As per the Philadelphia Grand Jury report in the matter of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his associates, "We ourselves cover a spectrum of personal beliefs about the morality of abortion. For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants. We find common ground in exposing what happened here, and in recommending measures to prevent anything like this from ever happening again."
Among its recommendations, the Grand Jury report stated that "The Pennsylvania Department of Health should license abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical facilities." Pennsylvania House Bill 574 would do just that. While it would seem unfathomable that anyone would oppose such corrective action, Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates is firmly opposed.
In the 2010 elections, Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates specifically listed yourself (142nd district), as well as local Representatives Tina Davis (141st) & Steve Santarsiero (31st) as "pro-choice endorsed candidates." Will you show the personal integrity to defy your Planned Parenthood backers and do the right thing, regarding HB 574?
As per the Philadelphia Grand Jury report in the matter of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his associates, "We ourselves cover a spectrum of personal beliefs about the morality of abortion. For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants. We find common ground in exposing what happened here, and in recommending measures to prevent anything like this from ever happening again."
Among its recommendations, the Grand Jury report stated that "The Pennsylvania Department of Health should license abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical facilities." Pennsylvania House Bill 574 would do just that. While it would seem unfathomable that anyone would oppose such corrective action, Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates is firmly opposed.
In the 2010 elections, Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates specifically listed yourself (31st district), as well as local Representatives Tina Davis (141st) & Frank Farry (142nd) as "pro-choice endorsed candidates." Will you show the personal integrity to defy your Planned Parenthood backers and do the right thing, regarding HB 574?
As per your column in today's Bucks County Courier Times, "She Works to Make Things Better," Representative Tina Davis sounds like an unpretentious individual, who wants to provide quality constituent services. Unlike some of her colleagues, however, Representative Davis does NOT offer a regular email address on her web site. Hence, I would appreciate your forwarding this question to her....
As per the Philadelphia Grand Jury report in the matter of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his associates, "We ourselves cover a spectrum of personal beliefs about the morality of abortion. For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants. We find common ground in exposing what happened here, and in recommending measures to prevent anything like this from ever happening again."
Among its recommendations, the Grand Jury report stated that "The Pennsylvania Department of Health should license abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical facilities." Pennsylvania House Bill 574 would do just that. While it would seem unfathomable that anyone would oppose such corrective action, Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates is firmly opposed.
Will Representative Tina Davis (as well as Santarsiero, Davis, & Farry) be able to defy her Planned Parenthood backers and do the right thing, regarding HB 574?
Upcoming ProLife Legislation with Catholic Backing
(United States Congress)
Cardinal DiNardo, chair of the USCCB's committee on pro life activities, has specifically urged support for the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. Senator Casey is NOT a co-sponsor of S. 165 (as of Holy Saturday 2011). Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 361 (as of Holy Saturday 2011). Senator Toomey is NOT a co-sponsor of S. 165 (as of Holy Saturday 2011).
Cardinal DiNardo of the USCCB has specifically urged support for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Representative Fitzpatrick IS a co-sponsor of H.R.3.
Cardinal DiNardo of the USCCB has specifically urged support for the Protect Life Act. Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 358 (as of Holy Saturday 2011)
Cardinal DiNardo has specifically urged support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011. Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 1179 (as of Holy Saturday 2011).
Priests for Life supports the Sanctity of Human Life Act. Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 212 (as of Holy Saturday 2011)
Priests for Life supports the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 217 (as of Holy Saturday 2011).
As per the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, "Although it is unfortunate that HB 574 cannot put an end to abortion, it can provide a safer environment for women, reduce the occurrence of abortions, and remove legislation that clearly favors the abortion industry." Support is needed from our local representatives in the Pennsylvania House (DiGirolamo (18th), O'Neill (29th), Santarsiero (31st), Galloway (140th), Davis (141st), Farry (142nd), Quinn (143rd), Watson (144th), Clymer (145th), & Petri (178th)).
The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference has indicated that they will soon be sending out "Action Alerts," calling for advocacy for Senate Bill 3. As per the Pennsylvania Family Institute, SB 3 “would respect the conscience and respect for life of millions of Pennsylvanians, and ensure that their tax dollars do not subsidize abortion coverage through the back door of the new state insurance exchanges.” Support is needed from our local state senators (Tomlinson (6th), McIlhinney (10th), Greenleaf (12th), & Mensch (24th)).
