempt to verify it was genuine? Or are facts just cumbersome?

From: Ingrid Newkirk [mailto:ingridn@peta.org]... Do they train you to be rude? [Me: PETA should talk!]

From: McAllister, William D (GOV) [Subject: RE: To answer your enquiry: OK, so the bottom line is, you have attitude, but no facts. Sounds about right.

From: Ingrid Newkirkm Subject: So, are you backing down up there? No, YOU have attitude, and it's a bad one, and so did your legal emissary who must have gone to the same charm school.

From: McAllister, William D (GOV): Our still unnamed legal emissary, huh? Whether or not I'm charming in your eyes, at least I'm accountable.

From: Ingrid Newkirk...You will be when you die, don't you think? Did someone put Red Bull in your water cooler? Are you now saying that no one called from your office, that's my question, or did the person who called overplay his hand, or what, not that I really care any more?

From: McAllister, William D (GOV)...
To answer the question in your subject line, yes, you are sorry. I wouldn't know if the person who (allegedly) called overplayed his (a man, then?--still waiting for more details) hand. No one here knows what you're talking about.

And of course, PETA provided no facts and promptly sent the e-mails to the press, accompanied by a press release calling Palin names. But note, it made an allegation it couldn't back up and then used the dust up that followed to get publicity for itself. Ingrid Newkirk and her minions may not be truth tellers but they sure are attention hogs.

SHS is Closed for the Christmas Holiday

Peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

Opposing Conscience Rights: Driving Dissenting Health Care Professionals Out of Medicine

The voices that yell loudest about "choice" tend to be the very ones that most enthusiastically seek to stifle it when they involve decisions about hot button moral issues with which they disagree. The St. Louis Post Dispatch is one such voice. Its editorial page weighed in today against the new federal rule protecting health care workers against discrimination for refusing to perform medical procedures they deem immoral, such as abortion or assisted suicide, a matter we have already discussed here at SHS.

I have opined that the a primary goal of opposing conscience rights is to drive people of certain moral persuasions completely out of health care. And indeed, the Post Dispatch proves my point. From the editorial:

Michael O. Leavitt, the Bush administration secretary for Health and Human Services, lauded the rule last week. "Doctors and other health care professionals shouldn't be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience," he said.

No such conflict should exist. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists choose professions that put patients' rights first. If they foresee that priority becoming problematic for them, they should choose another profession.

See what I mean?

"But Wesley," you might say, "What about Futile Care Theory? Surely the editorialists would argue just as hard for the right of patient and family to have their lives maintained?" Trust me, if it ever came up, the Post Dispatch editorialists would write that doctors and bioethicists are the ones who understand these issues best and that the religious beliefs of families or their "guilt" shouldn't get in the way of physician autonomy and their right to determine the best way to practice medicine. We have seen just such statement in the most pro choice medical journals. In fact, I could write the editorial for them it is so obvious what they would say.

Such "turn on a dimes" make no logical sense if we continue to think that all of this is really about "choice." But that isn't the ultimate issue. Always remember that these and other bioethical and cultural struggles are part of an the ongoing coup de culture that seeks to transform society from the roots. As I wrote in my recent Weekly Standard piece about the Montana assisted suicide court ruling:

Cases such as Baxter, Armstrong, and Casey--among many others--are really part of a slow motion coup de culture, a steady drive to topple the social order rooted in Judeo-Christian/humanistic moral philosophy and replace it with a dramatically different value system founded in utilitarianism, hedonism, and radical environmentalism. Once that process is complete, the courts will quickly make it clear that "choice" has limits.

Remember that the next time you see one of the MSM's 180 degree sudden turns that make so little sense you feel as if your head is going to explode from the hypocrisy.

This is the Kind of Criminality That Too Many Animal Rights Extremists Call "Free Speech"

A victim of ancillary targeting in the UK has testified in a criminal trial about the kind of hell he experienced merely for working for a company that had a relationship with Huntingdon Life Sciences. From the story:

William Denison says what happened to his family at the hands of ALF extremists was like "Chinese water torture". He is managing director of F2 Chemicals, a company which did not deal directly with HLS but is owned by a Japanese glass firm that had links to it. He was picked out as a legitimate target.

Denison and his family were hounded at home. His wife left her job as a result of stress, neighbours in his village were told he was a paedophile and he had to install 24-hour security and CCTV cameras in his home.

The targeting began at work, but spread quickly. Packages from the ALF arrived at his house several times a week. His car and house were vandalised, causing up to £10,000 of damage. The allegations of paedophilia were particularly damaging and stressful to his wife, who worked with children. "The paedophile allegation was almost devastating in relation to that," he told the court. Some of the many packages that arrived at his house contained shopping which he had not ordered or paid for, including a size 44E bra for his slim wife, in an attempt by the activists to ruin his credit rating.

Fireworks were set off over the family home and airhorns sounded outside in the middle of the night. In July 2003 a hoax bomb was delivered, and in the country roads around his home the words "Bill the murderer" and 13 other sinister messages were daubed in red paint. "It was quite clear I was to become a number one ALF target," he said. "For my wife it was becoming living hell."

Most media stink at exposing the viciousness of animal rights terrorism, generally under reporting the stories and downplaying their importance. The UK's leftwing newspaper The Guardian, is an exception. Its editors and reporters understand that animal rights terrorism is not liberal and treats it for the Brown Shirtism that it is.

Doctors Refuse to Dehydrate Italian Woman: The Fight Over "Conscience" Has Begun

I believe that the issue of "conscience," that is the right of physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals not to engage in intentional life-terminating actions will be huge in the coming decade in bioethics. It has already begun in Italy after a father won the right in court to have his daughter's feeding tube withdrawn. But even though the EU Court has refused to save Eluana Englaro's life, no doctor in Italy will agree to participate in her intentional dehydration. From the story:

Italian officials say they are taking a hands-off approach after a European court rejected efforts to block a father's efforts to let his comatose daughter die.

Italy's ANSA news agency Tuesday said Beppino Englaro has been unable to find a clinic that will facilitate the death of his daughter, Eluana, who has been in a coma for 17 years. "Personally I hope that the woman continues to live, but I can't interfere with the decisions of her father,'' said Edouard Ballaman, president of the regional council of the Northern League.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg Monday rejected an appeal by pro-life organizations trying to block Englaro's efforts on the grounds that only immediate family could be involved in the decision. ANSA said Italy's health minister warned clinics last week not to take part in the removal of the woman's feeding tube.

Judge Greer. Calling Judge Greer! Your courageous assistance is needed again. Calling Judge Greer!

Assisted Suicide for Fun and Profit in Kenya?

Kenya is a very poor country. But some among the assisted suicide crowd apparently see it as prime pickings for the well off in that country, with suicide tourism for profit being proposed. From the story:

Kenya could become the first country in Africa to legalise doctor-assisted suicide if lobbying by a group of local and foreign investors succeeds in convincing lawmakers to make it legal for terminally ill patients to be assisted to die.

Mr John Hurst, a British investor and the managing director of Dignity International, is the man behind the plans to introduce the Doctor Assisted Suicide (DAS) in Kenya. He says the logic behind assisted-suicide is that since the terminally ill patient will eventually die, it would be better to hasten their death to save the patient from pain and the family from the financial burden that may arise after prolonged treatment.

If allowed in Kenya, terminally ill patients will be required to pay Sh300,000 for the service including burial. The act will not be done in Kenya, rather the patient will be flown to Switzerland for the process to take place. The dead patient will then be flown back for burial.

Of course Switzerland doesn't require people to be terminally ill to participate in suicide tourism. But never mind. Suicide is a necessity. We must be sure people don't suffer.

Culture of Death? What Culture of Death? Wesley, it is all in your paranoid imaginings.

Unconditional Love of a Child With Severe Disabilities

This is a story about love. It is also a story about community. And, for some, it will be perceived as a story about taking the reverence for life beyond reasonable limits.

A child became profoundly disabled in a terrible mishap and now, having suffered a catastrophic brain injury, requires full-time high tech medical support and full time care. And despite the urgings of some to "let him go," he remains a loved and cherished member of his family. But trouble is brewing. From the story:

[Val} Decker says, this little boy is loved just the same, despite critics who say there is no child, no life there, worth preserving. "People think this mom is crazy," she says as she sits in the living room of their home near Anne Sullivan Elementary in Sioux Falls. " 'She needs to turn off the ventilator and let him go,' they say. "But Landon is not brain dead; he's brain damaged. There's something still within this person. And it's not within my power to take it away." [snip]

Decker's husband--Landon's father--has left the marriage and the home, giving up many of his rights and decision-making powers concerning his son, Val Decker says. When contacted, he did not want to talk about the situation. Now, Val Decker faces the new year uncertain about the insurance coverage that has helped provide much of the constant nursing care her son needs. She is unsure there will be money to make mortgage payments on their house. A nurse by profession, she is looking for work so she can pay the bills. But it's been a struggle to find a job that will allow her to leave when the ventilator-trained nurses she has hired to care for her son are unavailable, she says.

So friends have started a benefit fund at Wells Fargo Bank branches to raise money to help her keep a roof over her family's heads.

Some consider costs of care to be an issue:

The more pertinent discussion here, the doctor says, involves questions that little boys such as Landon "make all of us ask."

"Questions like, 'What is reality?' " Kidman says. "What really matters?' And 'What is love?' "

The reality of Landon Decker's situation is that the cost of his care, through Medicaid and insurance, is expensive. Paying for a ventilator and monitors and 24-hour-a-day nursing care adds up. In a country with finite resources available for situations such as Landon's, "I can understand that side of the discussion," Kidman says. "So the question then is, 'What type of life is worth pouring resources into?' " he says. "We tend to put more on the humanity side than the financial side of that discussion. "I can tell you that the people who interact with Landon and his family seem to be softer in their hearts. They seem to have gained something from being involved in Landon's life and are better for it."

It's a long piece and worth the read. But what struck me powerfully when reading the story is that very few would judge a parent who made a contrary decision in such a case and decided to remove the respirator and allow nature to take its course. But time and again, we see people who love their children come what may--Terri Schiavo's parents come to mind--criticized and pilloried for refusing to let go.

Such are the times in which we live, I guess. But we should also not forget the witness of people like Val Decker and those who help support her, who by their radical self giving illustrate the power, depth, and strength that comes from unconditional love.

HT: Aaron Levisay

"Euthanasia Comes to Montana Courtesy of Judicial Activism"

I have an extended piece in the Weekly Standard on the Montana judge declaring it a "fundamental right" do "die with dignity"--e.g. to poison oneself with prescribed drugs--which as I noted in an earlier SHS posting about this, may be the only time that an advocacy propaganda phrase was elevated in a court ruling to the status of a constitutional right.

In the piece I point out that much of the decision is, essentially about metaphysical opinions and concepts. From the piece:

A premise of McCarter's ruling is that people have the right to decide for themselves what constitutes "dignity" according to their personal beliefs.

After quoting the authorities she relied on--which would be too long to reproduce here--I state:

In essence, Judge McCarter ruled that the individual's right to act upon such metaphysical beliefs trumps all but the most compelling state interests. But if that is so, how can assisted suicide possibly be limited to the terminally ill? Many people suffer more profoundly--and for longer--than people who are dying. Thus, once the right to end suffering through "death with dignity" is deemed "fundamental," how can people with debilitating chronic illnesses, the elderly who are profoundly tired of living, those in despair after becoming paralyzed, or indeed anyone in other than transitory existential agony be denied the same constitutional right as the terminally ill to end it all? [snip]

And why should the participation of doctors be limited to writing lethal prescriptions? Once they are relieved of liability under Montana's homicide statutes, shouldn't doctors be permitted to provide lethal injections--particularly since studies from the Netherlands demonstrate that active euthanasia is less likely than assisted suicide to cause disturbing side effects, such as nausea and extended coma? Moreover, why require doctors at all? It's my life, so why shouldn't I choose to be killed by whomever I want?

