Of Rights, Law, and Grace

Ecuador has recently elected to give nature rights, the consequences of which will be enormous. For more info, listen here http://albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-10-06 .

We've heard the term 'animal rights' for years. There's a whole 'animal rights movement' going on. And I'm asking the question, do animals have rights? For that matter, do humans have rights?

See, I'm not so sure that, according to God's law, it's about 'animal rights' so much as it is about 'human responsibility'. Responsibility to take care of nature? Not so much 'take care of'- after all, tearing up the ground to farm is not 'taking care of' the earth.

According to the Bible our responsibility is to steward the earth, for stewardship affords us authority to use its resources. In Genesis 1, God says to fill the earth, subdue it, and have dominion over every living thing. God gave green plants to humans and beasts for food.

So, do animals have rights? Does nature? No. But humans have responsibility to steward the earth well.

What about humans? Do we have rights?

According to the Constitution of the United States, we have many rights, inalienable rights, to boot, that are endowed to us by our Creator. And, while I stand by the Constitution, affirming with my vote and meager little blog voice that all humans are created equal and have equal rights when it comes to the law and justice of the land of the US, looking at God's law, I have to wonder about something.

I haven't found in the Bible that any human being has inalienable 'rights'. Thinking about that, do you have to treat me well because it's my right to be treated well? No, you have to treat me well because it's your responsibility to God's law to do so. It's not really about me. It's about God's law.

Speaking of God's law, how're we doing on keeping it? Anybody able to? I am NOT.

Therefore, it is certainly not my right to be 'okay' with God. It was not because of my rights that Jesus came to Earth, as fully God and fully man, died a horrific, atoning death, was raised bodily from the dead, and now sits at the right hand of God interceding for me allowing me to come boldly to Him in time of need. It was not because of my rights- it was because of my sin.

This humbles me. Everything I have in Christ- salvation, victory over sin, the inheritance of an adopted child, a new life, and a new identity- is a gift. The very fact that I have faith to believe in Him and walk a repentant lifestyle is of Him- even those are not of my power, and I've no right to them!

I have no rights- yet am given so much.

I cannot repay God for these gifts. Are treating well my fellow man, stewarding well the earth paying God back? No, any heeding I pay to the law of God is but a fruit of His sanctification in me. Any ability I have to obey His law is His power in me.

Just random thoughts I've had throughout the day.

Court Ruling Makes Assisted Suicide Legal in Montana

From the story:

Montana judge: Man has right to assisted suicide

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana judge has ruled that doctor-assisted suicides are legal in the state, a decision likely to be appealed as the state argues that the Legislature, not the court, should decide whether terminally ill patients have the right to take their own life.

Judge Dorothy McCarter issued the ruling late Friday in the case of a Billings man with terminal cancer, who had sued the state with four physicians that treat terminally ill patients and a
nonprofit patients' rights group.

"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.

It also said that those patients had the right to obtain
self-administered medications to hasten death if they find their suffering to be unbearable, and that physicians can prescribe such medication without fear of prosecution.

"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.

Attorney General Mike McGrath said Saturday that attorneys in
his office would discuss the ruling next week and expected the state will appeal the ruling...

...The state attorney general's office had argued that intentionally taking a life was illegal, and that the issue was the responsibility of the state Legislature.

Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Anders had argued the state has no evaluation process, safeguards or regulations to provide guidance or oversight for doctor-assisted suicide. The state also said it was premature to declare constitutional rights for a competent, terminally ill patient because the terms
"competent" or "terminally ill" had yet to be defined.

The ruling noted that doctors are often asked to "determine the
competency of their patients for the purposes of guardianship and other legal proceedings."

"Whether a patient is terminally ill can also be determined by the physician as an integral component of the physician-patient relationship," McCarter wrote.

McCarter's ruling makes Montana the third state after Oregon and Washington to allow doctor-assisted suicides. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that terminally ill patients have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide but did nothing to prevent states from legalizing the process.

So, apparently, a judge can go a make a decision like this all by herself... How? It's unbelievable.

The Media's Love for Suicide Outlaws

The Media's Love for Suicide Outlaws

On this episode of What It Means to Be Human, Wesley J. Smith takes a look at the media’s fawning treatment of suicide advocates. What does a reporter see when he visits the home of a suicide facilitator? Strangely and sadly, he often sees a hero.

Listen in as bioethicist Wesley J. Smith shows how journalism has become a prime mover in the culture of death, to the point that its terminal nonjudgmentalism cannot be trusted.

Texas and Its Institutions

These are some of my thoughts while reading this article. My thoughts, while not expert, are those of one who has both worked in the 'system' that cares for those with developmental disabilities and was shortly in the system as one receiving psychiatric care in large facilities.


Texas lambasted over care of mentally disabled
Justice Department accuses state of violating patients’ constitutional rights

DENTON, Texas - For more than a century, thousands of mentally disabled Americans were isolated from society, sometimes for life, by being confined to huge public hospitals.

