Results matching “disability”

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed an emergency motion in court Monday to save the life of nine-month-old Gabriel Palmer. East Tennessee Children's Hospital says it may abandon his medical care and thus cause his death even though the child is stable and a doctor says he could live for a long time.

The hospital did not change course after a letter sent Friday by an ADF-cooperating attorney on behalf of Baby Gabriel's mother which urged hospital officials to continue his medical treatment. Hospital staff told Catherine Palmer that they will no longer provide medical care for her baby despite her objections. The boy is on a respirator and medications to treat pulmonary vascular problems he developed after procedures that the hospital performed on him in October.

"A disability should not be a death sentence. No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life is not worth saving," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "Doctors at East Tennessee Children's Hospital need to do the right thing and make sure Baby Gabriel gets the treatment he needs to live. He is loved by his mother, is in stable condition, and could live for a long time. The hospital's treatment--or lack thereof--of this helpless little boy is simply inhuman."

Guess it isn't just right-wing vast-conspirators, white racists, or nutjobs, after all:

"My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President's chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which "produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."

"Dr. Emanuel is a special adviser to the budget director, Peter R. Orszag. He is also the older brother of Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff."

The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 - 431, 31 January 2009, Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Govind Persad BS a, Alan Wertheimer PhD a, Ezekiel J Emanuel MD:

"Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system--the complete lives system--which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles." (emphasis this author)

Lottery systems, folks. Like they're already having to do in Canada, where there is already "universal" healthcare.

Pick a number, any number, take a number and wait. Like at the deli counter at your local grocer, only add months to wait, not minutes.

Controversy: Ezekiel Emanuel wrote an article for The Hastings Center Report in 1996, in which he proposed that health care services should not be guaranteed for "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens."

Still don't want to read what Palin says because you're convinced she's an idiot? (even though you're rather the idiot if you believe what the pro-Obama media have only allowed you to learn)...

Then read these Obama-supporters and Obama-liberal newspaper pundits:

1. THE WASHINGTON POST, Charles Lane:

   Section 1233 "addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to 'bend the curve' on health-care costs?"

   "Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary,' as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.

   "Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would 'place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,' I don't think he's being realistic.

2. WASHINGTON POST Columnist Eugene Robinson ("a self-described 'true believer' who 'will almost certainly support' 'whatever reform package finally emerges'):

   "If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending."

3. Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee:

   "Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign."

"The goal is to reduce end-of-life spending."

Sounds great, doesn't it.

Except when some government insurance clerk(s) and/or the doctor(s) getting pressured by that clerk or committee of clerks to "reduce end-of-life spending" decide that you're near the "end" of your life and they say "No more healthcare for you."

But by then, it'll be too late. You'll have the government against you, then. And you'll die before you can fight to reverse this havoc that you've allowed Obama and the Democrats to wreak.

Don't the Pro-O liberals find it interesting that Congress won't hold itself to this same "standard of care" that they think all other Americans should accept meekly, silently and blindly?

If it was such a great system, they'd be trampling us to get it for themselves first.

They're not. They never will.

POSTSCRIPT: Palin echoes today what I and others also already know, but sadly the vast majority of Obama-ites refuse to learn:

"I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee's decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It's gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

"...nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama's key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I'm speaking of the "Complete Lives System" advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president's chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the "Complete Lives System," a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the "Complete Lives System"? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his "thinking has evolved" on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large."

Should feelings of pity reduce the consequences of murder?

Joanne Hill, who murdered her daughter with cerebral palsy, won't be eligible for parole for at least 15 years:

Judge Elgan Edwards told Hill: "There can be no excuse for what you did."

The judge said: "You killed your own daughter because you could not cope with her disability. You had other pressures upon you, a disintegrating marriage, and you decided to kill your own daughter by drowning her."

However, I can't help but think that Ms. Hill's lawyer chose the wrong defense strategy. Recall Robert Latimer, the Canadian who murdered his daughter Traci because she had cerebral palsy--an act supported by his wife after the fact and applauded widely in Canada. Latimer's defense was he was doing it for Traci, as a compassionate and loving act. He got off with a several years in prison, and the jury didn't even want him to serve that much time.

Several events have occurred in the last couple of months that have made the abortion issue one of the prominent topics in the campaigns of both parties. This congruence of events should keep the abortion topic on the front burner until the election.