This means "choice" will eventually rule all, right? Wrong!

Judicial activism is really about imposing upon the rest of us the mores and social values favored by liberal intellectual elites--whose interests the courts tend to serve and whose views they reflect. And while personal autonomy and an end to moralizing are certainly a large part of this agenda, they aren't the crux of it.

Just as the personal behaviors favored by the liberal intelligentsia are being transformed by courts into constitutionally protected activities, the personal behaviors disfavored by these same powerful forces are likely to be held controllable by the state. Thus, courts probably won't protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who do not wish to be complicit in abortion or assisted suicide--even though to be consistent, these choices should be entitled to the same constitutional protection under the "mystery of life" analysis as any other. [snip]

Cases [such as Baxter] are really part of a slow motion coup de culture, a steady drive to topple the social order rooted in Judeo-Christian/humanistic moral philosophy and replace it with a dramatically different value system founded in utilitarianism, hedonism, and radical environmentalism. Once that process is complete, the courts will quickly make it clear that "choice" has limits.

We see this paradigm on issues that are both relevant to and beyond the scope of SHS. If society wants to go in these directions, courts should led the people decide. Otherwise, we are going to be torn apart.

The Day the Earth Stood Still: Hollywood Goes Deep Ecology

Secondhand Smokette and I decided to go on a date and, against our better judgment, went to see The Day the Earth Stood Still. We expected some enviro-propaganda, but I must say it was even more extreme than I expected. I wrote about it over at the First Things blog:

Earth pushes the mantra of deepest ecology: Humans are the literal enemy of Earth, which, the script strongly implies, is a living entity. At the very least, the message of the movie is that our moral value is no greater than that of shrimp and squid, and that while we have some virtues--classical music being one--the earth is better off with us either obliterated out of existence or rendered completely untechnological.

Today's Hollywood reflects the cultural views of the left and the left has gone insanely anti-human. This misanthropic nihilism is usually implied between the lines, but it is the unequivocal and explicit massage of The Day the Earth Stood Still.

Oh, and there is a scientist character in the picture, whom we are told, won a Nobel Prize for "Biological Altruism." There isn't a Nobel in that category--yet--but it seems to be a field that would be about sacrificing the well being and prosperity of people in order to save the planet. Of course, like most scientists, the character is so devoid of ego, we are told that his friends had to frame and hang the award on his wall. Well, the film is science fiction.

Doctor Once Accused of Trying to Hasten Death to Obtain Organs Not Guilty of Crime

I have written several times about Dr. Hootan C. Roozrokh, who was once accused criminally of trying to hasten a patient's death with drugs after he didn't die when his respirator was removed prior to a planned organ procurement. Dr. Roozrokh had no business even being in the operating suite, since he was not the patient's treating doctor. Under relevant "heart death" ethical protocols, he should have only entered the picture after the patient was formally declared dead.

But being in the wrong place at the wrong time and ordering nurses to provide drugs for someone who was not his patient is not necessarily a crime. That was the view of a San Luis Obispo jury that just acquitted Roozorkh of all charges. From the story:

The surgeon, Dr. Hootan C. Roozrokh, was found not guilty of a single felony charge of abuse of a dependent adult, after two other felony charges--administering harmful substances and unlawful prescription--were dropped last spring. Prosecutors had argued that Dr. Roozrokh, 35, prescribed excessive amount of drugs during a failed harvesting procedure on a brain-damaged donor, Ruben Navarro, in San Luis Obispo, in February 2006.

The doctor's lawyer, M. Gerald Schwartzbach, had said that Dr. Roozrokh, a surgeon based in San Francisco who had flown in to retrieve the organs, had been trying to ease the patient’s suffering after other doctors failed to perform their duties.

If nothing else, this case illustrates the urgent need for better training in organ procurement, and for national standards that apply universally. Until then, with different medical centers handling these issues differently, we can expect confusion and a continuing loss of confidence among the public in transplant medicine.

The CIRM Follies Continue

What an expensive joke the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has become. Conflicts of interest are rife, leading to a Little Hoover Commission investigation. Management meltdowns have mixed with an incredible sense of entitlement and hubris. Hundreds of millions that were promised to go directly to research instead were diverted to help pay for some of the most expensive buildings money could buy. And then, as a reward for such a job well done, the CIRM head honcho, Robert Klein, demanded a $500 K salary per year, at at time when California can't even pay basic bills. Well, he is down to part time now--at $150 K per year when the state has a $42 billion dollar deficit.

Now, it turns out that California's ludicrous mismanagement may make the constitutional right of the CIRM to borrow $300 million each year difficult, because there is not a concomitant right to force others to lend. This is leading to a potential change of strategy for going ever deeper into debt to pay for high end salaries and money that keeps being poured into the pork trough. From the story:

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine next month will weigh a contingency financing plan that could include bond anticipation notes and a private placement with major philanthropic backers.

The move, which would have to be approved by the state stem cell bond committee and Treasurer Bill Lockyer, comes against the backdrop of a financial markets meltdown that has clipped access to capital for companies and government agencies alike.

It also comes after Bob Klein, who has not taken a salary as the chairman of CIRM’s oversight board, was awarded a $150,000 salary for a half-time position. That, and a salary for CIRM’s vice chairman--a position currently unfilled--could become tricky to justify as the agency’s funding evaporates.

Living off of borrowed money until the crash: That's pretty emblematic of what is happening in the entire country, isn't it? Disgusting.

In Support of Human Exceptionalism: Atlanta Journal-Constitution Pundit Tells Hard Truth About Unique Importance of Human Life

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman has written a difficult but, I think, important column on the distinction between the moral value of a beloved dog coming to the end of its life and those of human beings. Any pet owner can only have great empathy for the grief Bookman is experiencing. We should also honor his moral clarity. From his column:

He's just a dog, you tell yourself. Yet somehow, that utterly rational thought doesn't fend off the choking sensation in your throat as the vet delivers the news.

Just a dog?

He's just the dog who was young and playful back when your kids were young and playful, a dog who grew up as the family grew up, and who, in the last few years, began to turn gray just as you have. He's just a dog who has always looked more fierce than he really is, which is just what you want in a family pet. He's just a dog who insists on climbing upstairs every night in pain to sleep at the foot of your bed, loyal even in his arthritic old age. Just a dog? No, no way.

But in the end, yes.

I am choking up. I don't think the word "just" needs to be applied. Dogs (and, of course, cats) become cherished and deeply loved members of families. But Bookman's larger point is right on; that we properly treat even the most beloved and cherished pet differently than we do people:

With a dog's life at stake, you can think through the problem in terms of cost and benefit. With a human being, it would be inconceivable. [Me: I wish.] And that's not because an insurance company or other third party would pay most of the bill.

No, you don't ask the price because with a human life at stake, it wouldn't matter. You already know that whatever the cost, you're going to do everything possible to pay it [snip]

There's another difference as well. Because of Jackie's status as "just a dog," we'll be able to intervene to make sure he does not suffer needlessly in the days ahead. It's an assurance that we cannot offer each other as human beings--the same profound respect for human life that ensures we do not deny medical care to loved ones also makes it taboo to accelerate the process of death. [Me: I wish.][snip]

We're also still divided about whether health care ought to be a basic human right in this country. Personally, I think the case is settled. Once you accept the innate dignity of human life, then morally you cannot decide to provide basic care to some but deny it to others on grounds of cost. You can't, in other words, apply the same value to a human being as to a pet.

I heard about this column because Bookman brought up the Terri Schiavo case and wrote that Terri was "brain dead," which she clearly wasn't. But I don't think he meant it perniciously or to dehumanize her, as others have when similarly mischaracterized her condition. And indeed, he acknowledges that the fight about her was ultimately over her intrinsic worth as a human being. I also think he is wrong that 30-50% of all health care costs are spent in the last 6 months of life. I believe the proper figure is closer to 10%, with the higher figure applying to Medicare. And we do give everyone in this country the right to certain levels of health care--as in emergency situations--the controversy is over the extent of the right to access and how to provide and pay for it.

But overall, his point in the column is that human beings should not be valued based on utilitarian considerations and that we should not be "put down" like animals are precisely because of the higher value we place on human life.

Good for Bookman. There is too little of such pro-human exceptionalism moral clarity in the media these days. Unfortunately, his belief that utilitarianism and euthanasia mentality will not be applied against people is way behind the times.

New Federal Rule Protects "Conscience" Rights Could Also Support Futile Care Theory

The Department of Health and Human Services will publish its Final Rule tomorrow protecting the rights of conscience for health care workers who refuse to perform medical acts with which they morally disagree. The rule specifically applies to abortion and sterilization. But it also has a general clause that, as I read it, could apply to medical futility. From the Rule:

2) (d) Entities to whom this paragraph (d) applies shall not:(1) Require any individual to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded by the Department if such service or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.

(2) Discriminate in the employment, promotion, termination, or the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel because he performed,assisted in the performance, refused to perform, or refused to assist in the performance of any lawful health service or research activity on the grounds that his performance or assistance in performance of such service or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of the religious beliefs or moral convictions concerning such activity themselves.

I think this provision could easily be interpreted to protect doctors against who don't want to provide tube feeding for patients diagnosed as in PVS or who refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment based on their moral view that the quality of life of the patient isn't worth living and/or worth spending limited resources upon.

This is of some concern to me. However, the rules only apply if a physician, nurse, or other covered health care worker is discriminated against for their act of conscience. I don't expect medical futilitarians to ever face job discrimination since the care will be pulled with consent of hospital bioethics committees.

On the other hand, I think the rule could protect health care institutions from sanction for imposing futile care--so there may be a problem after all.

On the other, other hand, it will also protect doctors and health care facilities from having to participate in assisted suicide.

So overall, a good job. As a consequence, expect the new administration to work overtime to undo what has been done.

"What It Means to be Human" Podcast: Conscience Clauses

In this edition of What It Means to be Human, I get into conscience clauses as a potential way for us to co-exist together, given our profound cultural differences over what I call "an emerging culture of death." I conclude:

I strongly support the rights of conscience for health care professionals regarding elective procedures, that is procedures that are not necessary to save life or to prevent serious physical health consequences for the patient. Such accommodations would seem to be in keeping with a multicultural and tolerant society. But the culture of death is not about tolerance: It is about cultural hegemony. Once its supporters perceive they are in control, they will work hard to punish dissenters because refusing to participate sends a clarion message that certain activities are just plain wrong. And that is a truth spoken to power that they simply will not tolerate.

Expect the fight over conscience to become a political conflagration.

Here is the link.

Australian "Experts" Want to Target Down Babies for Eugenic Abortion

Can you imagine the if " the experts" suggested that genetic tests be done on all pregnant women to screen for supposedly undesirable racial characteristics or a propensity for homosexuality (if that could be done), with the goal of vastly reducing the number of babies born with those traits? There would a clarion outcry.

Well, that is precisely what is happening in Australia, only the targets are unborn babies with Down syndrome, people that "the experts" want very much to cull from society by preventing most from ever being born. From the story:

AUSTRALIA urgently needs a national screening policy for Down syndrome, experts say, after international research showed it could halve the number of babies born with the incurable genetic condition. Access to the four tests that help detect if a foetus has Down syndrome varies widely between states, urban and rural areas, and public and private patients, leading to stark differences in birth and termination rates...