In response to the Obama administration NOT defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Archbishop Dolan, USCCB president, said: "DOMA is not 'unjust discrimination'; rather, it merely affirms and protects the time-tested and unalterable meaning of marriage....The Administration’s current position is not only a grave threat to marriage, but to religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy as well."
(United States Congress)
Senator Casey is NOT a co-sponsor of S.CON.RES.11, "A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Obama administration's discontinuing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act" (as of Holy Saturday 2011)
Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of H.CON.RES.25 , "Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Obama administration's discontinuing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act" (as of 4/12/11).
Senator Toomey is NOT a co-sponsor of S.CON.RES.11, "A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Obama administration's discontinuing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act" (as of Holy Saturday 2011).
"This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.
"Let us say right up front that we realize this case will be used by those on both sides of the abortion debate. We ourselves cover a spectrum of personal beliefs about the morality of abortion. For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants. We find common ground in exposing what happened here, and in recommending measures to prevent anything like this from ever happening again."
"The Pennsylvania Department of Health should license abortion clinics as ambulatory surgical facilities."
As per the Pennsylvania Pro Life Federation, Pennsylvania House Bill 574 "would require abortion clinics to abide by the same health and safety standards as ambulatory surgical facilities." In light of the Grand Jury report, it would seem unfathomable that anyone would oppose such efforts at corrective action. Yet in its statement about HB 574, Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates maintains that "The regulations are so extreme that they will shut down safe, reputable providers and create a market for substandard services.”
As described on the Voices for the Unborn radio program, HB 574 would benefit needs amending to strengthen it. Yet as per the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, "Although it is unfortunate that HB 574 cannot put an end to abortion, it can provide a safer environment for women, reduce the occurrence of abortions, and remove legislation that clearly favors the abortion industry." In its support for HB 574, the Pennsylvania Family Institute says: "Let's hold abortion clinics to the same health and safety standards as we do other surgical facilities."
In the past, you have shared with me that it was your parents who started Bucks County's first pro life group. Of Pennsylvania House candidates from local districts (i.e., the 18th, 29th, 31st, 140th, 141st, 142nd, 143rd, 144th, 145th, & 178th) who responded to last Fall's candidate questionnaire from the Catholic Standard & Times, I noticed that it was only yourself who consistently answered questions in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching. You answered in the manner of the great Robert Casey, Sr - a genuine Pro Life Democrat.
My family and I are fortunate to be represented by you in the 140th district. We are counting on your support for HB 574.
Your "Debating points of new Pa. budget" appeared in the March 31 issue of the Catholic Standard and Times. Though you state that "The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (PCC) will be following the debate on a number of different line items," the article primarily focused on school choice vouchers and funding for Catholic Charities (it does also voice concern about health care coverage.). If one is "Interested in Catholic issues," your article goes on to urge them to "Join the Pennsylvania Catholic Advocacy Network to receive news and action alerts about the state budget and many other legislation and public policy considerations. Visit http://www.pacatholic.org/advocacy." At this time, your action alerts seem to focusing almost exclusively on school choice vouchers. Have any recently been sent on pro life concerns or the defense of marriage? How have you been updating Pennsylvania Catholics with regard to "Family Planning" funds in the Pennsylvania budget?
Matthew Gambino, Director & General Mgr The Catholic Standard and Times Archdiocese of Philadelphia 222 N. 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dear Mr. Gambino,
How will the Archdiocese and the Catholic Standard and Times respond to questions raised by Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons and Dr. Peter Kleponis? These highly regarded mental health professionals are indicating that many priests in the Archdiocese were recently placed on leave unnecessarily and absolutely unfairly.
As per Dr. Fitzgibbons and Dr. Kleponis, "we deserve an explanation as to why the second evaluations of priests were not done confidentially while these priests continued their ministry, as occurs when sexual accusations or 'boundary violations' are made against teachers, employers, lawyers, doctors, spouses and parents, so that their good names could have been protected."