First of all, there couldn't have been a better display of the differences in the two candidates then when they were asked at the Saddleback Forum about when human rights begin. John McCain stated that life begins at conception, while Barack Obama gave some rambling incoherent answer which he finally said he couldn't answer because it would be above his pay grade.

Barack Obama's view of abortion takes the issue to a whole new level. With his refusal to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois State Senator, it displays to the world that he is not only 100% pro-abortion, but if a baby survives an abortion, it should be left to die. Obama has tried to dispute his own vote, but the truth is there for all to see.

Another event that brought abortion to the forefront was the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. This selection has pro-abortion groups fuming for two reasons. Since she's an adamant pro-life woman, it is something they just can't comprehend. It seems they believe every woman should be for women's rights, which, of course, to them means abortion on demand. Also, her decision not to abort her child with Down Syndrome has put the liberals in this country in a perplexing position. Those who believe in abortion usually agree that it can be used to destroy an unborn baby with a disability, and now the whole world can see that Palin and her family love and cherish this baby.

Culture of Life: Going, Going...Gone?
by Senator Sam Aanestad

Part of the reason I became an oral surgeon was because of my belief that serving God means valuing human life. I took an oath to protect those that He creates.

As a legislator in the California Senate, that oath is even more critical.

Patients facing a terminal illness have many needs. Among them are comfort, pain relief and information to make critical decisions. They need dignity, respect and the support of those who love and care for them. They need prayer and the help of clergy, family and friends.

What they don't need is an intrusion into their relationship with their doctor.

Proponents of California's AB 2747 "Terminal Patients' Right to Know End-of-life Options" say it is just about information. Unfortunately, it does much more than educate terminally ill patients. It interferes with the care of patients who are about to receive the worst news of their lives.

Sponsored by a group that promotes physician-assisted suicide--formerly known as the Hemlock Society--the original language of AB 2747 included a mandate that doctors give specific information to patients when advising them they have less than one year to live. Patients would have to be told that they could be sedated into a coma and stop eating and drinking.

Dozens of opponents testified against this measure during a recent marathon hearing of the Senate Health Committee. They included disability rights advocates, nursing organizations, doctors who care for cancer patients, minority rights groups, members of religious communities, hospitals and individuals who are affected by this issue.

A breast cancer surgeon opposed to AB 2747 told me that her patients need more than just "end of life" options.

"I was usually the one to make the diagnosis and give that information to my patients and their families," she told me. "The relationships I developed with these women were built over time. They trusted me to take care of them."

She cared for patients who were clinically depressed or addicted to Methamphetamine or mentally ill. Some were from abusive situations. Some came from cultures that condemned physical illness as a sign of moral failure. Some women preferred their religious faith to medical treatment.

She explained how AB 2747 would hurt a woman facing Stage IV breast cancer:

"It would have been cruel to take a list of treatments that may not even apply to my patient and tell her 'Here, this is what the California Legislature said I have to tell you when you find out you're dying and you ask me what to do.'"

These women need a doctor to see them as individuals. As a health care professional myself, I can't imagine treating a dying patient according to a government dictate of what they need to hear and when.

It bothers me that AB 2747 leaves no option for the compassion of a doctor who knows her patient best. A cancer doctor caring for a depressed patient who says "What can I do?" would have no recourse other than to do exactly as the bill mandates--give the information the California Legislature says she needs when they say she needs it.

The priority for every patient is to dispense a laundry list developed by Sacramento politicians.

It also bothers me that this legislation is a back door approach for advocates of euthanasia. AB 2747 contains language that can easily be amended in the future to include other treatments than those it now includes--treatments like those advocated by the bill's sponsor, the former Hemlock Society.

People who are hurting don't need the legal maneuver in AB 2747. They don't need state government to stand between people who suffer and those they choose to care for them.

If you don't believe that a government's role is to devalue human life, please defend the terminally ill. Urge the Governor of California to VETO AB 2747.

Senator Aanestad represents the 4th Senate District and serves as Vice Chair of the Senate Health Committee.

Given his radical support for abortion, the news that Barack Obama has selected Joe Biden as a running mate is not much of a surprise. What is a surprise is that some actually consider Biden to be moderate on issues related to the dignity of human. The Family Research Council has put together that following summary of his voting record which shatters this myth:

On Roe v. Wade

"I strongly support Roe v. Wade. . . That's why I led the fight to defeat Bork, Roberts Alito, and Thomas." 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, MSNBC April 26, 2007

Voted against defining the unborn child as eligible for SCHIP: Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance. S.Amdt. to S.ConRes.70, Senator Allard Amendment, Roll Call 08-S81, March 14, 2008

Voted against stopping ne'er-do-well adults taking minors across state lines for an abortion: S.Amdt 4335 to S.Con.Res. 70, Roll Call 08-S71, March 13, 2008.