In at least one place, they still are.

Texas has more mentally disabled patients in institutions than any other state, and the federal government has concluded that the state’s care system is stubbornly out of step with modern mental health practices.

For the third time in three years, the criticism has attracted the attention of the Justice Department, which on Tuesday accused Texas of violating residents’ constitutional rights to proper care.

Investigators found that dozens of patients died in the last year from preventable conditions, and officials declared that the number of injuries was “disturbingly high.”

In addition, hundreds of documents reviewed by The Associated Press show that some patients have been neglected, beaten, sexually abused or even killed by caretakers. Inspection reports also describe filthy rooms and unsanitary kitchens.

I wisht that I could say this sounds like a huge exaggeration, but... And these are the incidents that were reported. So much goes unreported.

The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities says large care facilities — usually those with at least 16 residents — “enforce an unnatural, isolated, and regimented lifestyle that is not appropriate or necessary.”

This is true. Can you imagine living your life with 16, 45, 100, 300 other people? These kinds of facilities create a class system, perhaps better described as a caste system, with the staff being known as higher and better than, while those residing in facilities are lower and 'less than'. This (false) difference gets imprinted on both the soul of a resident and a staff member, which only the redemptive truth of God regarding one's true identity can remove.

Federal law requires the mentally disabled to be treated in “the most integrated setting” possible — a factor that led to the Justice Department rebuke of Texas.

Integrated, meaning community integrated, and least restrictive. This is a right of those receiving developmental disability services. There are, or can be created, community-based programs for those even with the worst behavioral issues and the most profound medical concerncs.

...critics allege that “warehousing” patients in large institutions invites abuse. Patients are isolated from their families and communities, making regular contact with loved ones more difficult. And caretakers often get overwhelmed by the large numbers of patients, Garrison-Tate said.

This is true. Even the person who loves those s/he is caring for and believes s/he is doing his or her life's work, can become frustrated and succumb to abusive behavior.

In Texas, officials verified 465 incidents of abuse or neglect against mentally disabled people in state care in fiscal year 2007. Over a three-month period this summer, the state opened at least 500 new cases with similar allegations, according to federal investigators.

An AP investigation earlier this year revealed that more than 800 state employees have been fired or suspended since the summer of 2003 because they abused, neglected or exploited mentally disabled residents.

A side note- did ya notice this artcile says that the employeew who abused those in their care were fired or suspended? Why no mention of criminal charges?

And in the one-year period ending in September, as many as 53 deaths in the facilities were due to potentially avoidable conditions such as pneumonia, bowel obstructions or sepsis, the Justice Department said.

53 people- real people.

Some families tell horror stories of their loved ones in the state facilities. For instance, Michelle Dooley said her son spent three months in the Austin State School, which she described as a place of “dingy yellow floors and patients running around without any clothes on.”

During his time there, he refused to leave his bed and often languished in his own excrement, she said.

Dooley eventually moved her son into a group home in Denton where treatment costs average about $50,000 per year — roughly half as much as the costs at state schools, Garrison-Tate said. Medicaid often picks up most of those costs.

“It was just horrible,” Dooley said. “If he goes back to a state facility, he will shut down and die.”

Speaks for itself.

Other families say they are happy with the state care.

Neil Davidson said his daughter Susan, who has cerebral palsy and is mentally retarded, has flourished during her 10 years at the Lubbock State School.

“I’m very impressed with the level of care she has received,” Davidson said. “As far as I am concerned, it’s Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood. Everybody is looking out for everybody else.”

I have no doubt that some of these facilities may provide some amount of good care. However, even the best institution or large facility is no comparrison to home. And if a home-like environment, such as one's own apartment or a group home is an option- why the heck not?

A visit to the Denton State School, the largest in Texas, reveals a sprawling campus spread across well-kept lawns. Superintendent Randy Spence described the place as a “happy, homelike atmosphere.”

Ha! 'Homelike'- whose home?

“The vast majority of our employees love the people they work with,” said Cecilia Fedorov, another spokeswoman for the Department of Aging and Disability Services. “They think of them as extended family.”

But Denton is also the site of Texas’ most notorious case of state school abuse.

In 2002, a care worker repeatedly kicked and punched a resident in the stomach and groin. Haseeb Chishty nearly died after that beating. He is now confined to a wheelchair and unable to feed himself or use the bathroom.

“It got to the point where it was fun beating him, torturing him,” said former care worker Kevin Miller, who is now serving 15 years for aggravated assault.

In a statement videotaped by Chishty’s lawyer, Miller said he and many of his fellow care workers used methamphetamines, cocaine and Oxycontin on the job.

Brokeness attracts brokeness. Many, if not most who are drawn to care for people with disabilities, have themselves struggled with 'issues' that virtually all with disabilities have struggled with- abuse, rejection, feeling 'different'. Unfortunately, many of those employees have not resolved their 'issues', and therefore, this case of assault and torture is a result.