P.S. In my earlier email, I overlooked another piece of legislation for which Cardinal DiNardo is specifically urging support: the Respect for the Rights of Conscience Act of 2011. Representative Fitzpatrick, please co-sponsor and support H.R.1179.
"In recent weeks the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has written to Congress about the current appropriations process, expressing our conviction that needed reductions in federal spending should not be made to the detriment of the poor and vulnerable....The current and future budget debate will involve hard choices....Whether to fund the largest abortion network in the country is not one of those hard choices."
Upcoming ProLife Legislation with Catholic Backing
Cardinal DiNardo of the USCCB has specifically urged support for the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. Senator Casey is NOT a co-sponsor of S. 165 (as of 4/12/11). Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 361 (as of 4/12/11). Senator Toomey is NOT a co-sponsor of S. 165 (as of 4/12/11).
Cardinal DiNardo of the USCCB has specifically urged support for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Representative Fitzpatrick IS a co-sponsor of H.R.3.
Cardinal DiNardo of the USCCB has specifically urged support for the Protect Life Act. Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 358 (as of 4/12/11)
Cardinal DiNardo has specifically urges support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011. Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 1179 (as of 4/12/11).
Priests for Life supports the Sanctity of Human Life Act. Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 212 (as of 4/12/11)
Priests for Life supports the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of HR 217 (as of 4/12/11).
Congressional Resolutions condemning the discontinuing of the defense of DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act)
Senator Casey is NOT a co-sponsor of S.CON.RES.11 (as of 4/12/11).
Representative Fitzpatrick is NOT a co-sponsor of H.CON.RES.25 (as of 4/12/11).
Senator Toomey is NOT a co-sponsor of S.CON.RES.11 (as of 4/12/11).
Letter asking Attorney General Holder to "vigorously...enforce federal obscenity laws agains major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography."
Kudos to my neighbor, Mary Ann Bentz, for reminding all of us that we must treat each and every human being with absolute dignity and respect.
With John Galloway as our state representative, Chuck McIlhinney as our state senator, Mike Fitzpatrick as our congressman, Bob Casey and Pat Toomey as our U.S. senators, Jim Cawley as our lieutenant governor, and Tom Corbett as our governor, Ms. Bentz’s family and my family have a rather full lineup of men representing us, who identify themselves as Catholic. As these individuals make no secret of their religious affiliations, it certainly seems appropriate for Ms. Bentz to ask how their positions and records reconcile with Catholic Social Teaching.
Yet in asking how positions reconcile with Catholic Social Teaching, Ms. Bentz only chose to focus on Fitzpatrick and Toomey. In addition to this arbitrary choice, Ms. Bentz’s yardsticks for gauging adherence to Catholic Social Teaching are inadequate and arbitrary….
Are we to infer that Senator Casey’s support of WIC funds somehow cancels out his support for Planned Parenthood, our nation’s premier abortion provider?
Are Catholics and others not rightfully outraged at their tax dollars being used for immoral purposes in the name of “health care”? Are they not rightfully outraged that Senator Casey did not insist on abortion being kept out of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
Are Catholics and others not rightfully outraged when, in the name of foreign aid, population control methods and philosophies are subsidized with their tax dollars? Senator Casey’s former bishop took him to task for failing to support efforts to restrict abortion providers from receiving keep foreign aid “family planning” funds.
Many non-Catholics might be surprised that there is a history of inadequate or misleading representation of Catholic Social Teaching. Some Catholics – of conservative, moderate, and liberal political persuasions – have erroneously concluded that Catholic Social Teaching is tantamount to political progressivism and an alternative to Catholic teaching on human life and marriage/family. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, proclamation of the absolute dignity of human life from the very first moment of conception, insistence on the family as the basic unit of society, and the interesting notion of “subsidiarity” are at the core of Catholic Social Teaching. I encourage Ms. Bentz to familiarize herself with the Vatican’s Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
In his Apostolic Letter on the Vocation & Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church & in the World, I believe that the late, great Pope John Paul II best explained the Church's Social Teaching at this juncture of history: “the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination."