Euan Wallace, professor of obstetrics at Monash University, said: "In Australia in 2008 every single woman should be offered and have access to state-of-the-art screening tests irrespective of age." The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) agrees, saying two screening tests -ultrasound nuchal translucency measurement and serum screening -have a combined detection rate of 90percent. But in NSW, free screening tests are available in public hospital antenatal clinics only to women aged 35 or over or with a family history of chromosomal defects...Professor Wallace said NSW Health's age-based policy is "15 years out of date and not good public health policy".

This is rank eugenics. Germans in the 1930s called it racial hygiene. Not long ago, it was considered the worst sort of bigotry. Not today, apparently because "the experts" tell us so.

Babies with Down won't be the only casualties of this pogrom, either. Making these tests universal will also result in the unintended deaths of babies that would have been born without a disability. As I noted in a previous SHS post:

Two healthy babies are miscarried for every three Down Syndrome babies that are detected and prevented from being born, research has suggested...

Oh well, just collateral damage in the "urgently" needed effort to cleanse Australia from the scourge of the sweetest human beings who walk on the planet Earth.

Culture of Death? What Culture of Death? Wesley, it is all in your paranoid imaginings.

What We Are Becoming: Creating Undetectable Suicide Kits

I have written about Philip Nitsckhe before. He is the Australian doctor who is obsessed with suicide machines and making sure that anyone who wants to kill themselves be able to do so, including--as he stated in an NRO interview--"troubled teens."

With the new "professional" look of the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement, one would think that Nitschke would be in bad odor. He is not, of course, remaining a hero to the movement's death-on-demand grass roots and usually invited to speak at the seminars and contentions that are held around the world on making oneself dead.

Now, Nitschke has made the news again--which seems is real raison d' etre. From the story:

EUTHANASIA advocate Dr Philip Nitschke is in Adelaide to launch a death device – components of which can be bought from hardware stores. As well as promoting the method as "flawless", the Darwin medic, 61, says it has the unique characteristic of being undetectable during autopsy--making it harder to prove suicide.

The new process makes use of ordinary household products including a barbecue gas bottle--purchased at an Adelaide hardware store yesterday morning--which is then filled with another gas which is readily available.

Dr Nitschke has developed a process in which "patients" lose consciousness immediately and die a few minutes later. "So it's extremely quick and there are no drugs," Dr Nitschke said yesterday. "Importantly this doesn't fail--it's reliable, peaceful, available and with the additional benefit of undetectability."

This is apparently the result of his work to create a "peaceful pill," funded in the past by the Hemlock Society (now Compassion and Choices). How did he test it? On animals? On people? Why aren't the media curious?

Demonstrating the nihilism that has infected the West, he is increasingly popular:

Always divisive, Dr Nitschke was last week accused of "relentless self-interest and cruel insensitivity" by the family of a Perth woman who committed suicide using the death drug promoted by him.

But he maintains he is providing a public service--by empowering the sick and elderly with knowledge. Dr Nitschke has attracted his largest following so far this year--with 4000 people attending his workshops in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

The alarm bells about the growing sickness of our culture are blaring. Culture of Death? What Culture of Death? Wesley, it is all in your paranoid imaginings.

Watching This Made Me Think of Politicians Who Speak in Favor of Embryonic Stem/Human Cloning Research

This is obviously a brilliant parody. But it made me think about the same kind of junk advocacy I have heard from politicians pushing embyronic stem cell and human cloning research. We have been told that embryos aren't really embryos, they are just cell balls. We have been told that the act of cloning isn't SCNT, it is implantation of the ball of stem cells in a womb. We were even told by Senator John Edwards, that if John Kerry were elected, people in their wheelchairs would walk!

So enjoy the parody and pay close attention to the closing message: "Politicians are the same everywhere."

Doing Swedish Radio Tomorrow on "Suicide Tourism"

Apparently assisted suicide is becoming a big topic in Sweden, and so I have been asked by Radio UPF, out of the University of Lund, to speak on the issue of "suicide tourism." They stated that opinions like mine aren't heard all that often, and so they asked for some of my time. I am, of course, honored, but wish my views were so ubiquitous that it bored people.

For Swedish SHSers, the time is approximately 5:30 PM in Sweden, 11:30 East Coast Time (USA), and 8:30 AM, my time in CA. Here is the URL for Radio UPF. I think they have a listen live capacity for anyone else who might want to tune in.

People From Ninety-Four Countries Have Visited SHS in Less Than a Week

I am very pleased that people literally from all over the world are coming to SHS. The new counter lists 94 countries in less than a week. The latest visitor was from the Palestinian Territories. As-salaam alaykum.

Why Isn't This News? Anti-Slavery Law Passes Congress

The Discovery Institute's embryonic Center for Human Rights and Bioethics--of which I am a part--is very concerned with working to prevent slavery and human trafficking. That is why we were so pleased that the William Wilberforce Trafficking and Victim's Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 has passed Congress and will be signed into law. Considering the importance of this issue to human freedom, it is puzzling that Google and Yahoo searches found zero news stories.

The law--that will be in effect until 2011--focuses on trafficking within the United States and throughout the world; it greatly strengthens the role and authority of the Trafficking in Persons Office and greatly enhances the tools available to domestic criminal prosecutors of traffickers. It also increases protections available to trafficking victims in the U.S. through newly authorized programs to assist U.S. victims of trafficking and vulnerable-to-trafficking unaccompanied foreign national children brought to the United States. The Act also greatly strengthens U.S. government efforts to end the use of child soldiers.


With regard to the last point--a crucial issue in poor countries--Title IV prevents the provision of various forms of military assistance to countries that use children in government military forces or government-supported armed groups. This will be an important tool to address the use of “child soldiers” around the world, who in addition to being placed in situation of extreme violence and danger, are regularly victimized by brutal physical and sexual abuse.

Human exceptionalism demands an end to odious practices such as slavery, sex trafficking, and impressment of child soldiers. It was too difficult passing this bill--as Discovery Institute senior fellow John Miller pointed out in the NYT a few months ago--but finally the deed is done. Bueno!

We Live in Strange Times: Trying to Create Eggs and Sperm With Embryonic Stem Cells

I have never fully gotten my mind around all of the issues involving reproduction. Women have a near absolute right to abortion--absolute in some places--while at the same time, to ensure that people who want babies can have them, we almost literally move mountains. For example: Using IVF, surrogate mothers, purchasing of embryos from poor countries (the latter two being resources exploited by the rich in biological colonialism), paying eugenically correct young women thousands of dollars to endanger their health as egg "donors," manipulated embryo creation to produce children with three biological parents, and in the future, some want reproductive cloning to allow lesbian couples to have children without using any male contributions.

This is all in furtherance of the ongoing coup d' culture that will supplant Judeo-Christian-humanistic equality/sanctity of human life values with "hedonism"--which I define broadly as a near absolute right to fulfill any desire or impulse--as one of the three reigning values of society (the other two, as I see them in my early thinking on this, being utilitarianism--about which I am sure--and radical environmentalism, about which I am 80% convinced.)

Case in point: Scientists are hot on the trail of creating sperm and eggs from embryonic stem cells, for the creation of embryos for study of genetic diseases. Beyond this, the field is now being elevated to the sacrosanct status of a "woman's health issue." From an interview in the New York Times with Stanford researcher Renee A. Reijo:

Q. IN SPEECHES, YOU SAY THAT STEM CELL RESEARCH SHOULD BE THOUGHT OF AS A WOMEN'S HEALTH ISSUE. WHY?

A. Because in my lab, we're using stem cell research to look for ways to make fertility treatments safer and more rational. Considering all the heartbreak and expense of infertility treatments, this sort of research is something I believe women have a big stake in defending. Right now, we don't fully know what a healthy embryo in a Petri dish looks like.

Because of this, I.V.F. clinics often insert multiple embryos into women to try to increase the odds of a successful implantation. Patients frequently have multiple births or devastating miscarriages. Half the time, the embryos don't make it. If we could figure out what a healthy embryo looked like and what the best media was to grow it in, we'd cut down on that.

But this niche market for particularized reproductive biotech is very small. The real agenda, I believe, is solving the egg issue with regard to human cloning. If that could be done, if tens of millions of eggs could be made from embryonic stem cells, then human cloning could be perfected on its way to therapeutic cloning, fetal farming, learning how to genetically enhance, and reproductive cloning.

Meanwhile, children go unadopted and millions of babies who might have been adopted are never allowed to be born.

Like I said, we live in strange times.

More of Me on Walden's Pond Radio

This link will take you to part three of my interview on Walden's Pond, in which we deal with the radical environmental movement and its deleterious impact on the importance of human exceptionalism and he concomitant increase in nihilism that leads to the culture of death. I'm trying every method I can think of to get the message out. Thanks again to Shelton Walden for the opportunity to appear on his program.

NHS Meltdown: Hospitals Collapsing in Face of Vomiting Virus

In all fairness, I am not sure that this is the solely the result of socialized medicine--an epidemic would put pressure on any health care system--although I think it is a contributing factor: Apparently the UK is ill prepared for a viral epidemic that threatens to sweep the country. From the story:

Millions face being struck down by a deadly winter vomiting bug sweeping the country.

Scores of hospitals have been forced to close wards to new patients as they struggle to cope with the influx of norovirus sufferers. One of London’s leading hospitals has even had to turn away 999 emergency patients after being overwhelmed with cases of the virus, while another hospital has drafted in GPs to cover for staff hit by the bug.

As the crisis deepens, health campaigners are warning that hospitals face going into “complete meltdown” over Christmas and New Year.

Authorities claim that they have a "plan" to handle the problem. But given the other problems in UK health care, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The UK Debate Over Assisted Suicide Rages

It is interesting how some things never change. In the 1990s, Jack Kevorkian's death circus lit a wildfire of debate over assisted suicide, with the default position being that since "terminally ill" people are going to commit suicide because the suffering is sometimes so unbearable, let's legalize it--under controlled circumstances. It didn't seem to matter a whit that Kevorkian's clients--they weren't patients since they only sought death from him, not care--mostly weren't terminally ill and that some weren't even sick at all. That truth for some reason could not or would not be seen--and often still isn't.

A virtually identical paradigm has developed today in the UK. Suicide tourism is taking the lives of people who are dying and disabled, who fly to Switzerland for suicide facilitated by a lay assisted suicide group, using veterinarian euthanasia drugs prescribed by death doctors, who never intend to care for those who come to die. And as in the Kevorkian imbroglio, the media has established terms of the debate that assume these suicides were somehow necessary. The premises and narrative of the controversy have thereby stacked the deck, so to speak, in favor of legalization. Rarely is suicide prevention even mentioned.

It's hard to get the anti assisted suicide message to penetrate in such a milieu. Occasionally opponents are able to write op/ed pieces, but the impact of these arguments is often muted because they lack the power of repetition accorded arguments in favor of legalizing hastened death. One such opposition piece appeared today The Herald, byline Ron Ferguson, and it is worth reading. From the column:

Despite the passionate and heart-felt arguments for legalising assisted suicide, I want to argue against it. Despite its merciful intentions, such a move would create an ultimately uncontrollable environment in which vulnerable people would be at risk. Relatives burdened by care and costs--or lusting after inheritances--would be tempted to insist that death was what granny wished. The conscientious elderly might feel obliged to make for the exit door to please their busy children, or to avoid being a burden on the state

We've already seen that paradigm play out in Oregon, as an example, where the state Medicaid system refused life-extending chemotherapy but was offered assisted suicide instead. Oregon is also where Michael Freeland, a psychotic, man was allowed by his psychiatrist to keep his lethal prescription "safely at home" (his words), even though he knew Freeland was delusional, had been hospitalized for his psychosis, and even though he recommended court supervision because Freeland wasn't up to supervising his own affairs. And we musn't forget, ever the BBC presenter who wants assisted legalized so she won't be burdened by her aging parents.