Voted against parental notification of minors who get out-of-state abortions: S.403, Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, Roll Call 06-216, July 25, 2006

Voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act: Bill makes it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. S.1019/H.R. 1997, Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Roll Call 04-63, March 25, 2004

Voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban: S. 1692, Partial Birth Abortion Ban, Roll Call 99-340, October 21, 1999 (He did not vote on the one that became law in the 108th Congress.)

Sunday, July 20, 2008

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Father: 'System' killing my disabled daughter
'If they treated a dog this way, they would be doing jail time'

The father of a disabled Delaware woman who recently earned the support of state lawmakers says the system - of courts, lawyers, hospitals and disability agencies - literally is combining to bring about the death of his daughter.

"The court system should not have the right to impose this kind of treatment on a mentally disabled person," Randy Richardson told WND today. His daughter, Lauren Richardson, has been disabled since an apparent drug overdose nearly two years ago.

Judie Brown of the American Life League recently issued a call to those who are concerned about such cases to help.

"The governor of Delaware, Ruth Ann Minner, is being asked by pro-life Americans across this nation to intervene in this case in order to save Lauren from what many fear is an imminent court order dictating that Lauren be starved and dehydrated to death," she wrote. "I am asking you to be one of those who communicates your passionate belief that Lauren's life is sacred and deserves to be protected from those who would order her death. The governor's e-mail address is governor.minner@state.de.us."

(Story continues below)

Although our laws would lead us to believe that we are an abortion free country, in fact for some time now eugenic abortion (abortion of disabled people) has been covertly ongoing. Recently bold admissions from one Senior Midwife, Breedagh Hughes, in particular have exposed the fact that health professionals have been targeting unborn children with a disability (this could be anything from a hair lip, yes a HAIR LIP) and illegally aborting them if their parents are agreeable.

The Department for Health in Northern Ireland has admitted that around 70 abortions each year are carried out in the North and most of these have been for foetal abnormality. These statistcs presumably include children from the South of Ireland who have been referred to Northern hospitals. According to Dr Lamki of the Royal Hospital, when he addressed the Oirachteas committee on abortion in 2000, some unborn children from the south are aborted in his hospital.

Recently Midwife Hughes told the Observer that the Department of Health statistics were far less that the real amount of babies being aborted here for foetal abnormality . She is proud to announce in the English press that in fact the number is much higher. She also spoke on BBC Radio 4 with Audrey Simpson of the fpa(NI), where she stated that midwives in the north are more or less routinely committing illegal abortions on the disabled unborn. She tried to garner sympathy for herself and others by stating that they may have to stop this practice due to fear of prosecution. It was noticable however that the Irish Press and media were quiet about this astonishing announcement, presumably because the law here is backed by public opinion and there would be a strong view that criminals of Hughes type should be stopped.

Radio 4 introduced the programme on line as follows:

"Midwives in Northern Ireland are threatening to stop carrying out abortions because guidelines make them liable to criminal prosecution. Jane is joined by Breedagh Hughes of the Royal College of Midwives in Northern Ireland, Audrey Simpson of the Family Planning Association, and Democratic Unionist MP Jeffrey Donaldson."

According to an article on theAge.au.com, a 32 week old baby was aborted because the child's mother was "distressed to the point of being suicidal" as a result of learning that her unborn child was diagnosed with dwarfism.

The doctor who performed the abortion called the killing of this child "lifesaving." While the mother may not have committed suicide, her baby was needlessly killed for its disability, so to call this a lifesaving procedure falls short of reality.

Lachlan de Crespigny and a handful of other doctors wanted to help her. So, on a Thursday afternoon in February 2000, they did as she asked. The role that Associate Professor de Crespigny played -- injecting potassium chloride into the foetus's heart -- took only a minute or two. .."It was lifesaving," he says now of the procedure that he insists he had a moral obligation to perform. "If we didn't do it and the woman died we would have potentially been charged with manslaughter and gone to jail. So in a legal sense, you could argue that we were compelled to offer it."

So the baby's heart was stopped, and presumably it was delivered the same way any other baby is delivered - the only difference being that the child was killed beforehand.