In 2005, the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life wrote to the president of Children of God for Life. In that letter, he recalled "the principles assumed in classical moral doctrine with regard to the problem of cooperation in evil [9], a problem which arises every time that a moral agent perceives the existence of a link between his own acts and a morally evil action carried out by others." Like it or not, each and every taxpayer is still "cooperating" with Planned Parenthood and its heinous crimes against humanity and sins against God.
"The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing in the intention, it is a case of material cooperation."
To be exact, we are materially cooperating with Planned Parenthood...
"Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate -- direct -- and mediate -- indirect -- depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions -- either by providing instruments or products -- which make it possible to commit the immoral act.
People who are opposed to Planned Parenthood funding continue mediate, material cooperation, via their tax dollars...
"Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the 'distance' -- be it in terms of temporal space or material connection -- between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.
"Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person [10]. Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit -- depending on the conditions of the 'double effect' or 'indirect voluntary' action -- but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question [11].
"A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active -- or positive -- cooperation in evil and passive -- or negative -- cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted [12].
"Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted, by many authors, that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so."
While they came in the context of discussing "the use of 'biological material' of illicit origin, these words from the Vatican's 2008's Dignitas Personae would also seem to have applicability to our own, unwanted cooperation with Planned Parenthood:
"When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust.[57] Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles."
Oh, and with regard to Jill Stanek's questions, I'd say Yes, Yes, and Yes.
Dear Senator Casey, Representative Fitzpatrick, & Senator Toomey,
Why are your signatures missing from the Senate version & the House version of an April 4th letter to Attorney General Holder, asking "the Department of Justice vigorously to enforce federal obscentiy laws agains major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography"?
As per the American Family Association of Pa, "All nineteen members of the Pennsylvania delegation to Washington and both Senators Pat Toomey and Bob Casey, Jr. were contacted numerous times by their constituents and asked to sign onto the letter."
Congressman Fitzpatrick is a co-sponsor of H.R.835, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act. hile Congressman Fitzpatrick deserves our thanks for co-sponsoring HR 3, we need him to more fully embrace the arduous task of defending human life! Specifically, Congressman Fitzpatrick should be co-sponsoring and supporting:
I heard a wonderful missionary appeal this morning at Holy Angels from a Ugandan priest. In that country of 13 million Catholics, Father explained that candidates for the priesthood and religious life are actually being turned away! On behalf of his bishop, Father appealed for assistance with training future priests and religious, so that they would not be turned away for lack of resources. There certainly appears to be much which American could learn from the Church in Uganda!
A few years ago, I was edified to read that
"in much of the world the core advances in public health pioneered between 1890 and 1920 in New York City had yet, a century later to take hold. Drinking water remained contaminated; human waste was dumped untreated; children went unvaccinated and malnourished; hygiene was ignored in hospitals and precious antibiotics were dispensed like candy in black markets worldwide" (Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health, pp. 10,11).
Spouting tired, old Malthusian bigotries, some still try to sell the lie that contraceptives hold the answer to disease and impoverishment. I have called the office of one of the two Catholic U.S. Senators in my own state, only to have a young aide spout the supposed benefits of Planned Parenthood's self-serving promotion of contraceptives! As per the Vatican's Family Values Versus Safe Sex:
"where abstinence before marriage and fidelity to one’s spouse have been successfully promoted, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has dramatically decreased. For instance, Uganda has pushed for a chastity-based program, and there the incidence of HIV/AIDS is managed relatively better than in other countries....Are there not many who fall victim to a false sense of security generated by campaigns promoting 'safe sex', oblivious to the fact there are multiple factors that lead to condom failure?"
Again, there appears to be much which we could learn in this country from the Church in Uganda. In vast contrast to those tired, old Malthusian bigotries, Father appealed on behalf of his bishop for assistance in providing clean water to people in his diocese.
Saturday, June 4th: "The Pill Kills" (American Life League, Human Life International, Pro-Life Wisconsin, Pharmacists for Life International, Archdiocese of Mobile Respect Life, Operation Rescue, Jill Stanek, Generation Life/Brandi Swindell, Life Education Ministry, Pro-Life Unity, Movement for a Better America, AMEN (Abortion Must End Now), Pro-Life Action of Oregon, Children of God for Life, Expectant Mother Care/Chris Slattery, Mother and Unborn Baby Care, Defenders of the Unborn, California Right to Life Education Fund, Delaware Pro-Life Coalition, Life Guard, Homeschoolers for Life, Focus Pregnancy Center, Central Texas Voices for Life, Dubuque County Right to Life, Couples for Christ Foundation for Family & Life, Central Nebraskans United for Life, CREDO of Rochester, America ASLEEP kNOw MORE, WomanKind Medical Center and Right to Life Advocates, Inc.)