Ferguson further opines:

And here's the rub: physician-assisted suicide implicates other people. The doctor has to prepare the deadly prescriptions. I do not want to wonder whether my friendly GP actually intends to kill me. In times of extremity, I don't want my physician to morph into Harold Shipman.

Is that scare-mongering? Probably, but there are some scares worth mongering. You don't have to agree with the doctrine of the sacredness of life to see that without a moral rootedness in the non-negotiability of the human, it is all too easy to slip into a utilitarian culture of death. I fear that the current enthronement of the choices of the individual adult --which is as questionable a "world view" as any religious position--takes us down a dangerous road...

I like the poet Arthur Hugh Clough's "Thou shalt not kill but needs not strive, officiously, to keep alive". There is a moral distinction between clinically-justified processes that may hasten death and the deliberate taking of life. There are some lines a civilised society should not cross.

We've already seen that line crossed, and the consequences that have resulted therefrom, in the Netherlands, where babies are killed by doctors for being born with disabilities, very sick patients are murdered by doctors (for that is what it is under the law) who have not asked to die and nothing meaningful is done about it, people with existential agony are assisted in suicide with the blessings of the Dutch Supreme Court. Doctors who believe their patients don't qualify for euthanasia refer them to an "autoeuthanasia" Web site containing instructions on how do do yourself in.

Once you accept that killing as a proper response to human suffering, I submit it isn't whether you will go off the cliff, it is merely how long that process will take.

New Edition of What it Means to be Human: Great Ape Project and Spain

New editions of my regular podcast, "What It Means to be Human," come out each Tuesday. I tend to wait for a slow news day before linking them here, and with all the assisted suicides going on, and televised depictions thereof, not to mention a judge ludicrously turning the advocacy slogan "death with dignity" into a "fundamental constitutional right" in Montana, well it has been anything but slow here at SHS. Alas.

In any event, if you want to hear them as they appear, you can subscribe at the WIMTBH site. Otherwise, I will link them at SHS as time and events dictate. This edition is about Spain's impending passage of The Great Ape Project.

Thank you for your attention.

Swiss "Suicide Tourism" Kevorkianism Proving an Embarrasment

The similarities between the "suicide tourism" ongoing in Switzerland and Jack Kevorkian's death circus are just too striking to ignore. Both involved depressed people with disabilities, people with terminal illnesses, and some people who are not ill at all traveling from their homes to be made dead with the participation of strangers. Both involved publicity hungry vultures, Kevorkian and Dignitas' Ludwig Minelli (among others), who use their ghoulish fame to push a death on demand agenda.

Here's a difference: Kevorkian helped kill for free, while Minelli's group charges about $8000 to be made dead. On the other hand, Kevorkian's goal, as described in Prescription Medicide, was to conduct medical experiments on living people being euthanized, a proposed process Kevorkian called "obitiatry." Minelli seems content to count the money and pat himself on the back for his compassion.

Kevorkian is out of business now, getting $50,000 a kill, er I mean, a speech. But the Swiss government is apparently embarrassed by all of the publicity suicide tourism is garnering, culminating last week in the televised assisted suicide of Craig Ewert. So now, it is considering slamming the door on foreigners coming to Switzerland in a plane, with the plan of being returned home in a pine box.

At least that is the talk. But it sounds more like feckless hand-wringing to me. From the story:

Critics accuse it of turning Switzerland into a magnet for "suicide tourism" and of operating on the fringes of medical ethics and public opinion. Dr. Bertrand Kiefer, editor in chief of the Revue Medicale Suisse, a medical journal, fears some people are killing themselves not to escape intolerable suffering but to relieve family or society of a burden. Dignitas says its members' right to self-determination is paramount. The only criteria for assisting a suicide are that the person "suffers from an illness that inevitably leads to death, or from an unacceptable disability, and wants to end their life and suffering voluntarily."

Good grief. As regular readers of SHS and my other work know, in no jurisdiction where it is legal, is assisted suicide or euthanasia restricted in practice to people with unrelievable suffering. That is just a talking point to get society to swallow the hemlock.

Oh well, at least the Swiss are , sort of, expressing their concern:

A small religious party is campaigning to ban groups from charging for their services--an idea that the pugnacious Minelli calls the product of "sick brains."

Officials in the canton of Zurich threatened to restrict their activities by making doctors see each patient more than once, and by limiting the supply of sodium pentobarbital. So some groups hoarded the drug, while Dignitas turned to plastic bags and helium. The bag is placed over the head of a person who then opens a flow of helium, falls into a coma and dies "in 99.9 percent of cases," according to Derek Humphry, a British author whose suicide manual "Final Exit" has sold at least a million copies. But the use of helium smacked to many Swiss of Nazi gas chambers, and made Minelli a tabloid hate figure--a sentiment widely shared in Schwerzenbach.

Like most Swiss, the townspeople support the principle of assisted suicide, but "the helium was the last straw," says Manfred Milz, who is evicting Dignitas from his building. [Me: !!!!]...The government is weighing rules that could spell the end for "suicide tourism," which James Harris of London's Dignity in Dying says would only mean more agonizing suicides, often botched.

I can smell the terminal nonjudgmentalism all the way out here in California. Suicide is not a necessity. The way to stop the circus is to outlaw assistance and enforce the law. People in such despair that they are willing to fly overseas to be made dead need our compassionate help in living, not in dying.

And here's the thing about media epitomized by this story: Even though it could be perceived as being critical of suicide tourism, there are no quotes from anymore that challenge the fundamental premises of the assisted suicide movement. Reporters, it seems, have sucked the cultural helium in a bag and don't feel the need to present contrary views.

Culture of Death Impresarios Can Get Away With Saying Anything

Whatever happened to fact checking in the media? I recall writing an article against Kevorkian for the New York Times more than ten years ago, and I had to prove every i-dot and t-cross to the editor--it was the editorial equivalent of a colonoscopy. ("Depressed? Don't Go See Dr. Kevorkian," September 16, 1995.) Perhaps that is because I was against the culture of death, I don't know. But I also didn't mind. I think accuracy in these debates is crucial.

I bring this up because opinion articles in favor of assisted suicide and other culture of death agendas often are allowed to assert facts that are blatantly false. Case in point, in the Telegraph, by John Zaritsky, who made the film of the man committing assisted suicide in a case of "suicide tourism" in Switzerland, the current equivalent of the Kevorkian spree. Why did he make the film? Not for fame or money--oh no: He's too much of an artiste! It was the religious right in the Schiavo case that made him do it!

The problem is, he doesn't know beans about the case, and indeed, is so ignorant what really happened that it is almost laughable. From his apologia:

I was pretty upset at the suggestion that I made the documentary for the money or to chase ratings. That is so far from the truth. Those kinds of accusations upset serious filmmakers.

I first got interested in assisted suicides three years ago, with the huge controversy over Terri Schiavo, a comatose woman whose husband was trying to take her off drugs so she could die.

It ended up with George W. Bush flying in from his ranch to sign a Bill to keep her alive. I was outraged by the attitude of the Christian Right-- there were members of Congress who were crazy enough to suggest that Terri Schiavo travel from Florida in her comatose state to testify before the House of Representatives. I wanted to do a film about dying as an antidote to what went on in that case.

What tripe: First, Terri's estranged husband (having two children by another woman constitutes estranged in my book) did not want to "take her off drugs." He wanted to remove her food and water so she would dehydrate to death.

Second: It was her family striving to keep her alive, and they sought every means possible to do so, including courts and legislation. It wasn't the "religious right" that just decided to make the case a major issue.

Third: The liberal disability rights community was virtually unanimous in supporting the bill.

Fourth: The bill to keep her alive received unanimous consent in the United States Senate, including from our president-elect Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Majority Leader Harry Reid who worked hard behind the scenes to get it passed, and Senator Tom Harkin--none of whom could be characterized as part of the "religious right." Moreover, about 40% of the House Democratic caucus voted for the bill.

Fifth: The subpoena was not issued because the Congressman thought she could testify. It was a tactic to try and stop the dehydration, the hope being she would have to receive food and fluids for the trip to DC. Misguided perhaps, but it wasn't because the politician in question thought she could testify.

Well, perhaps we shouldn't be too harsh: At least he spelled the name Schiavo right

Now It's Real: "Nature Rights" Finally Makes New York Times Print Coverage (in the Magazine)

The Gray Lady has now officially noticed in print the radical attacks on human exceptionalism represented by Ecuador's granting rights to nature and Spain on the verge of passing the Great Ape Project. No, of course it doesn't frame it that way! Indeed, the story is rather matter-of-fact:

The precise scope of nature's rights is unclear. Referring to Pachamama, an indigenous deity whose name roughly translates as "Mother Universe," the text puts less emphasis on defending specific species than on the rights of ecosystems writ large. And it is uncertain how, exactly, a country as poor as Ecuador can protect those rights--though observers expect to see a raft of new lawsuits against oil and gas companies.

Even so, it is a milestone for environmental organizations that seek to rewrite our treatment of nature. In fact, one such group, the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, helped draft the new protections in the Ecuadorean Constitution. The C.E.L.D.F. posits that most laws define nature as someone's property, forcing environmentalists to prove extensive damage before regulations can be put in place. A rights-based approach, it argues, reverses that burden, putting the health of ecosystems first.

And that will lead to tremendous trouble for the poor and the dramatic undermining of economies--not to mention reducing the intrinsic moral importance of "rights" the way wild inflation does the value of currency.

The writer also notices other attacks on human exceptionalism we have discussed here at SHS:

Ecuador isn’t alone in elevating the sanctity of nature: this year, the Spanish Parliament granted the right to be spared "abuse, torture and death" to great apes, and an ethics panel appointed by the Swiss Parliament called for protecting plants’ "reproductive ability." As a consequence, Swiss researchers must now apply for approval before conducting scientific research on even the smallest of flora. Ecuador's new Constitution may go much further, arguably granting broad protections to simple life forms like algae and even bacteria. After all, who knows what they might evolve into?

Well, nobody wants to "torture" apes. The real problem with the GAP is that it makes humans, bonobos, gorillas, and chimpanzees together into a "community of equals." Talk about missing the forest for the apes in the trees!

When stories about these matters appear in the MSM, which are rare, they are always mildly reported and usually approached from a bemused perspective--thereby assuring that most people will remain in the dark about their import. And that really bothers me. These radical proposals are subversive to the flourishing of human rights and the prospering of the human community. They are completely undermining the moral values of Western Civilization--and thus constitute an important, but little known, front in the ongoing coup d' culture. As such, it seems to me that the media owes it to the people to raise the visibility of these stories and explore far more deeply what the proponents want, why opponents are alarmed, and the potential import and consequences to humankind that will result from granting rights to nature, diminishing humans to the moral status of apes, and granting individual dignity to plants.

Still, I suppose we should be grateful whenever the MSM is able to rouse itself to mention these matters at all, although it is months behind SHS. Perhaps that is why it is known as the dinosaur media.