The sad thing is, both mother and child could have lived, if given the correct psychological and medical treatment.

It goes without saying that suffering from mental problems should not give someone a pass to kill another - if it does, then none of us are very safe.

Of course, many would say that denying the mother an abortion would be forcing her to carry a baby she doesn't want. Well, fist of all, Mother Nature is doing that by default, and not anybody else. If anybody is forcing something, it is the mother herself - she is forcing a deadly end upon her unborn child.

And the reality is that it is much worse to end the life of the unborn child than to deny the mother an abortion. Unfortunately, our world has been numbed to the inhumanity of abortion, and sees things the other way around.

Though the article paints the doctor in a soft light, Professor de Crespigny is no stranger to the practice of late term abortion, having performed an untold number over the past 30 years. Not only does he perform them, but he's an unapologetic advocate of them as well.

Prenatal testing, whereby tests are performed in utero to verify the health of the child, is now considered standard prenatal care. Unborn children have been screened in the womb for Down Syndrome in women over 35 for many years. However, just this year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has started to recommend that doctors perform a new screening procedure on all pregnant women, regardless of age. These tests raise the question of what would happen if a family finds that their child does have Down Syndrome or other disabilities. Is this information sought in order to better prepare parents or to abort less-than-perfect children before they are born?

Testing Procedures

Until just recently, the Down Syndrome test was performed in the second trimester by amniocentesis. Suggested between 15 and 20 weeks of gestation, this procedure uses a needle to penetrate the amniotic sac, drawing amniotic fluid for testing. One of every 200-400 procedures results in a miscarriage. The baby is also at risk for being pricked by the needle as it enters the amniotic sac.

A study conducted a couple years ago on 38,000 American women revealed that Down Syndrome can be detected at just 11 weeks after conception. The test consists of a first-trimester sonogram and two blood tests. This test is slightly more accurate than the current quadruple test offered at 16 weeks gestation, but a 5% false positive rate remains inherent in the test results.

Once the test determines that a woman is carrying a child with Down Syndrome, doctors often do not know how to relay that information. Women report a high level of dissatisfaction. Many parents of children with Down Syndrome share stories of doctors starting with "I'm sorry" or "I have bad news." One woman who decided she would continue her pregnancy spoke of her doctor reminding her that she could still undergo a late term abortion if the ultrasound indicated that the baby would need heart surgery (as many infants with Down Syndrome do within the first year of birth).

Effects on Down Syndrome Babies

Unfortunately, many families who find that they have a child who is "imperfect" choose to end that baby's life through abortion. About 90% of parents who find that their child has Down Syndrome choose to abort that child. A parent's subjective view of the child's quality of life, often coupled with pressure from the medical community, becomes the determining factor for whether that child is allowed to live. Prenatal diagnosis is not a perfect science, and many times, unborn children thought to be disabled are born without medical complications or disabilities.

This new test for Down Syndrome, coupled with the extremely high rate of abortion for babies with Down Syndrome, means that these children will likely grow up in a world with few people who are like them. There are currently about 350,000 people with Down syndrome. With a diminishing population, many parents are concerned that there will be less institutional support and reduced funds for medical research.

The New York Times also described a general unease about "drawing the line between preventing disability and accepting human diversity." They reported about one mom's concerns, "If all these people terminate babies with Down Syndrome, there won't be programs, there won't be acceptance or tolerance."

Support and Information

Many parents of children with Down Syndrome are convinced that more women would choose to carry their children to birth if they actually knew what parenting a child with Down Syndrome was like. These parents are now taking a role in helping to offer a positive perspective in the face of daunting statistics and doctors who share only the difficult aspects of raising a child with Down Syndrome. Volunteers are asking obstetricians to send parents to talk to these experts on Down Syndrome when an unborn baby is diagnosed with Down Syndrome. They are also building networks so that new parents can meet with veteran parents of children with Down Syndrome for support.

Source and more information: Texas Right to Life

By Bobby Schindler

I sat in confusion last Thursday evening while watching the GOP Presidential debate. All but one of the candidates proudly expressed their pro-life positions, and then just a short time later, in response to a question on the Terri Schiavo case, some of them stated that the courts should decide whether or not it was acceptable for an innocent disabled woman to be starved and dehydrated to death.

Wait a second, wasn't it the courts that made it legal to kill unborn children? How can one be against the courts permitting the deliberate killing of the unborn, but find it perfectly okay for the courts to purposely starve and dehydrate an innocent disabled woman to death?