Fathers & Monsignors, Tomorrow's first reading reminds us that "Not as man sees does God see, because man sees the appearance but the LORD looks into the heart.” In a world that often seems to have gone almost completely mad, those are incredibly reassuring words! Our responsorial will also have beautiful, comforting words from the 23rd Psalm, while the second reading will challenge us to "Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness". Finally, in the Gospel, Jesus will remind us that He "came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see,and those who do see might become blind." Into your homily, please consider incorporating mention of Bishop Michael J. Sheridan's support for the Pence Amendment. Bishop Sheridan has noted that the Pence Amendment would “undoubtedly ‘protect life’ by putting an end to the millions of taxpayer dollars being given to organizations whose mission it is to offer family planning by means of ending the lives of the unborn.” Please also consider including Bishop Sheridan's words as a news item in your parish bulletin. Thank you.
April 2, 2011
Killing More Than Just the Patient
By Bobby Schindler
3/31/2011
I recently read an article in the London Free Press (March 22nd) about the highly publicized Joseph Maraachli situation titled, Baby Joseph CaseBecomes Political Issue in U.S.
As the Executive Director the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, I was personally involved in helping Baby Joseph’s parents keep control of the medical treatment decisions that were being made for their son.
Joseph was diagnosed with a brain condition that doctors believe will eventually cause his untimely death. Joseph's parents, Moe and Sana, understood that their son’s case was terminal. Their only request was for a simple procedure to be performed that would enable Joseph to spend his remaining days at home.
However, attending physicians at the London Health Sciences Centre hospital in Ontario believed they knew what was in the best interest for Baby Joseph. Sadly, but not surprisingly, their decision was to remove Joseph's breathingmachine so that he would die at the hospital.
Joseph's parents objected feeling their son deserved better. After much fanfare and wrangling, the one-year old was transferred to a SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center in St. Louis where the parent’s wishes for medical treatment are being respectfully considered.
Subsequent to the Baby Joseph case was the tragic situation of Ms. Rachel Nyirahabiyambere. An Alexandria Circuit Court ruled that Ms. Nyirahabiyambere's medically-assisted food and water was to be removed and that she should subsequently be dehydrated to death against her family's wishes.
An appointed guardian – a complete stranger to Ms. Nyirahabiyambere and her family – decided that she should be receiving only palliative care because she was "profoundly vegetative" and had no chance of recovery.
The family looked to the Catholic hospital (Georgetown University) for support. But much to their disbelief the hospital wiped their hands clean of Ms. Nyirahabiyambere's care. Apparently the case was too costly and she had no insurance. So therefore, this institution based on Catholic principles did nothing to stop the public guardian from carrying out Ms. Nyirahabiyambere dehydration death.
Fortunately, her family fought back and three weeks after Ms. Nyirahabiyambere's feeding tube was removed, a judge ordered that she be given food and water immediately while the legal issues were being weighed.
The cases of Baby Joseph and Rachel Nyirahabiyambere are not isolated situations. Indeed, this is the reason our family established Terri's Life & Hope Network. Following the brutal death of my sister, Terri Schiavo, we intend to keep issues like this at the forefront of thought when it comes to protecting the medically vulnerable. During this time, it has become abundantly clear that the basic right to receive life-sustaining medical care is being eroded more every day.
In fact, it has escalated to the point that physicians, attorneys, hospital administrators and others can make medical decisions that are completely contrary to an individual's wishes – even if this "medical treatment" involves basic and ordinary care such as food and water.
The people pulling the strings are commonly referred to as "ethics committees," people with unilateral power to make life and death decisions regardless of a patient's desires or those of his or her immediate family.
Leading experts on medical ethics like Wesley J. Smith and Rita Marker have been warning us about these committees long before my family has been helping other families fight against them.