Many of the institutions are large employers in small towns, and they often pay more than other jobs in rural areas. Lawmakers fear taking action that would lead to layoffs, Garrison-Tate said.

"I'm sorry, we have to keep the system of institutionalization of some so others can have a job." Is that it? I'd imagine, if these facilities close, these empolyess could get a job in the comminty programs. These people would still need care, after all, and, thus, need caregivers? Am I being too simplistic?

“Even if we said we wanted to close all state schools, the community resources aren’t there at this time,” said state Rep. Larry Phillips, chairman of a legislative committee studying the facilities.

So, what are you doing about that?

Kelly Reddell, the lawyer whose client’s son was beaten nearly to death, said the state is not doing right by its mentally disabled.

“The very nature of the institutional setting, I think, creates the environment for the abuse to take place,” she said. “How in the world can you think this system is the best and it makes sense?”

Time for change is a long time comin'.

Pictured at right, Haseeb Chishty, the man severely beaten by his caregiver at Denton State School, with his mother

What We Are Becoming With the Culture of Death

What We Are Becoming With the Culture of Death

On this episode of What It Means to Be Human, bioethicist and Discovery Institute senior fellow Wesley J. Smith takes a look at our culture’s "terminal nonjudgmentalism." How far have we come as a society when we lose the will to save suicidal people's lives? Smith examines two outrageous cases from the UK,
one where doctors refused to save a dying girl and another where a disabled man’s parents helped took him to Switzerland to commit suicide. What does the advocacy of death culture turn us into? Tune in and find out.

In this episode, Smith quotes a study that says after 5 years, the depression of those who've acquired a severe disability later in life levels to the same as those without disabilities. Something to think about STRONGLY when it comes to the debate over assisted suicide

Why We Call Them Human Rights

Wesley J Smith's new edition of "What It Means To Be Human" podcast.

Why We Call Them Human Rights

On this episode of What It Means to Be Human, Wesley J. Smith examines a new extreme environmentalism that seeks to grant equal rights to . . . Nature. Yes, Nature. "Nature rights" have just been embodied as the highest law of the land in Ecuador's newly ratified constitution. Rather than establishing environmental
protections as a human duty, there is now a self-demotion of humankind to merely one among the billions of life forms on Earth, no more worthy of protection than any other part of the natural world. What is the potential harm to human welfare? Listen in as Wesley J. Smith explains how the establishment of "Nature rights" is the culmination of 2008 as one of the most radical anti-human exceptionalism years in recent history.

In the UK More Mothers Reject Abortion to Have Babies with Down Syndrome

More mothers reject abortion to have babies with Down's syndrome

MORE babies are being born with Down's syndrome than before pre-natal screening for the disorder was introduced at the end of the 1980s, it was revealed yesterday.

Parents appear more willing to bring a Down's child into the world than they used to be, research shows.

Many are taking the decision because those affected by the syndrome are more accepted in society today and their quality of life has improved, according to a new survey.

After the widespread introduction of screening for Down's syndrome in 1989, the number of babies born with the condition in the UK fell from 717 to 594 at the start of this decade.

But since 2000, the birthrate has increased, reaching 749 in 2006, the latest year for which figures are available.

Figures from a national Down's syndrome register show that the proportion of newborn children with Down's rose by around 15 per cent between 2000 and 2006.

The Down's Syndrome Association, in conjunction with the BBC, conducted a survey of 1,000 of its members to find out why so many were choosing to have Down's children despite the availability of pre-natal screening.

The findings show that while religious or pro-life beliefs counted in about a third of cases, many parents felt that life and society had improved for people affected by Down's. Others said their decision was influenced by the fact that they knew people with Down's or other disabilities.

Carol Boys, chief executive of the Down's Syndrome Association, said: "We are all very surprised by this. It wasn't what any of us working in the field would have anticipated and it seems to show more parents are thinking more carefully before opting for pre-natal screening and termination – that being born with Down's syndrome is being seen in a different light today."

When I and others had our babies, it was a very different world – those with Down's syndrome were treated very differently. Now, there is much greater inclusion and acceptance, with mainstream education having a huge role. "We think this plays a part in the decisions parents make – there's even been a baby with Down's syndrome on EastEnders."

Pandora Summerfield, director of Down's Syndrome Scotland, said: "We applaud these women who go ahead with their pregnancies. "It is very heartening to hear that women are making a positive choice because society is more accepting."

Read whole article here.

I especially appreciate that many made the decision to have their child because they knew people with Down Syndrome or other disabilities. Acquaintanceship, but especially relationship, with people with disabilities makes all the difference in how we view them and their lives. When we are in relationship with people with disabilities, we value them and their lives and come to understand the common personhood in all of us.

For so many years, those with disabilities, especially developmental disabilities have been isolated, left to their 'own kind' and to the care of 'others' in some unknown facility. What has happned as a result is the ignorance of society regarding disability and people with disabilities. It takes real relationship between people with and without disabilities for destigmazation and understanding to occur.