As far as I'm concerned, you can't call yourself pro-life and be against one and for the other. This is why I was more than a little surprised by the responses the frontrunners and even a few of the second tier candidates gave. Their answers clearly reflected the ongoing influence of the mainstream media and its tendency to report only biased polls regarding my sister's circumstances.

I believe that the question was a set-up by moderator Chris Matthews to highlight this confusion and division in the GOP ranks on the issue of euthanasia.

Remember this is the same Chris Matthews that so heartlessly said the following about my father during an interview with Don Imus at the time that my sister was being dehydrated to death, "The parents... the father seems to be having, I hate to say this, a good time."

Clearly, Mr. Matthews is not only intolerant towards the rights of people like Terri to live, but he is also lacking in a basic tenet of human decency which dictates that we not attack people in the midst of their suffering.

Regardless of Matthew's negative intentions, however, imagine for a second if all the Republican candidates were unified and emphatic in stating how troubling it is that a nation which once protected our disabled citizens is now starving and dehydrating to death the most vulnerable among us.

However, many candidates, as well as the majority of the American people, don't realize the true nature of what was at stake in Terri's case, let alone the larger issue. Contrary to what the mainstream media would have you believe, Terri's situation was not just a pro-life matter but also a disability rights issue. It was not about someone's "right-to-die", nor was it an "end-of-life" issue as was so often reported. Terri was a healthy young woman with a profound brain injury. She was not dying, she did not suffer from any "killer" disease, she was alert and interacted with her friends and family, and she was deliberately and cruelly starved to death.

Moreover, Terri's case was not "hijacked" by the religious right as has so often been claimed by the secular press. There were 30 disability rights groups supporting my sister in her struggle for life. Ironically, at the time Terri's case was receiving the most media attention, there were more disability organizations that were publicly speaking out in support of Terri's life than pro-life organizations. I can guarantee you never heard that on the evening news.

Last Thursday's debate gave candidates an opportunity to show their support of and speak directly to the disability rights community. This community has been trying to get the government to do more to protect the disabled, pleading for help on their behalf long before my sister's case made national and international headlines. In fact, if government would have been listening to the disabled community, Terri's case wouldn't have required Congressional involvement in the first place.

Sadly, some candidates played right into the hands of the partisan moderator, hemming and hawing about how this "was an issue better left to the courts". Can't you just imagine the thrill that gave Matthews?

My sister's case was arguably one of the most egregious violations of an American citizen's basic human rights in our nation's history. The way it stands now, heinous criminals on death row have more protection and are treated with more dignity than people like Terri. Congress saw this and intervened to protect her.

Rather than suffer the ire of a hostile media and a largely uneducated public, they should be commended for stepping in to protect the life of one of their most vulnerable constituents. Not only was it was appropriate for Congress to try and help Terri, but it is what they are morally obligated to do in such cases.

And despite Terri's death, it is my hope that all of our politicians will realize that this is one of the most significant issues facing our nation today, and pledge their unwavering commitment to do everything in their power to protect all innocent disabled persons from being cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.

While it is too late for Terri, tens of thousands of other "Terris" are still among us.

Many comments to my blog post yesterday, "Death Angel vs. Terri Schiavo," perpetuated false information, which Terri's brother Bobby dispels in a column today

The most obvious thread between abortion support and euthanasia support is promotion of death. The underlying thread is selfishness, i.e., promotion of convenience.

Over 90% of abortions are for convenience, either as primary or secondary birth control.

Likewise, every euthanasia enthusiast I read on my blog supports it for convenience. Oh, they attempt to appear altruistic, using themselves as an example. "I wouldn't want to be a burden," they say, actually forced to make this argument to remain consistent with their support of abortion. But they are actually telling family and friends how they would consider them in similar a situation: inconvenient.

Here is an excerpt from Bobby's column today, which brilliantly describes their hypocrisy. It can be read in its entirety at WND.com.

Much of the problem that exists stems from a blind acceptance of misinformation that has moved us from a firm belief in the sanctity of life to a "quality of life" mindset, which says that some lives are not worth living....

The sad fact is we have become a nation that spends billions trying to find the perfect body, while ignoring the condition of our collective soul; where altruism seems to be a thing of the past, and moral relativism has become a bona fide religion....