Sadly, if you think you are protected from being denied food and water because you are in a Catholic hospital, you might want to think again. Many of the calls for help that we receive are from families that are up against Catholic hospitals and their so-called ethics committees. This is in spite of the fact that the denial of food and water from anyone is contrary to the fundamentals of Catholic teaching.
This is why I and others believe that a type of "death panel" already exists in the form of ethics committees that can subjectively make decisions to end lives.
Some, like Texas attorney Tom Malloy, may argue this point. According to this same March 22nd interview regarding the Baby Joseph case, Malloy (who has been a member on five ethics boards) said that all the dissent over last year's health care reform law and questions of how to treat vulnerable patients like Baby Joseph were simply "an all-out effort to defeat health reform." Malloy stated that decisions by ethics committees "have happened for years and they have nothing to do with Obama-care."
It is important to note that Malloy was instrumental in legislation to ensure that ethics committees have the last word over the removal of life-sustaining medical treatment and has admitted that "some" ethics boards "have ended the life of a patient, even children, over the objections of family."
Well, if these aren't a type of "death panel," then what will we be facing once the government controls our healthcare?
Consider attorney Thaddeus Pope, a professor at the University of Delaware School of Law, who confirmed Malloy's assertion regarding ethics boards. Professor Pope believes that if cases like Baby Joseph were to happen in states like Texas, it wouldn't even be newsworthy. "The mainstream media isn't even covering these [cases] anymore. It's not news." Pope added, "The idea is that it never happens in the U.S. – it happens all the time."
Terri's case, Baby Joseph and the situation involving Ms. Nyirahabiyambere are only a few of many tragic and controversial cases that have made it into the public spectrum for debate.
However, most people commenting on these situations have never been put in the position of having to fight the "system" in order to protect their loved ones – let alone care for someone with cognitive disabilities.
We chose to advocate for families like Baby Joseph's because our family knows firsthand how devastating it is to experience the needless and inhumane death of a vulnerable child or a loved one.
Though we don't believe people should be arbitrarily kept alive at all costs, cases like Baby Joseph's and Ms. Nyirahabiyambere's clearly illustrate how family and parents should maintain the right to make their own medical decisions.
Regardless, it is always gravely wrong to deny anyone our most basic care – food and water. When that simple right is stripped from a family member or from an individual and placed in the hands of a panel of strangers, nobody wins.
Certainly, no parent or family member should ever have to witness a child or loved one being deliberately put to death. Lawyers fight the causes, judges make the orders and medical staff members carry out the actions. They all return to their jobs and their daily lives while the parents and family members live with the devastation forever.
Or do they? Certainly not in the case of my father – who never recovered emotionally from his daughter’s barbaric death – those who succeeded in ending his daughter’s life, also ended his life as well.
Bobby Schindler
Bobby Schindler is the host of “America’s Lifeline” heard Saturdays on WGUL in Tampa and online through their Web site. He is the brother of Terri Schiavo.
"all those who believe in the sanctity of life, regardless of whether they support or oppose the theoretical validity of brain-death criteria, [should] oppose the use of brain-death criteria to obtain organs for transplantation in clinical practice. We can then, as a single voice, support medical research seeking innovative, morally uncontentious ways to replace failing organs" (National Catholic Register, 10/25/21)
"It is everyone’s hope that rape victims, whether pregnant or not, receive the most compassionate and effective care available. Unfortunately, using Plan B and continuing to cite the faulty Peoria Protocol, based upon what we now know, is simply an immoral compromise—with the unintended consequence of the loss of human life and the abandonment of truly loving and courageous Christian health care" (Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, 4/8/19)
pharmacies
Certain other "contraceptives" can act as abortifacients! For example, it has long been known that other hormonal "contraceptives" can cause early abortions and are deadly dangerous (e.g., 1, 2) and just about every pharmacy (including those in supermarkets and department stores!) provides such. No parish should be allowing advertisements from providers of abortifacients! Please speak with your pastor, to ensure that your parish - be it in a bulletin or a directory - does not have such ads.
Especially with Central Jersey and the Philly suburbs so much being a worldwide capitol for the pharmaceutical industry,