Unfortunately, relationship isn't happening fast enough. Technology is fast advancing and those who still hold on to beliefs that those with disabilities have a low quality of life and are a burden to society are eager to use technology to end lives.

So, go make a friend. Start here, perhaps. "e-Buddies is an e-mail pen pal program that pairs persons with an intellectual disability in a one-to-one e-mail friendship with a peer volunteer who does not have an intellectual disability."

Germany to compile roll of Nazi euthanasia victims

Germany to compile roll of Nazi euthanasia victims

BERLIN (Reuters) - German historians have started compiling a central register of 9,000 mentally ill people murdered as part of the Nazis' euthanasia policy, most of whom were previously unidentified.

More than 100,000 people are believed to have been killed during a drive inspired by Hitler that was carried out in six extermination centres in Germany between 1940 and 1945.

The idea of a Nazi euthanasia campaign, backed by propaganda films portraying the mentally handicapped and incurably ill as "useless mouths to feed", was first outlined in Hitler's 1924 book "Mein Kampf" and became known as Operation T4.

Read rest of article here

One correction needed as Wesley J Smith points out on his blog. "Hitler didn't inspire it, he was inspired by the pre-existing eugenics movement to boost it. Indeed, in Mein Kamph Hitler discussed these ideas, which he did not generate, but that were already in the public discourse raging in Germany, the USA, and the UK."

The Teri Schiavo Story

Here are part one and part two of the Terri Schiavo Story from the Joni and Friends Television Series. I hope you watch it. I hope it makes you sick. I hope it horrifies you. I hope it drives you to your knees in desperate prayer for life, and may your only peace be found in the will of the Father. In the Sovereignty of God.

I hope you are affected by Mrs. Schiavo's story. Because if not, as Joni Eareckson Tada states, "If the rights of the weak and the most vulnerable among us are eroded, please remeber the rights of all of us are in jeapordy."

TAKE THE PLEDGE!

A campaign has launched in oppositon to assisted suicide. If you oppose assisted suicide, take the pledge as either a physician, medical caregiver, or concerned citizen not to participate in this practice. Please feel free to come back here and tell me about it.

Medical Providers Say They Won't Assist with Suicides

A glimmer of hope

From SpokesmanReview.com:

Medical providers say they won't assist with suicides

While Washington voters made it legal for doctors to help terminally ill residents end their lives, opponents of the assisted suicide measure indicated Wednesday they will continue to resist the practice.

Initiative 1000 won with strong support Tuesday, but doctors don't have to help their patients make that final act, says the Washington State Medical Association.
Furthermore, Eastern Washington's largest hospital system, Providence Health and Services, will forbid physicians from helping patients die at its hospitals, nursing homes and assisted care centers.

"Providence will not support physician-assisted suicide within its ministries," the owner of Sacred Heart Medical Center and Holy Family Hospital said in a prepared statement. "This position is grounded in our basic values of respect for the sacredness of life, compassionate care of dying and vulnerable persons, and respect for the integrity of medical, nursing and allied health professions. We do not believe health care providers should ever be put in a position of aiding a patient in taking his or her own life."

The new Washington law is set to take effect in July 2009 after state regulators write rules to guide the practice.

Read the rest of the article here.

Washington Becomes Second State to Legalize Assisted Suicide in Election Vote

From LifeNews.com:

Olympia, WA (LifeNews.com) -- The state of Washington has joined Oregon to
become the second state in the nation to legalize the grisly practice of
assisted suicide. Voters in the northwestern state approved I-1000 despite
strong opposition from pro-life groups, doctors organizations, disability rights
activists and Catholic voters.

With 42 percent of the vote counted in
the state, I-1000 carried with the support of 58 percent of voters compared with
42 percent who opposed assisted suicide.

Opponents of assisted suicide
had a hard time competing with the money thrown at them from the pro-euthanasia
groups that outspent them as
much as 12-1 thanks to out-of-state money.

Read rest of story here

From Wesley J Smith's blog Secondhand Smoke:

Anyone who still says "it can't happen here," isn't paying attention. It is
happening here, and it will happen here increasingly unless there is a greater
commitment shown by those with means who oppose these agendas to reversing the
current course.

I just don't know that I can finish this post today.

Abortion and Black Genocide

Wesley J Smith on Alber Mohler

Bioethicist expert Wesley J Smith was on Monday's Albert Mohler radio program discussing "troubling new developments in the world of bioethics. From movements to dismantle human exceptionalism, granting rights to apes and even 'nature', to the spread of the so-called "right to die" crusade..."

It's worth listening to.

Problems with Some of Us Conservatives

As a Christian, I am passionate about the sanctity of life. In addition, as one with generally conservative political beliefs, the idea of a right to life for all in whatever state of life one finds oneself, fits those beliefs. However, what do we, we Christians and/or we with conservative political beliefs do for those who have been spared from abortion or euthanasia and their families?