My sister's case is a perfect example. Look how the popular media presented Terri's story, abandoning any attempt at objective or ethical reporting in their rush to justify her death. In an effort to dehumanize Terri, they repeatedly reported she was in a coma, brain dead, a "vegetable" and that the autopsy proved she was in a persistent vegetative state, all of which are patently false.

All one has to do is watch the videos of Terri to see how alive she was. If that's not enough, more than 40 medical affidavits stated Terri wasn't in PVS and/or could have been helped with new medical technology.

The media chose to ignore all of this, instead reporting what Terri wasn't able to do and referencing a doctor who took pride in the moniker, "Dr. Humane Death."

They painted a story of a husband's unconditional love as he carried out his wife's "wish" to die, completely ignoring the fact that there was no evidence of this and that Michael essentially abandoned Terri as soon as he began living with his new wife-to-be.

They framed this as a strictly pro-life issue, ignoring the 30 disability groups publicly supporting Terri's life....

Completely unaware of their own hypocrisy, they commended Christopher Reeve's wife, Dana, and rightly so, for her dedication in caring for her husband, while vilifying my parents for wanting to do the same thing for their daughter.

In the same vein, they repeatedly questioned the intent of our legal team while glossing over the fact that Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, admitted in his book to having violent images of bludgeoning his wife to death.

They chastised former Gov. Jeb Bush for doing his job by trying to stop the two-week dehydration death of an innocent disabled woman, but praised him when he placed a moratorium on death row executions after a lethal injection went 15 minutes too long.

They justify the destruction of embryos to produce stem cells (ignoring both the success of adult stem cells and that embryonic cells have produced no cures), reporting that their use will improve the lives of the disabled, and at the same time they work to convince the public that it is OK to kill the very same people they say this research could cure.

And, finally, they paid more respect to and had more compassion for a racehorse than they did my sister.

I'm taking this one on faith because it has the ring of truth to it.

Hopefully publicizing it will expose the abuse and neglect in Oregon that hides behind the smokescreen of Oregon's advocacy of euthanasia

I've left out the names and other contact information from the original post.

What I've written here is a true story that must be told. There are people who have gone to great lengths to suppress the information herein. What I
hope to do is compel those reading it to join with me in demanding
accountability from the responsible parties. An investigation
independent of Oregon's Protection and Advocacy agency is needed to
decide exactly who the responsible parties are.

In early April 2006 I found out that a close friend of mine had stage
3 colon cancer. She had a profound developmental disability and was
non-verbal. In order for critical health care decisions to be made on
her behalf, she needed representatives who knew and cared about her to
gather and interpret medical information and weigh all her options. An
Advocacy Team was assembled including myself, two other staff members
from her day program (who knew her well), and her Individual Service
Plan (ISP) team. This consisted of a management staff representative
of the day program provider (who saw her a few times a year), the
owner of her foster home (who supervised her direct caregiver) and a
county case manager (who was assigned my friend a few months earlier,
and didn't know her). A close friend of the day program representative
was brought on board to act as health care representative (who didn't
know my friend prior to her diagnosis). We all met and decided that
the case manager would look into what was covered under her health
plan, the health care representative would get the medical record and
a 2nd opinion. She committed to providing these documents to the team
as soon as she got them. I said that I would look into treatment
options. Without any of this being accomplished, other than the
information I shared about diet and exercise being critical, she was
placed in hospice about two weeks later.

Continued at Marlowe's Shade

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

First, the very good news. A Texas hospital has agreed not to withdraw life support from 16-month-old Emilio Gonzales until April 10. This gives his family a chance to find another hospital which, hopefully, will accept the child.

The very bad news is that Texas--"ground zero for the futile care movement," in bioethicist Wesley Smith's arresting phrase--can be expected to produce more of these egregious cases until and unless hospital ethics committees no longer possess the unchecked power to vote to withdraw treatment from patients and give families only ten days to find a new hospital to provide care.

Update: the hospital and doctors are working with the family and should be commended. We've edited some of the language from the email below in response to some of the comments that have been received.

Melanie Childlers, one of Andrea Clark's sisters, wrote the following disturbing message concerning Emilio Gonzales, the 16-month-old boy who is set to be taken off "life support" against his mother's wishes:

Emilio Gonzales is a sixteen month old infant at Brackenridge Children's Hospital in Austin, TX. He has been diagnosed with Leigh's disease. Leigh's disease is a genetic malady which is caused by a lack of functional mitochondrial complexes. There is NO DEFINITIVE TEST for Leigh's disease, and physicians usually diagnose it based on symptoms, alone. There are tests which can back up the diagnosis, but let me reiterate: there are no definitive tests for this disease.