Scientific American Does the Mischaracterization, Not the Vatican

I wasn't planning on exploring the Vatican's new bioethics pronouncement. But the media's reportage does bear some discussion. Scientific American's story, for example, contains the following subheadline:

Mischaracterizations of science lurk in the Vatican's latest instructions on bioethics

That was a surprise. In my experience, whether one agrees or disagrees with Catholic moral views, the science upon which the Church bases its analyses, at least based on pronouncements I have seen, is always sterling. So I wondered: Where did the report go wrong?

Turns out, unsurprisingly, that it is the Scientific American that is conflating science with statements by the Vatican that are not scientific in nature. The magazine bases its false charge on an interview with a reproductive health "expert," who naturally disagrees with many of the Vatican' views. From the story:

But it [the Vatican report] also opposes IVF even if it doesn't involve embryo loss, because the Vatican is committed to conception that involves the conjugal act. This I don't really understand. There are multiple descriptions of in vitro fertilization that make it sound as though couples going through IVF and the doctors and technicians involved are doing it in a heartless way. My understanding is that many couples and doctors involved have a huge amount of respect and awe for the embryos they create. They are very attached to the embryos they create. They are highly invested in their survival. They do everything they can to make sure as many embryos develop after fertilization. The idea that they are doing it in this detached, technical, love-free environment is really a mischaracterization.

Okay, but even if true, that isn't a mistake in the science of the report.

What other examples does the story give?

They talk about pre-implantation diagnosis, which is where you do tests on embryos before you transfer them to the woman's body. They describe it as being done to ensure that embryos are free from defects or other particular qualities. Sometimes it is done for that reason, but they don't mention the most important reason that people do pre-implantation diagnosis, which is to make sure they only transfer embryos that will survive. A friend of mine had two miscarriages late in third trimester because there were serious genetic defects with the fetus incompatible with its continuing to live. She had IVF, and they did pre-implantation diagnosis and of the six embryos they created all had multiple genetic problems that would have prevented them from surviving for birth. That's probably better than having six more miscarriages. That is not even mentioned in this document and it seems extremely important.

Okay, but even this anecdote does not mean that the science in the report is wrong.

I carefully read the whole story. Each of the alleged mistakes mentioned in the article are not scientific in nature but have to do with ethics or motivations. Thus, from what I can tell from this story, the party that is confused is not the Vatican: It is the Scientific American.

People From 82 Countries Have Visited SHS in the Last Few Days

Earlier this week, I posted a new feature on the site that counted unique visitors and the country each is from. The vast majority of those who come here are from the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia. But I am honored to note that people from 82 countries have come here just since I added that feature. I am very pleased. I think bioethics and human exceptionalism are issues of great import everywhere in the world and I hope that this cyber community will become increasingly international in its scope and makeup.

The "Suicide Tourist" Filmmaker Speaks

This is an interview with the filmmaker who made the pro assisted suicide film of a man with motor neurone disease (ALS) receiving assisted suicide. He admits he did it as as advocacy effort to get us to accept the hemlock. The man who died shared the agenda.

The filmaker says the Terri Schiavo case induced him to make the film and says that the Schindlers were motivated by "religion" in trying to save Terri's life. No, they were motivated by unconditional love for her, an attribute that some people may never understand.

Of course, the interview is softball as it gets.

The filmaker also tells of a future assisted suicide that is planned in which a healthy wife will kill herself at the same time, and in the same bed, as her ill husband. But why not? If the right to die is a "fundamental right," as the Montana judge ruled, people should be able to have help killing themselves for any reason they want. Who are we to say they should be deprived of liberty?

Anti Humanism Comes to the Movies

Human exceptionalism is under attack from every corner, and I think it is driving us crazy. Popular culture is part of the problem. Apparently, the new movie The Day the Earth Stood Still has aliens destroying the human race in order to save the planet. In the coming attractions, we see cities like Rome being evaporated, so it isn't good for us, but wouldn't such mass destruction cause a global winter? Oh well, at least the supposedly threatened polar bears would be saved from global warming.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I may be all wet, but this movie review in the San Francisco Chronicle let's the plot out of the bag. From the review:

The best visual effects sequence, involving the destruction of Giants Stadium in New York, is already in the trailer for the movie. And while there are many conversations between Klaatu and his human companions about the health of the planet, almost no specifics are discussed. As a matter of fact, I don't recall the words "global warming" ever being spoken. It's as if Klaatu is simultaneously considering both the obliteration of our species and a run for political office. Agreeing with Gore doesn't play well in the red states ... After watching this movie for 45 minutes or so, you may start to think that wiping out every human being on Earth isn't such a bad idea. Anything to get Connelly to stop shrieking, "We can change! We can turn things around!" over and over.

In the original film from the 1950s, aliens threatened to destroy us because our warlike ways, coupled with our harnessing of the atom and moves toward space travel, made us unsafe citizens of the peaceful Galaxy. One might say it was to be a preemptive genocide.

But now, we are apparently to be destroyed for Gaia. Again, I might be wrong, but if that is the plot as the review makes it seem, flora and fauna are being elevated to the level of importance of people--and thus is in furtherance of the coup d' culture I have started discussing here, that will, if it succeeds, create a society based on utilitarianism, hedonism, and the new religion of radical environmentalism in place of the sanctity/equality of human life ethic.

As to the hedonism part, a story today indicated that 20% of teenage girls has sent nude photos of themselves over their cell phones. Swell.

Benefit of Animal Research: Diabetes Cured in Mice

Ethical regenerative medical research, coupled with animal experimentation, is leading toward the alleviation of tremendous amounts of human suffering. Israeli scientists have cured mice with type 1 diabetes. From the story:

Lewis grafted healthy islets into diabetic mice and treated them with an anti-inflammatory drug called alpha-1-antitrypsin, or AAT. Within months, they discovered three encouraging results:

-- AAT enabled the newly grafted islets to survive indefinitely, successfully secreting insulin to control glucose levels like healthy pancreas cells.

-- The researchers stopped administering AAT and the islets continued to function. "We withdrew the therapy. That is something that is unique in transplant today," Lewis explained. "There is no approach today that is able to provide a limited amount of therapy. If a patient stops the current protocol therapy, any graft will be rejected: kidney, heart, lungs - including islets."

-- The third result surprised even the scientists. They found that even after transplant and halting therapies, the mice's immune systems remained intact and were able to reject additional grafts while the original transplant continued to function. Doctors call this state "tolerance," which means the immune system remains intact and able to attack foreign bodies while protecting the inserted graft.

"We were able to cure a mouse from diabetes by supplying the healthy cells and the mouse's immune system still functioned," Lewis said. "This is the closest thing that we can consider to cure diabetes."

Without animal research, finding treatments for the most terrible diseases simply would not be possible.

Let us hope that human trials lead to equally encouraging results.

Montana Assisted Suicide Advocate Made Up Quote by Plaintiff

The media usually report the assisted suicide agenda by, basically, printing the proponents' press releases and pretending that it is objective news. But sometimes, it comes back to bite them, as when the PR is mendacious.

Case in point: When a Montana judge legalized assisted suicide, the stories all contained a statement by the plaintiff in the case praising the ruling. The only problem is that the plaintiff died before the ruling came out. That required a low key correction:

In a Dec. 6 story about a court ruling that doctor-assisted suicides are legal in Montana, The Associated Press erroneously reported that terminally ill plaintiff Robert Baxter said in a statement that he was comforted by the ruling. Baxter died Friday night and had been unaware of the decision issued Friday, according to his family. Anticipating the court decision, Hopcraft Communications prepared a release for Compassion & Choices, a patients' rights group, and included a statement attributed to Baxter and approved by him, Steve Hopcraft said. He said the firm believed Baxter was living and able to communicate when the release was issued.

In other words the PR group made up the reaction. But not to worry. The next time the same group releases a pro assisted suicide press release, it will be dutifully reported. The media don't care when they are deceived by people with whom they agree.

Assisted Suicide Advocates Don't Really Want Meaningful "Safeguards"

Kathryn Tucker, the lawyer for the euphemistically named Compassion and Choices, who won the trial court ruling establishing a right to assisted suicide in Oregon (and I contend, much more) has shown a bit of the real agenda behind the movement. In reacting to the victory, she suggested that the state would look to Oregon for guidance on death regulations, but would have to be less stringent. From the story:

Attorney Kathryn Tucker--who brought the case for right to die groups--expects Montana to look to Oregon and Washington for guidance. But she says Montana will have more freedom. Kathryn Tucker: "Let's just take the example of the waiting period. In Oregon there's a minimum 15-day waiting period. That provision very possibly would not survive constitutional scrutiny because it would be unduly burdensome."

Wow. Unduly burdensome to wait two whole weeks for suicide: Culture of death? What culture of death? It is all in my paranoid imagination.

What We Are Becoming: Children Proposed for Right to Assisted Suicide in Scotland

The Dutch seriously proposed permitting 12-year-olds to opt for euthanasia, and that was beaten back for the moment. Now, a new Scottish proposal to legalize assisted suicide would give the "right to die" to children. From the story:

Children aged 12 or even younger could be given the right to assisted suicide under a radical new Scottish bill proposed by veteran MSP Margo MacDonald.

The independent politician, who has Parkinson's disease, wants to bring legislation before the Scottish Parliament next year which would legalise assisted suicide.

Launching a consultation on her proposed End of Life Choices (Scotland) Bill yesterday, Mrs MacDonald suggested that the age limit for people wanting assistance to die should mirror that for children who are allowed under family law to "choose a life" by deciding which parent to live with when couples split up. In Scotland, youngsters whose parents are divorcing are generally consulted by the courts over who they wish to stay with from the age of 12 to 16, after which they are legally deemed to be adults.

And, of course, the killing wouldn't be limited to people who are dying since that is merely a political ploy to establish the principle of permitting assisted suicide/euthanasia in more resistant countries, like the USA:

Assisted suicide would also be possible for patients who unexpectedly became incapacitated to an "intolerable" degree, or who simply find their life "intolerable" - although the latter case would require the doctor to seek a second opinion from another health professional.

Culture of death? What culture of death? It's all in your imagination, Wesley.

Tabloid Voyerism Comes to Assisted Suicide

Media is so pornographic these days, and not just about matters sexual. A Brit tabloid has published photos from an assisted suicide, depictions taken from a soon-to-be-aired television show. From the story:

It will be the first time an assisted suicide has been shown on British TV and will be sure to spark debate over the legality of the sensitive subject--as well as the controversial decision to screen it.

The retired university professor and dad-of-two decided to end his life as his illness was crippling his body. Mr Ewert said: 'I am tired of the disease but I am not tired of living. I still enjoy life enough that I would like to continue but the thing is that I really cannot.

'If I opt for life then that is choosing to be tortured rather than end this journey and start the next one. I cannot take the risk. Let's face it, when you're completely paralysed and cannot talk how do you let somebody know you are suffering? This could be a complete and utter hell.

Clearly, this was a suicide caused by depression and despair--and fear of the future. I wonder if he or his family consulted with hospice professionals who could have assured him that he wouldn't have to suffer terribly unable to cry out. And who knows, had he hung in, he might have again found the joy in life.