In an ideal America, I'd like to see the government involved as little a possible in its citizens' individual affairs. This includes things like health care and caring for the poor. In a republic, it is not the government's job to be the sole provider for both. However, it has become so for those with disabilities, especially developmental disabilities.

We conservatives say we want fewer taxes so that we can give to charity directly through our churches or through other private organizations. But will we really do it? 'Cause, we're not doing it now, at least not for those with developmental disabilities.

Every organization and agency that provides living and vocational services to people with developmental disabilities, including faith based organizations, in my state that I know of is dependent on Medicaid. Medicaid has a LONG waiting list for those waiting to receive such services. And, without adequate funding and cookie cutter programs, Medicaid often lacks in quality of those services. Even so, faith based and other private organizations aren't stepping up to meet even the basic needs of those with developmental disabilities and their families.

Is the answer to increase Medicaid funding to better improve its services? Only if we with conservative political beliefs or we who follow Christ don't step up and do our part. Do as we believe.

Most people with developmental disabilities over the age of 18 use Medicaid services. This means that the state is heavily involved with their lives. For instance, to ensure that quality care is given and Medicaid money is spent wisely, their caregivers turn in reports about their clients' daily activities, medical concerns, the kind of treatment given, behavioral issues, bowel movements... You name it, the state knows everything about anyone with a developmental disability receiving Medicaid services, which is almost everyone with a developmental disability. In addition, the state must approve the kind of treatment given for those with developmental disabilities. (Such would be the case for all citizens in the case of National Health Care, btw; don't think it wouldn't.)

This seems so wrong to me. But there is no other option.
What did Sarah Palin mean when she said that parents of children with disabilities would have an advocate in the White House? As her son grows, she will learn the headache of trying to receive enough of the right kind of education, health care, etc., for him, and when her son turns 18, she will become quite familiar with virtually the only option for him that is Medicaid.

Okay, fellow Christians and conservatives, if we really want less taxes and less government involvement, wake up! We've got to start meeting the needs of those with developmental disabilities in other ways than just paying our taxes.

I hope that Sarah Palin will become an advocate for life in Washington. I hope that she'll bring Conservatives awareness, real awareness, of the needs for those with developmental disabilities before and after they turn 18.

Natural Instinct

My mother chose not to abort me. She could have, for I was born after 1973, the year abortions became legal.

Had she known that 32 years after my birth, I would have a LOT of needs, that I would have struggled with obesity, identity issues, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, going to school, fighting with my sisters, and not making my bed in the morning, should she have considered abortion? Is she a hero for not? Is she a fool for not?

It's a natural instinct for a mother to protect her child from the womb on. It's sad when doctors, society, and fear keep a mother from doing what's natural. Palin did what was natural for a mother to do when she was pregnant with her son. 'Special' needs and all. It's not heroic. It's what a mother does. My mother taught me this.

Doctor Worries Abortions May Be Reduced

No, this is not from the Onion (the satirical 'newsite').

From LifeNews.com:

Sarah Palin's Keeping Disabled Baby May Reduce Abortions Doctor Worries

A leading Canadian doctor is drawing gasps from people across the world
with a comment that he worries abortions will go down because of Sarah Palin's
story. The number two doctor at the national Canadian physicians group worries
Palin's decision to keep her disabled baby will reduce abortions.

Palin's story of deciding to give birth to her disabled son Trig
despite knowing he would be afflicted with Down syndrome, has been an
encouragement to families with special needs children.

But it's bad news to André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in
Canada," he told the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper Tuesday.
According to
the paper, Lalonde said that, "above all else, women must be free to choose" and
that positive messages like the one from Palin "could have detrimental effects
on women and their families."

Still, LaLone claimed his group doesn't encourage doctors to promote
abortions to parents of Down syndrome babies -- even though statistics show
about 90 percent of babies diagnosed with the condition become victims of
abortion.

"We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible,"
he said. "We're coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions
are personal decisions."

But Krista Flint, director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, also
talked with the Toronto paper and said families feel doctors encourage abortions
by stressing the drawbacks to a baby with special needs.
"It's very dark,"
she said. "They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes
associated with Down syndrome."

Story continued at LifeNews.com.

I'm Not Connecting with this Book of Connection

I was skimming Rob Bell's book Sex God at the library one day, when I came across this paragraph on page 46.

You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are. If
you're still upset that God gave you this body or this life or this family or
these circumstances, you will never be able to connect with God in a healthy,
thriving, sustainable sort of way. You'll be at odds with your maker. And if you
can't come to terms with who you are and the life you've been given, you'll
never be able to accept others and how they were made and the lives they've been
given. And until you're at peace with God and those around you, you will
continue to struggle with your role on the planet, your part to play in the
ongoing creation of the universe. You will continue to struggle and resist and
fail to connect.

Notice he starts the paragraph, a paragraph which may or may not hold some truth, with "You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are."