[snip]

This disease is usually treated with thiamin, but these physicians decided to take him off of treatment. It was only when his lawyer, Jerri Ward, insisted that they put him back on the treatment that they did so. These children can live, and often do live, to be about six or seven years of age. This child is sixteen months old and these physicians have decided not to give him a chance at the rest of his life, despite his family's wishes to the contrary.

Bobby Schindler Endorses Brownback for President Terri Schiavo's brother thanks Brownback for his efforts to protect all human life

ALEXANDRIA , Va. - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback received an endorsement today from Bobby Schindler, the brother of the late Terri Schiavo. Schiavo died nearly two years ago from starvation and dehydration after a court mandated the removal of her feeding tube, sparking a nationwide bipartisan effort to save her life.

"My family will never forget Sam Brownback's valiant efforts to save my sister's life," said Schindler. "Sam Brownback is the pro-life conservative we can trust to stand for all life, regardless of political calculations."

By Nathanael Blake

Meeting the parents has become a ritual trial of postmodern romance. Still, one of the key questions my father means to pose to my girlfriend when he meets her is rather unusual: If she and I marry, will she help care for my youngest brother when my parents die?

Zachary, you see, has Down syndrome. The current abilities of medicine make it quite possible, even likely, that he'll outlive my parents or at least their ability to watch over him, so someone else will eventually have to look after his needs. My other brothers and I have been helping him for nearly 12 years now, so it seems natural that this will continue. We've always cared for him and those marrying in will have to accept this responsibility. (Note to the curious: My lovely Julie agreed to this when I forewarned her of my father's planned query.)

But Zachary's dependence hardly means he is helpless. He can, for example, read and write, albeit at a low level. He'll never be a writer or an engineer, but in time he'll be able to hold down a simple job. Perhaps he'll even be able to live on his own as other people with Down syndrome do.

I doubt that will happen for Zachary, though. I don't think he will desire solitary living; he loves others and is loved too much. He's cheerful and outgoing, greeting everyone with hugs. Like the rest of the family, he loves to play soccer. He is fond of drawing, Legos and matchbox cars. His life is happy and he is a joy to those fortunate enough to know him.

What a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive.

It’s a case built on lies and self-serving hearsay.

It’s a case built on egregious violations of law and our Constitution.

It’s a case overflowing with criminal wrongdoing.

It’s a case built by the perpetuation of one wrong legal decision based on inadmissible evidence.

It’s a case of raping the public trust.

It’s judicial tyranny at its worst.

That is the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case.

Supported by euthanasia advocates, Michael Schiavo, the conflicted husband in name only, said the handicapped woman wouldn’t want to live by a feeding tube although there was no credible evidence of that. Her parents disagreed and desperately struggled to save her life, to obtain new testing for her, to obtain therapy which her husband had denied, to take her home and care for her.

Canadian disability activist Norman Kunc has created this tour de force. It's a terrific blues number with a message that hits home. And check out his website.

Crossposted at Marlowe's Shade

Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s brother, submits for publication the following letter in response to the Sept. 15, opinion piece by Ellen Goodman, “Playing vegetative mind games.”

Ms. Goodman:

I read your recent column, "Playing vegetative mind games".

The lengths that you and many of your colleagues continue to go to in order to somehow justify the barbaric killing of my sister, Terri, are truly sad and in my opinion a tragic reflection of how you and those that think like you have truly misplaced your humanity.

What is so profoundly frightening about what you wrote is the effort to use this scientifically inaccurate persistent vegetative state (PVS) label to indiscriminately decide when it’s permissible to kill those that are disabled. As you pointed out in your column, there are tens of thousands of people that have experienced a brain injury. The idea that certain lives have somehow lost their meaning because they exist in this so-called PVS, which according to you, is some type of "horrifying" state of consciousnesses or lack thereof (not quite sure how you or anyone would have knowledge of this) is equally alarming. It is this form of lethal bigotry that my family battled in our efforts to get help for my sister.

Recently, a British research study concluded that the PVS diagnosis is in fact misdiagnosed more than 40% of the time. Recognizing this finding along with this most recent discovery, and others similar to it, one with any common sense would have to agree that using the completely subjective PVS “diagnosis” as the basis to kill the disabled is clearly outrageous.