I know of what I speak. My last hospice patient (as a volunteer) was a wonderful man named Bob Salamanca, who died of ALS. He told me that for the first 2 1/2 years of his illness, if he could have gone to Kevorkian he would have. He was depressed and very suicidal. But by the time I met him, he had "come out of the fog" in his words and was relishing life. Yes, it was hard. Yes, there were times when he despaired. But because his family supported his life, not his suicide, and also because the Mormon church reached out to him and let him know he was wanted--first through missionaries and then as a church, for example sending a taping crew to his house so he could present a Sunday message even though he was too ill to leave the house--and because he found the joy in life through the struggle of becoming a total quadriplegic, he rejected suicide. More than that, he would get spitting mad at assisted suicide advocates who used ALS patients as their bloody flag of advocacy. "They are trying to push me out of the bright lit boulevard into the dark alley," he told me the day after watching a Nightline program that focused on an ALS patient who wanted assisted suicide. Indeed, he even wrote a column published by the San Francisco Chronicle, ("I Don’t Want a Choice to Die," February 19, 1997, no link available).which read in part:

Euthanasia advocates believe they are doing people like me a favor. They are not. The negative emotions toward the terminally ill and disabled generated by their advocacy is actually at the expense of the 'dying' and their families and friends, who often feel disheartened and without self assurance because of a false picture of what it is like to die created by these enthusiasts who prey on the misinformed.

What we, the terminally ill, need is exactly the opposite--to realize how important our lives are. And our loved ones, friends, and indeed society, need to help us feel that we are loved and appreciated unconditionally.

Of course, if the death with dignity crowd had been able to get their hands on Bob before he came out of that fog, he would have been dead instead of relishing the end time of his life ("I wouldn't have missed this for the world," he once told me. Such statements by properly cared for dying people have become so common they are almost a hospice cliche`) And as he was lowered into the grave, the death with dignity facilitators would have been clapping themselves on the back about their oh, so deep compassion, ignorant of the coming good life that they had robbed Bob of when they yielded to his despair.

But that's not the message media wants to send, and apparently it is not one many people want to hear. It is all about "death with dignity" now--as if Bob dying peacefully in his sleep wasn't dignified.

NHS Meltdown: Not Enough Emergency Docs

And the tales of medical woe continue to mount in the UK as the NHS collapses. Now, there is a serious shortage of emergency room doctors. From the story:

The College of Emergency Medicine has issued a report calling for the number of A&E consultants must double within three years in order to ensure there is proper supervision of junior doctors so patients get the best care.

In their report The Way Ahead, the College said there needs to be 1500 emergency medicine consultants by 2012 as this would mean there was a senior doctor on duty in each A&E at all times. Currently only a minority of hospital emergency departments have adequate numbers of senior doctors and complex cases and very sick patients are seen by doctors who are still training.

This is not the direction in which we should want to go.

Grand Duke of Luxembourg's Address

I have been asked whether there is a campaign to support Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg for his refusal to be complicit in the legalization of euthanasia in his country, and if so, what the address is to support him. I believe there is such a campaign. But the only address I have at the moment is slow mail:

H.R.H. Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg

Palais Grand-Ducal L-1728 Luxembourg,

Luxembourg

We'd Better Open Our Eyes or This is Our Future: Suicide Assistance for the Elderly

An elderly man has traveled to Switzerland for an assisted suicide, accompanied by his wife. From the story:

Doctors from a euthanasia clinic held secret talks at Heathrow airport with a London pensioner before helping him die last week, the Standard has learned. A 90-year-old man named only as Chris--who was not terminally ill-died on Friday at Ex International, in Berne, after travelling to the Swiss capital with his wife on Tuesday.

He is thought to be only the second Briton to die at the clinic, which until recently did not accept people from non-German-speaking countries. Chris, whose surname has not been revealed as he wanted privacy for his widow, had been planning to kill himself for about two years.

He arrived in Britain in 1938 after fleeing Nazi Austria and went on to teach physics and maths in Newcastle and later Birmingham University. After deciding to end his life because of his deteriorating health, he met leading figures behind the Swiss clinic at Heathrow --after they attended a meeting with British assisted-suicide campaigners in the summer last year.

The airport meeting was arranged by Chris's friend, the voluntary euthanasia campaigner Dr Michael Irwin, who had been due to accompany the pensioner to Berne but pulled because of illness.

Suicide prevention is unmentioned. But why should we be surprised? The logic of the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement is turning us into a pro-suicide culture.

Montana Court Ruling on Assisted Suicide: Sweet Mystery of Life at Last I've Found You or Coup d' Culture?

One final reflection the court ruling finding a constitutional right to assisted suicide in Montana. This case--which will not be the final word due to an almost certain appeal--seems to be the latest to follow the "mystery of life" approach to jurisprudence, most infamously enunciated in 1992 by Supreme Court abortion case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, in which Justice Kennedy wrote:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

Yes, of course we all have the right to decide metaphysical issues for ourselves and the state cannot force a creed or belief system upon us. But it destroys society as a coherent social organism if each individual's "concept" overrides almost all public policy considerations--such as those that are the bases of laws against assisted suicide. The consequence would seem to be a radical libertarianism with the only uniting value among and between us being "choice."

Note I wrote, "would seem," not "will be." I don't believe we will end up in such a libertarian Nirvana because establishing "choice" as the reigning value of society is not the real game that is afoot. What is really happening is the imposition by the liberal intellectual elites--whose interest the courts tend to serve, or at least reflect--of the mores and social values they favor upon the rest of us. This means that there is also going to be a flip side to this particular coin. Just as those personal behaviors favored by the liberal intelligentsia will be found to be constitutionally protected, personal behaviors disfavored by these same forces will be found to be controllable by the state.

Here is how this might work out with regard to issues relevant to SHS: Just because a court might impose a constitutional right to assisted suicide doesn't mean it would also overturn futile care theory. Nor will courts judicially impose conscience clauses protecting medical professionals from participating in certain procedures they find objectionable--even though the objected to procedures were validated under the mystery of life rule.

In fields beyond our scope here, we are likely to see the imposition of norms favored by liberal elites in total disregard of "choice" of dissenters. For example, I don't doubt that the time is coming when we will not be allowed to drive a car that gets 8 miles to the gallon, or burn a fire in the fireplace, or develop our resources if it is deemed to harm the "rights" of nature. You get the drift.

So what is really happening is a coup d' culture. It is a toppling of the current social order that is based in Judeo/Christian moral philosophy--in part through court rulings based on autonomy--with the eventual legal implementation of a dramatically different value system founded in utilitarianism, hedonism, and probably, radical environmentalism. Once that process is complete, judicial rulings will inform us that "choice" has definite limits.

Montana Assisted Suicide Decision Reads Very Much Like Right to Death on Demand

I will admit I didn't get much sleep last night because of the Montana case imposing a constitutional right to assisted suicide there. I haven't been able to find a copy of the decision yet, but from the few quotes I have seen it appears a radically broad and hubristic ruling, that if followed, logically couldn't be limited to physician assisted suicide or the terminally ill. These two quotes stand out, as cited in the Hemlock Society, er Compassion and Choices Web page crowing about the ruling:

"The Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally (ill) patient to die with dignity," McCarter said in the ruling. "The patient's right to die with dignity includes protection of the patient's physician from liability under the state's homicide statutes," the judge wrote.

And:

“We have chosen not to ‘march lock-step’ with the United States Supreme Court…we have held that Montana’s unique constitutional language affords citizens (of Montana) a greater right to privacy.” District Court Judge Jeffrey M. Sherlock wrote [in another case], “Montanans generally mind their own business and do not wish to restrict other people in their freedoms unless the exercise of those freedoms interferes with other members of society.”

This is the old, "I can do anything I want until the point that my fist hits your nose," concept. Leaving aside for the moment that assisted suicide hits everyone in the nose and harms society, think about the logical implications of the judge's ruling:

First, why limit the right to people diagnosed with a terminal illness? If I want to die because John McCain lost the election and I can't stand the idea of an Obama Presidency, that's my business and nobody has a right to interfere.
Second, the judge went further than somebody's right to commit suicide, which is an individual action. She declared that the person who wants to die has the right to help. The example here is of a physician writing a prescription. But her ruling went even farther than that--it shielded assisting doctors from homicide laws. It seems to me that language has to open the door to active euthanasia.
-- Third, why limit the assister to a physician? If privacy ("choice") and the right to dignity--which has to be what each individual decides it is since the state cannot logically determine what is dignity from what I have seen, why can't I have anyone I want kill me? Recall that in Switzerland, assisted suicides are done by lay groups, not physicians--which is logical since killing is not a medical act.
-- Fourth: If dignity (as I see it) and privacy are so absolute, why limit the license to assisted suicide? Why not amputate the limb on request of a person suffering from BIID, whose idea of dignity is to have one leg instead of two? That was certainly the implication of the original Montana Supreme Court ruling that unleashed this.

I plan to write more about this when I have read the whole ruling. It will be appealed, no doubt. But I have one more thought to add, which I will do in the next post.

UK Government Fights to Keep Details of Late Term Eugenic Abortions Secret

This is what we are becoming, aborting viable fetuses because they will not be physically perfect--and the the UK government wishes to keep it all under wraps. From the story:

It centres on mothers who opt for termination because their unborn babies have been diagnosed with conditions such as club foot and cleft palate.

Doctors say such conditions can usually be corrected by surgery.The Information Commissioner has ordered the release of the figures, but the Department of Health is resisting, claiming that disclosing the data could lead to women who have late abortions being identified.

While abortion is only legal in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy if carried out on social grounds, "Ground E" of the 1967 Abortion Act makes it legal to abort a foetus which has a serious risk of physical or mental abnormality, right up to birth. There are continuing concerns that the law is being flouted to weed out "less than perfect" babies.

Prof Stuart Campbell, the leading obstetrician whose 3D-scan images of babies "walking in the womb" at 12 weeks led to calls for a lowering of the 24-week limit for social abortion, said last night: "It is a disgraceful situation for this data to be suppressed."This is not about whether one agrees with abortion. These statistics used to be published, now they are being withheld. Transparency is the essence of medicine. If we don't have that, all sorts of wrongdoing can go on. I am not saying that using abortion is doing wrong, but we need to see the data in order to understand what is happening."

No, we must never say that something is wrong. No, no, no: Can't have that. We are infected with terminal nonjudgmentalism. And so we lamely claim that "transparency" is the answer to everything.

But something is very wrong, Professor. And I can tell you precisely what it is; a collapse in our capacity to love.

Court Imposed Assisted Suicide Legalization in Montana

I wish I could say I was surprised, but judges have decided they get to decide all of our social issues today. A Montana trial court judge has legalized assisted suicide in Montana. From the story.

A Montana judge has issued a ruling saying residents of the state have the right to doctor-assisted suicide. The ruling issued late Friday by state District Court Judge Dorothy McCarter makes Montana the third state in which doctor-assisted suicide is legal.

The judge said Saturday she ruled in a lawsuit filed by a terminally ill Billings man, four physicians and a nonprofit patients rights group, Compassion & Choices. McCarter's ruling holds that mentally competent, terminally ill Montanans have a right to obtain medications that can be self-administered to bring about a peaceful death if they find their suffering to be unbearable. The ruling also says physicians can prescribe such medication without fear of criminal prosecution.

So it is a constitutional right to have a doctor help poison you to death if you have a terminal illness. I assume there will be an appeal. But why have legislatures when we have judges to make these crucial decisions for us and spare us the democratic debate? The USA is quickly becoming a not very free country.

Update: Here is a more detailed story by the AP:

"The Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally (ill) patient to die with dignity," McCarter said in the ruling.

So the court takes a propaganda buzz term "death with dignity," and turns it into a constitutional right to suicide because the Montana Constitution uses the word dignity. Unbelievable, but this is what judges are becoming. It is, after all, where the power lies.

So, why not anyone who wants to die? I mean, how can one limit the rights to privacy and dignity to the dying? Believe me, it is coming.