"No! No! No! No! No!", I screamed in my head at the time. My thoughts were, "The opposite is true. You can't be at peace with yourself until you are connected with God. You cannot really know who you are until you know Who God is and who you are in Him." If I'm created in the image of God, to know myself, I must know Him first. If I am to become at peace with who I am before connecting with God, I would have to create this God in my image. For, if I am at peace with who I think I am in my flesh, then the only way to connect with God is to make Him agree with who I want to be or feel I am.

Furthermore, connecting with God, in that first connection, is contingent upon God's law of grace and His act of atonement. Connection with God is His action, not mine, an action of Him reaching down to me, drawing me to Christ, kindly leading me to repentance and acceptance and faith in His work of the Cross. That is how I connect to God.

To really connect with God, in our first connection, I must not be at peace with myself. I must be frustrated with my sin and in recognition of my complete inability to save myself.

So, I've begun reading the whole book to understand what he was saying in context, because reading anything in the correct context is crucial to actual understanding. And it's only fair to the author. I need to know what led up to Bell's conclusion that one must be at peace with himself first to connect with God. However, I've got to tell ya, reading this book- I have a lot of questions. His writing is at the same time seems very deep and very vague to me.

As one who has struggled with her sexuality and discovered that indeed sexuality is about relationships and identity, not just sex, I agree with Bell's premise of the book, Sex God, that sexuality and spirituality are connected. Bell contends that sexuality is actually about connecting with God, others, and the earth. (He had me until 'the earth'.) I can see there is some truth in what Bell says. He talks about how empty and unsexual sex is when there's no connection. Deep stuff.

But I am bothered that in the first chapter, he appears to change the meaning of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:27-30, which reads,

27 You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ 28
But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed
adultery with her in his heart. 29 So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you
to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part
of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your
hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It
is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be
thrown into hell.

That's pretty straightforward to me. Looking at a woman with lust is the same thing as committing adultery. It's better to lose your eye if lusting through it continues to be a problem, because it's better to lose an eye than to go to hell. In simpler form, sinning in your heart is sin as much as sinning in your actions. Don't sin. Hell is a consequence of sin.

However, in the context of men and women being created in the image of God, Bell twists this Bible passage to mean that when we do not treat one with respect to their image bearing selves (by lusting after a woman), "[Jesus's] point is that something serious- something hellish- happens when people are treated as objects, and we should resist it at all costs." (pg 22)

Bell makes this teaching after he redefines Heaven to mean, "where things are as God wants them, under the rule and reign of God" and Hell to mean, "a realm where things are not as God wants them to be. Where things aren't according to God's will. Where people aren't treated as fully human." (pg 21)

Redefining Biblical terms and Biblical meanings. I sense trouble.

Bell goes on to write that, based on the fact that the early Christian have all been united through the resurrected Jesus Christ, "this new commonality is simply bigger than all of the things" (like race) "that had previously kept them apart." He says the first Christians called this the "new humanity", but gives no reference for this term. (pg 24) Bell says, "The new humanity is about seeing people as God sees them." (pg 25)

I like this idea very much, "seeing others as God sees them" being a new humanity, the new standard by which we treat each other. But Bell seems to miss a couple of crucial steps here. Salvation and regeneration. How are we going to become a part of this new humanity that treats others well without becoming a new human being, one changed out of our selfish fleshly state? More thoughts on that idea, here.

In chapter two, on the subject of connection, remembering that sexuality is about connection, Bell writes about our connection the earth. He writes that from the fall, in addition to disconnection from God and each other, we are also disconnected from the earth. (pg 40) He talks about nature and how the words we use to describe moments like an experience he had with his sons swimming with dolphins "are about nearness and connection, sometimes even intimacy." (pg 41)

Until this point, I was understanding Bell's use of the word 'connection' to be about relationship. But relationship with the earth? Is that what he means?

I understand that we are to be good stewards of our planet. But connected to it? I don't understand what he means by this.

When I went to Colorado a couple of years ago with my mom, there came a point where the beauty of the mountains became so overwhelming that I had to close my eyes. I don't think that was me connecting to the mountains, though. I think it was being overwhelmed by beauty. And, perhaps, by the glory that is revealed in of our Creator in His creation.

Seeing Him revealed in His creation, I understand. Connection to nature itself, though... what does that mean?

At the end of this chapter, chapter 2, Bell makes the statement, "You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are." That is as far as I've gotten so far. I hope in the next chapters Bell explains this statement and all the other ones that have left me confused and asking questions. I'm really not connecting with this book.

Jesus' Message

But what gives us the motivation to do good? They say that Jesus' message was the kingdom of God. They then explain that the kingdom of God is a just society where the poor are fed and everyone is equal. Some say that the Cross is almost a distraction from that. That we need to get back to doing all the good that Jesus talked about.

But why would we, as humans, decide to do good, even after a really good teaching about doing good? And could we on our own, do all this good?