Selfless Robert Klein Wants a Cool 1/2 Million a Year to Run CIRM

Robert Klein, whose money and political muscle was behind Proposition 71 that convinced Californians to foolishly borrow billions to pay for human cloning and embryonic stem cell research, is only in it for the cures, or so he has always said. Well, that assurance no longer applies. Not content to spend hundreds of millions of borrowed money of California citizens money this year to fund some of the world's most expensive buildings, he now wants to pocket a cool $500,000 in salary per year--at a time when California is spurting red ink from the arteries. The hapless governator is not happy. From California Stem Cell Report:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has expressed "deep concern" about a proposal to pay the chairman of the California stem cell agency as much as half-a-million dollars a year. The letter from the governor to the CIRM board of directors comes as the state faces a $28 billion budget crisis and is cutting aid to the poor and elderly. Legislation was also introduced this week to freeze salaries of state employees who make more than $150,000 a year.

Klein has been a disaster, with conflicts of interest rife in the CIRM, a Little Hoover Commission investigation ongoing of the CIRM, management difficulties, etc. Moreover, this smacks of the sense of entitlement and hubris among the big shots and well connected that is utterly ruining the country.

Well, the CIRM shouldn't be Klein's personal fiefdom. Rather than pay Klein a half million, let's show him the door instead.

Lady Warnock is the Future of Our Culture If We Are Not Careful

The UK's Independent has published an excellent feature story on the beliefs and theories of Lady Warnock, one of Britain's most influential moral philosophers. (We've discussed her views previously here at SHS.) Warnock is an enthusiastic purveyor of the culture of death, supporting not only euthanasia but a duty to die. From the story, byline Paul Vallely:

Surprisingly, perhaps, she is quite happy with the notion of the "duty to die", which most people find a good deal more controversial. A couple of months ago, in an interview with the Church of Scotland's magazine Life and Work, she said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives--your family's lives--and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service. I'm fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there's a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they're a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die."

The journey from the right to die to the duty to die is a significant one, especially since there are many people in society who are uncomfortable even with the notion that individuals who want to end their lives have the right to ask others to help them kill themselves, or even do it on their behalf.

Warnock at least has the virtue of being honest. For example, I have argued frequently that once society accepts the philosophical premises behind assisted suicide--radical individualism and the propriety of killing as an answer to human suffering--there is no way to limit mercy killing to the terminally ill. Warnock so acknowledges:

Her philosopher's logic takes her further out along the limb where she perches perilously distant from public common sense. "Once that principle is accepted it is irrational to confine it to those who are terminally ill." Anyone who wants to die should be helped to do so--the old, the miserable, the mentally ill.

Regular readers of SHS know that this isn't just talk. The Netherlands is there already and the Swiss Supreme Court has issued a decree creating a constitutional right to assisted suicide for the mentally ill.

And of course, she opposes human exceptionalism, the concept of "rights," and thinks the "slippery slope" is nonsense--despite it being clearly evident in her own statements.

The article is too long and detailed to go into further, so I urge you all to read it for yourselves. And, unlike many such profiles published today, the reporter generously includes many rebuttals from fine spokespersons.

And that is what gets me: Those who support the sanctity/equality of human life have now been reduced to mere reactors to people with Warnock's views, when any attention is paid to them at all. At the same time she and others of her general ilk have become voices of influence, respected by government leaders, media members hanging on their every word, their photographs appear in the world's most respected news magazines, published in venerable journals, honors bestowed, huge speaking fees given, the subject of sometimes fawning documentaries, and tenured chairs provided by the world's most prestigious universities.

But people who believe in the intrinsic value of all human life, who accept Jefferson's declaration of the inalienable right to life, who believe that one of our most important human duties is to care lovingly for those who can't care for themselves, are rarely accorded the same respectful treatment--no matter their credentials or eloquence--and indeed, are more often disparaged as basing their views in religion instead of reason (as Warnock does), besides being castigated as intolerant, moralistic, and judgmental. (As if there is anything wrong with a world view founded in religious values and only religious people believe in universal human equality and oppose euthanasia and the duty to die.)

The problem with all of this is that we are creating a society less able to love.

Revolving Door Journalism: From "Reporting" to Shilling

My good pal Ralph Nader often has complained of the "revolving door" between government regulators and legislators and the big corporations that are subject to regulation, giving the corporations, in his view (to which I subscribe), undue influence over their own oversite.

But the same phenomenon can be seen increasingly in media, with reporters who essentially advocate for certain ideological agendas in their reportage eventually getting into the formal shilling business about those same agendas when they leave journalism. Case in point, Rick Weiss, formerly of the Washington Post. He used to cover the biotechnology beat, and it was clear which side had his sympathies (although more than most reporters on the science beat, he would occasionally pierce through the ESCR hype). Now, he is with the Leftist think tank Center for American Progress--also illustrating the overwhelmingly liberal slant of MSM journalists--and shilling for the same embryonic stem cell research issue about which he used to report. From his latest piece:

Within the first week of taking office, President Obama should call upon the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to devise a plan for dismantling the current, overly restrictive Bush administration policy on the funding of human embryonic stem cell research. He should do so through an executive order or presidential memorandum.

This advocacy is no different from the message that most of his stories communicated when he was a beat reporter. But at least it now has the virtue of being an honest expression of opinion rather than masking as objective journalism. (I know of at least one former environmental reporter, who wrote stories as if global warming is uncontroversial, now similarly shilling for a liberal think tank in support of the global warming agenda.)

Count on many media outlets publishing Weiss's piece even though it really has nothing new to say, when a contrarian pundit on this issue probably couldn't pay to be on the op/ed pages. That's how the bias increasingly works these days. Now, it isn't just a skewed slant to stories. As far media are concerned, there is only one legitimate opinion on many issues--and they just aren't going to allow contrary thinkers to have any more than the most sporadic say.

When Science (and media) Becomes Ideology We All Lose

This blog doesn't deal with global warming per se, but it does worry about the corrupting influences on science and media exerted by ideology. Mostly, we have deconstructed this problem in the area of biotechnology. But the corruption has permeated the physical sciences, too, most particularly the supposed "fact" of catastrophic, human-caused climate change.

As Secondhand Smokette pointed out in a column earlier this week, not only is the issue not beyond debate, but the attempt to stack the deck is becoming all too obvious by following the money trail. From her column:

Over 10 years, not one study challenged the orthodoxy [of global warming] - does that sound right to you? If that were true, it would strongly suggest that, despite conflicting evidence in this wide and changing world, no scientist dares challenge the politically correct position on the issue.

No wonder David Bellamy--an Australian botanist who was involved in some 400 TV productions, only to see his TV career go south after he questioned global warming orthodoxy - wrote in the Australian last week, "It's not even science any more; it's anti-science." Bellamy notes that official data show that "in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002, Arctic ice actually increased." Exhibit B: MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Richard S. Lindzen recently wrote, "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995."

Media is a willing accomplice to this news blockade by not reporting, under reporting, or spinning stories that might promote heterodox views about global warming.

Case in point: It turns out that 2008 will be the coolest year of the decade. If the story was that 2008 was the warmest of the decade, we all know that it would make huge headlines. But the mini cooling trend we are apparently experiencing will not be reported in most outlets, or if it is, it will be in the back pages. Or, it will be spun as meaningless, like in the Guardian's report in which only "experts" from one side were allowed to comment. From the story:

Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would over interpret the figure."You can bet your life there will be a lot of fuss about what a cold year it is. Actually no, its not been that cold a year, but the human memory is not very long, we are used to warm years," he said, "Even in the 80s [this year] would have felt like a warm year."

And what do these skeptics thinks this interesting climate variation means? We don't know. Their perspectives were not presented in the story.

All of this is aided and abetted by the mindless purveyors of popular culture, such as the very clever Piraro, author of Bizarro,who has swallowed more than one glass of Kool Aid--as the cartoon reproduced above illustrates.

The New York Times Softens the Ground for Utilitarian Health Care Rationing.

The New York Times has noticed the crass utilitarianism that permeates the UK's NHS--run by the Orwellian-named bioethics board National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)--and seems to be softening the ground for our accepting similar utilitarian overlords here. From the story:

When Bruce Hardy's kidney cancer spread to his lung, his doctor recommended an expensive new pill from Pfizer. But Mr. Hardy is British, and the British health authorities refused to buy the medicine. His wife has been distraught.

If the Hardys lived in the United States or just about any European country other than Britain, Mr. Hardy would most likely get the drug, although he might have to pay part of the cost. A clinical trial showed that the pill, called Sutent, delays cancer progression for six months at an estimated treatment cost of $54,000. But at that price, Mr. Hardy's life is not worth prolonging, according to a British government agency, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The institute, known as NICE, has decided that Britain, except in rare cases, can afford only £15,000, or about $22,750, to save six months of a citizen's life.

If an HMO did such a thing, the Times would never stop screaming. But with the prospects of a nationalized health care system growing, attitudes at the Gray Lady are apparently changing, with the term "evidence based" health care as the euphemistic honey to help the bitter medicine go down.

Lest you think such policies will never happen here, it is already being advocated by many of our betters among the intelligentsia:

At the present rate of growth, medical costs will increase to 25 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in 2025 from 16 percent, with half of the increase coming from new drugs and devices, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

To arrest this trend, the United States needs to adopt at least some of NICE's methods, said Dr. Mark McClellan and Dr. Sean Tunis, who served earlier in the Bush administration as, respectively, administrator and chief medical officer of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Dr. Tunis said he spent a lot of time in government "learning about NICE and trying to adopt the processes and mechanisms they used, and we just couldn't."

That's because the idea of using price to determine which drugs or devices Medicare or Medicaid provides has provoked fierce protests. But Dr. McClellan said the American government would soon have no choice.

Make no mistake: This is the opening round of the coming debate about national health care that will, if it succeeds, put utilitarian bioethicists in position of tremendous power over all of our lives. It is up to us to make sure it does not happen.

Dick Sobsey On "Murder and Social Endorsement" of Parents Killing Their Children With Disabilities

Dick Sosey is an American professor who teaches at the University of Alberta, Canada, and is an expert on issue of discrimination against people with disabilities. In response to a story published in the Denver Post about the murder of a boy with autism by his father, which Sobsey perceived to be unduly sympathetic to the killer, he has posted two blog posts that are well worth reading in full. In Part One, he writes:

Murder is wrong and there is no good excuse for it. Murdering any child is a despicable act.Murdering one’s own child is as bad as murdering someone else’s.Murdering a child with autism is just as bad as murdering any other child.

Most people who murder other people are experiencing stress and significant challenges in their lives of one kind or another. Being stressed is not an excuse for murder.

I am particularly incensed at people who commit murder and then tell us how much they love the victim that they murder. Suggesting that parenting a child with a disability is so challenging or stressful that killing these children is somehow understandable or excusable is no better than endorsing any other kind of murder.

Suggesting that parenting a child with a disability is so challenging or stressful that killing these children is somehow understandable or excusable adds to the probability that other parents will kill their children, because sick minds struggling with the impulse to kill can be assisted to go over the edge by social endorsements, which help them to rationalize murder...Let's save our respect and empathy for the parents who go on facing challenges day after day, and recognize the child murderers who fail to face these challenges for who they are. Parents who kill children with autism are no better or worse than parents who kill any other child.