Are we going to do good even if Jesus Christ Himself appeared on our doorstep and said, 'Feed the poor'? No. I wouldn't. I may try for a while, but I'd give up eventually, after a bout with selfishness, slothfulness, or when I'm too absorbed in seeking my own pleasure. When I'm too busy trying to meet my own needs through addictions to consider the needs of others.

Jesus came with a message that His kingdom, one that was not of this world, is at hand. I don't know if He's talking about Heaven. I don't know if He's talking about the new earth He'll create sometime after His return. I don't know if He's talking about the way to live the Christian life. Nor do I know what He means by His kingdom being 'at hand'. Does that mean it's coming soon or it's here for the taking? God hasn't given me a clear answer yet of what His kingdom actually is in my studies of the Bible.

But I do know, that there is no way that I'm going to do the good Jesus speaks of as being a part of His kingdom on my own. The message Jesus gave me a few years ago was that I needed to be saved. That I was lost in sin. I was a slave to it. I couldn't do any good even if I wanted to. I had to obey my sin and selfish desire over any desire I may have had to help others.

He kindly and mercifully, though intensely, left me in the kind of desperation that led me to repentance and agreement with Him that I needed Him. He pointed me to the work of the Cross through which He then saved me. He is changing me and making me someone brand new. He is giving me His grace and His power to do the good He has called me to. I do good not because doing good is the Gospel. I do good because I've been transformed by the Gospel into someone who can and wants to do good.

Jesus' message is that we need to be saved. (John 3:17) We need to be set free. (Galatians 3:22) It is for freedom that God has set us free. (Galatians 5:1) And we are to use that freedom to serve one another in love. (Galatians 5:13) How else could we do it, serve one another, other than through the freedom of the Cross? "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there." (Galatians 5:24)

Gay Rights

No, not really. More on Washington's assisted suicide initiative. But, gay rights seem to capture more attention.

From Fox News, Dying Wish

Physician Assisted Suicide

"No person who is suffering is a problem to be solved. They're a person to be loved." -Rev Paul R. Smith

I-1000 is a proposed initiative to legalize physician assisted suicide in the state of Washington.


Part One Death with Dignity: A Dangerous Deception


Part Two Death with Dignity: A Dangerous Deception

Assisted suicide. It would be hard to argue with the fact that anyone receiving the news that s/he had a terminal illness would be depressed. One cannot deny that depression would play a major role in one's choice to commit suicide. When doctors begin setting a precedent of assisted depressed people in committing suicide, can you imagine the consequences for depressed people everywhere?

Looking at assisted suicide, we can see how such a legalized action would create a feeling of a duty to die for those with illnesses, as well as the feeling by the rest of us that those with terminal illnesses have a duty to die. In Oregon's first years with legalized physician assisted suicide, a large number of people who committed suicide did so out of fear of becoming a burden to their family. With limited financial resources, or at least claims of limited financial resources, the rest of us might indeed feel that those who were 'dying anyway' had a duty to die, especially if the person is old or poor or has a severe cognitive disability. The kind of people who have 'used their share' of public or private health care, the kind of people we deem to have a 'low quality of life', after all.

Another factor in a person choosing suicide is a fear of disability. In the first two years of Oregon's assisted suicide law, those who committed suicide did so out of fear of being unable to pursue enjoyable life activities, fear of needing personal assistance with daily living, and worries about being a burden on their families. Disability Rights activist Paul Longmore spoke about this aspect of Oregon's experience:

Fear of disability typically underlies assisted suicide... The advocates play on that horror of "dependency." ...If needing help is undignified and death is better than dependency, there is no reason to deny assisted suicide to people who will have to put up with it for six or sixteen years, rather than just six months. Not that we favor assisted suicide if it is limited to terminally ill people. We simply want to ask, has this country gotten to the point that we will abet suicide because people can't wipe their own behinds?

Lastly, physician assisted suicide will lead to euthanasia. After all, what about those with disabilities who can't take their lethal prescription on their own? Isn't that discrimination? They'll need someone to feed the pills to them. Once we become accustomed to the idea of physicians practicing death, we will begin to tolerate more extreme versions, more extreme that a doctor 'simply' assisting a person who is dying, more than a physician who is providing a 'good death' to people who can't do it themselves. How far could this go?

From the Coalation Against Assisted Suicide's website:

"Pressure for improved palliative care appears to have evaporated [in the Netherlands]," according to Herbert Hendin, M.D. Dr. Hendin is a Director of Suicide Prevention International and was formerly the Medical Director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

"Over the past two decades," Hendin continued, "the Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia.

"Once the Dutch accepted assisted suicide it was not possible legally or morally to deny more active medical (assistance to die), i.e. euthanasia, to those who could not effect their own deaths. Nor could they deny assisted suicide or euthanasia to the chronically ill who have longer to suffer than the terminally ill or to those who have psychological pain not associated with physical disease. To do so would be a form of discrimination.