Sobsey continues his analysis in Part 2, which I will permit you all to read on your own. He concludes:

Lastly, I want to comment on why I believe the ideas in this article are dangerous. To understand child murder, it is less helpful to focus on what motivates some parents to kill their children but rather on what stops most parents from killing their children. This is not being glib. The reality is that raising any child is a lot of work, stressful at sometimes, and heartbreaking at others. At times even the sweetest child is an intrusion on our lives. However, most parents do not kill their children for some combination of four reasons: (1) Love and attachment, (2) Guilt, (3) Shame, and (4) Fear of Punishment. In most cases, this is the order of importance. Parents who claim to love their children but hate their autism are at best conflicted. Autism is a pervasive disorder, saying you love the child but hate his or her autism is a bit like saying I love you but hate everything about you or saying I love the child I wish you could be, not the child you are.

Sobsey probably knows more about this particular issue--the murder of children with disabilities and society's reaction to it--than anybody I know. His wisdom is very worth pondering.

"What It Means to be Human" Podcast: Suicide Outlaws

In this week's edition of my podcast, What It Means to be Human, I discuss the media's fascination with, and often fawning reportage about suicide outlaws. Here is the link.

Luxembourg: Culture of Death Will Not be Denied

Luxembourg is hell bent on enacting euthanasia legislation, but the sovereign Grand Duke Henri refuses to sign the bill, which would prevent it from taking effect. What to do? Change the constitution! From the story:

Luxembourg was plunged into a constitutional crisis on Tuesday after the sovereign, Grand Duke Henri, threatened to block a law legalising euthanasia if it is passed by parliament. Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker responded by saying the country would change its constitution to reduce the powers of the sovereign, who traditionally stays above the political fray. "Because we wish to avoid a constitutional crisis, but at the same time respect the opinion of the Grand Duke, we are going to take out the term 'approve' from article 34 of the constitution and replace it with the word 'promulgate,'" said Juncker, a move which would scrap the sovereign's formal power to block laws.
Juncker's announcement came after Grand Duke Henri, the constitutional sovereign, warned that he would not sign off on a law to legalise euthanasia if it is passed by parliament.

It also came after two hours of talks with political party leaders, leaving little doubt that Juncker had the backing for the move. Such a constitutional change would require a two-thirds majority in parliament. "I understand the Grand Duke's problems of conscience. But I believe that if the parliament votes in a law, it must be brought into force," Juncker said earlier, despite his own personal opposition to the bill.

Two quick points, well actually, three:

-- First, good for the Grand Duke. In this way he won't be complicit in the killing.
-- Second, the acquiescence of the political leader to euthanasia forces, to the point that he is willing to change the constitution, makes him morally complicit in every such death that occurs under the law.
-- And finally, this illustrates a big difference between those who oppose and support the COD. Supporters of euthanasia, etc., if faced with the refusal by the Grand Duke to sign a law outlawing euthanasia, would never accommodate their opponents by changing the constitution to ensure the law was enacted. They would instead happily take advantage of his reluctance to block the law from going into effect.

And that is a big difference between the supporters and opponents of the culture of death, in my view: Proponents believe in winning by any legal way possible! And they don't much care whether it is by court fiat, legislative victory, jury nullification, executive order, or legal technicality. Opponents are not nearly that insistent on stopping the agenda. They want to appear fair.

What We Are Becoming: Time to Dehydrate Debilitated Stroke Patient

A disturbing column in today's LA Times has a woman wanting to "let" her Dad go by removing his feeding tube--which would really be to make him go, since there could only be one outcome from such a decision.

Dad isn't unconscious. He is debilitated and disabled by a stroke. He apparently had an advance directive eschewing "extraordinary" care, which the family--rightly in my view--did not see as applying to a feeding tube. And yet, we are told that even so, he should be "let go," e.g., be dehydrated to death, because his life isn't worth living. From the column, byline Diana Wagman:

But what kind of life? Since that morning, he has been in a deep sleep, rousing rarely and unpredictably and only enough to say a word or two. He's paralyzed on his right side. His eyes are closed, and the nurses, the doctors and his family cannot wake him. The rehab doctor literally knocks on his chest and shouts "Wake up, Arthur!" and he does not respond. He is not in a coma, he is not in pain, he is breathing on his own, his heart is strong, but he has basically checked out. The doctor said it's not uncommon to be lethargic after a stroke, although my father's response is unusually severe. The scans of his brain show that the bleeding and swelling have stopped, but he is not getting better. A feeding tube is keeping him alive.

Money is part of the issue, and no doubt, it is a big problem:

Now the hospital wants to move him. It is not a long-term care facility, and he does not need acute care. He needs what they call sub-acute care, daily maintenance and monitoring, some rehab therapy to keep blood circulating. We have begun the depressing, complicated process of looking for a home. The nicest place we found is $10,000 a month once his insurance and Medicaid run out. We have no idea how long he'll be there. My stepmother would have to sell the income property whose rent supports them. Then she would have to figure out another way to live.

But do we really want to be a society that dehydrates people to death because they are debilitated elderly or have serious disabilities? Probably not--if these attitudes spread throughout the society we will be a society that wants to lethally inject them to death because we are, after all, humane.

I have great empathy for Wagman and her family. I certainly support their refusal of antibiotics or CPR in such a case. But depriving Dad of food and water--as she really does understand in this piece--is a huge thing, both medically and symbolically.

Being in anguish at one's father's real difficulties is natural. Wishing he would die for his own good is understandable. But I don't think Wagman or her family should feel guilty for doing the right thing. Nor do I think it is a good idea to move society--as this piece seems intended to do--toward the time when people like her father are can be comfortably deemed too much of a burden on themselves, their families, or society to have their lives maintained.

Therapeutic Nation: Half of College-Age People Had "Psychiatric Episode" in Last Year

Ba-lo-ney! A study claims that nearly half of our young people of college age have had a psychiatric episode in the last year. From the study:

Almost half of college-aged individuals had a psychiatric disorder in the past year. The overall rate of psychiatric disorders was not different between college-attending individuals and their non–college-attending peers. The unadjusted risk of alcohol use disorders was significantly greater for college students than for their non–college-attending peers (odds ratio = 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.50), although not after adjusting for background sociodemographic characteristics (adjusted odds ratio = 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.44). College students were significantly less likely (unadjusted and adjusted) to have a diagnosis of drug use disorder or nicotine dependence or to have used tobacco than their non–college-attending peers. Bipolar disorder was less common in individuals attending college. College students were significantly less likely to receive past-year treatment for alcohol or drug use disorders than their non–college-attending peers.

Of course, that depends on what is meant by a "psychiatric disorder." We have become such a therapeutic nation, that to get this result must involve what we could call psychiatric disorder inflation. Note, for example that nicotine addiction--smoking--is a psychiatric disorder according to the study. That means my dad was suffering from a psychiatric disorder: We just didn't know it all those years when he diligently supported the family, taught me how to throw a baseball and fish, and provided deep love and friendship to my mother. But apparently, he needed to be on the couch. I think I'll hide that bit of bad news from mom who was wistfully talking about how much she loved her late mate just yesterday.

Boys-being-boys is today, often diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder. I recall when President Bush was reelected, a new psychiatric disorder was created for people upset about the outcome.

In my experience doing family law--which I loathed--psychologists and psychiatrists were often called in to determine what was best for children in custody or visitation disputes. In my experience, the "expert witnesses" were often more messed up than the breaking-apart family.

Everything that hurts, or causes difficulties, or leads to grief is not a psychiatric disorder. Sometimes it is just life. Studies such as this seem more like industry-boosting to me than actual science.

If I am wrong, we are in real trouble. But I don't think I am and so I repeat: Baloney.

National Health Care on the Way! Well, Maybe Not

They brought it on themselves, the private health insurers. Raising rates, cherry picking, too often trying to game people. So, now with the election of Barack Obama, the LA Times announces that there is a "consensus" to legally implement some form of nationally mandated health insurance. From the story:

After decades of failed efforts to reshape the nation's health care system, a consensus appears to be emerging in Washington about how to achieve the elusive goal of providing medical insurance to all Americans.

The answer, say leading groups of businesses, hospitals, doctors, labor unions and insurance companies--as well as senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill and members of the new Obama administration--is unprecedented government intervention to create a system of universal protection.

Except there really isn't. While our handlers agree that it won't be a Canadian style single payer plan--good--nor a McCain style free market approach, and there will be a need to control costs and guarantee quality--good luck with that--there isn't much else that is agreed upon:

Among the issues to be decided as more concrete proposals emerge in the months ahead is whether the roughly 46 million uninsured people in the U.S. will be pushed to buy private coverage or will be enrolled in a government insurance program, as some consumer groups want.

Hospitals and doctors fear another public program would reduce what they are paid, as Medicare and Medicaid have done. Insurers worry they could lose customers to the government.

Also unresolved is what mechanisms might be created to force individuals or businesses to get insurance, both potentially contentious subjects.

And few have tackled how the government will control costs and set standards of care, proposals that raise the unpopular prospect of federal regulators dictating which doctors Americans can see and what drugs they can take.

As I have written before here at SHS, they are not even tackling the big ones in the story, among which are: Will abortion be covered in the basic coverage that must be provided everyone? Since any government plan will include taxpayer money, expect pro lifers to fight against it tooth and tong. But if it isn't included, the NARAL and Planned Parenthood sector will bellow like an attacking grizzly bear.

And what about illegal aliens? Millions of the 46 million uninsured have no right to be in the USA. Will a mandatory policy cover them also? If so, the bank will definitely break as millions more travel here from around the world to get good health care. Also, there will be a huge fight if the government tries to impose utilitarian and invidiously discriminatory rationing regimens on us, such as based on age or "quality of life."

Then there is the black hole of debt we've incurred in the last month, which it seems to me sinks any ambitious new plan.

And then the judges will want their say.

Consensus? Sure, until you actually try to decide something. But there is some good news: As Secretary of State, at least Hillary won't be involved.

Language Matters: Court Did Not Authorize Euthanasia in South Korea

One of the great difficulties we have in debating important cultural and ethical issues is the lack of a common frame of reference. Or to put it another way, when language is used very sloppily--whether negligently or intentionally--it becomes almost impossible to adhere to precise definitions and understand crucial distinctions that are prerequisites to informed and rational debate.

Sometimes this is an advocacy tactic. Thus, proponents for unfettered embryonic stem cell and cloning research intentionally changed the language of the debate in order to win public support--aided and abetted by a completely in the tank media. Thus language describing embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning issues was intentionally devolved into mere "stem cell research." As a consequence, adult stem cell breakthroughs, also called "stem cell research," are often thought to be embryonic. Stories about the need for human eggs for "stem cell research" often do not let readers know that the issue involves the creation of human embryos via somatic cell nuclear transfer. This directed corruption of language is also a corruption of science and is profoundly disrespectful of democracy.

Sometimes, however, it is just a matter of sloppiness. Such is the story out of South Korea, headlines about which in several outlets have announced that a court has authorized "euthanasia." No it hasn't. It authorized removal of a patient from life support--a very different thing. From the story:

A court on Friday approved a request for euthanasia for the first time in South Korea, telling doctors to take a brain-dead woman off life support at her family's request...The landmark ruling acknowledged an individual's right to die for the first time here, but rekindled debate on euthanasia. The current law bans any form of assisted suicide and sees the removal of a respirator from brain-dead patients as murder.

Two inapt terms leap off the page in this short quote. First, it seems the patient is unconscious, not "brain dead." Second the issue is about whether life support can be removed from such people, not whether they can be actively killed. Sometimes life support is removed from people in PVS and the don't die (unless that life support is food and fluids).

These issues are international and need a consistent use of language and terms. Otherwise, we will have chaos rather than informed and rational ethical debates. Indeed, the language of bioethics at the popular level is already so muddled by sloppy language, rank redefinition, and euphemistic argument ("aid in dying") that engaging these crucial issues in the public square is already near the point of futility.