Involuntary euthanasia has been justified as necessitated by the need to make decisions for patients not [medically] competent to choose for themselves."

Doctors can help people in severe pain due to a terminal illness with palliative care. The rest of can meet the need of someone alone with the fear of being abandoned in their illness, in their fear of being a 'burden'. Though we don't do it well, right now. How else could something like physician assisted suicide gain so much popularity?

There are other options besides sanctioning the suicide of people dying.

For more information, visit the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide at http://noassistedsuicide.com/.

Respect

Africa

My uncle is in Africa right now on a short term missions trip. He's gone a couple of times before, and he always comes home with stories of how hungry the people of Tanzenia and the other places he goes are for the Word of God. A man from his team came home a little early and told of the experience the team is having now.

The team meets in a central location with the purpose to train native pastors and others in the Word and how to teach it. The men aand women of the country come from up to 180 miles away, walking or biking. When they get there, usually a two day journey, they sleep on the floor. They don't eat because they have no food with them. The team teaches for 3 hours at a time, and when they stop the people beg them to continue. They want to hear more.

Many missionaries come to their area, give them the Gospel, and go home. The people are left without the opportunity to mature out of spiritual infancy. They don't own Bibles; they have to share them. They love the teaching of the Word.

The man from my uncle's team who came home early told that on this trip, the leader of the particular area they are in wanted to meet them. She told my uncle's team that not long ago another white preacher like them was in their area. That preacher told the people that to be saved, they must sell all their worldy possessions and give the profits to him. Then, they were to go to a particular location to wait for Jesus' return. 10 people did as the preacher told them. The area's leader wanted to make sure that my uncle's team was not going to do what this preacher had done.

This story breaks my heart. In the name of Jesus, this man came to the poorest of the poor and stole what little material worth they had. More importantly, he taught them a false gospel, he blasphemed God, no doubt doing great harm to their faith and abusing their souls.

How can we do that to people?

I've been praying for my uncle and for the entire continent of Africa. My prayerr is that the Word of God will permeate so deeply into people's hearts that change will happen. When they know the Word, those committing genocide will stop the killing. When they know the Word, the spread of AIDS will cease because people will stop the behavior that is leading to it. When they know the Word, perhaps they can come and teach it to the West. We seem to have forgotten it.

Thoughts On a Couple of Books

I've been reading again. Not very fast and not very much, but I am very much enjoying having this gift of reading back.

I've read two very different books this past month and a half, Vintage Jesus by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears andCulture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America by Wesley J. Smith.

Book One

Vintage Jesus: Timeless Answers to Timely Questions (Relit Theology)

I chose Vintage Jesus because it promised to give a sort of 'theology lesson' in response to today's lack of basic Bible knowledge. I've been acquiring a taste for theology and doctrine again. The prospect of studying those things has been scary for me considering how much spiritual abuse I endured as a child in the name of both.

In addition, God spent about two years knocking out most of the legalism in me disguised as theology and doctrine to get to the 'heart' stuff and to establish a relationship between the two of us and His community. So, I have a worry that studying theology and doctrine will take me back into legalism.

But the book Vintage Jesus seemed 'light' enough according to various reviews I read of it. More importantly, after watching Mark Driscoll's teachings online, he seemed truthful enough. In addition, Mark Driscoll is a Reformed pastor, and I was curious about Reformed theology. However, the book didn't get too much into Reformedtheology as much as it did basic theology.

Still, it felt very good to read basic theology again. I had not really done so, except where it pertained to areas of inner healing, since I was in elementary school. I loved theology as a kid, the real, truthful theology, because it felt like history and the reasons for the history. I loved history and true stories as a kid, as well as, 'the reason for it all'. Still do.

However, this book didn't go beyond much of the basics, and I was left asking a lot of questions. The book, I think, addressed of lot of 'Who', 'what', 'where', and 'when' questions, like Who was/is Jesus?, what did/does He do?, and when/where did/will it all take place?, but I found myself asking a lot of why and how questions. Not a bad thing, I guess. Just leaves me curious for more theology.

I was put off at first by author Mark Driscoll's sophomoric humor and his sureness in making rude, and even crude, comments. He makes a lot of off color remarks (such as referring to 'liberals' as 'limp wristed') and made a lot of 'he's crazy' and 'he needs to take his medication' jokes, doing what a lot of us do, using 'crazy' and 'sinful' interchangeably.

But beyond the offensive jokes, his love of Jesus shone brightly and the glimpses he gave of his own testimony gave a lot of glory to God. So, I stuck out reading the book, and I'd recommend it, but with caution because of the rude and crude humor.

Book Two

The Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America

Wesley J. Smith

Wesley J. Smith's book Culture of Death, though, I recommend even though I'm sure any reader with any kind of heart will be offended. As in the the subtitle, the book addresses the assault on medical ethics.

The relatively new field of bioethics is on its way to taking over the medical field and is becoming an ideology in itself. "Where medical ethics deals with the behavior of doctors in their professional lives vis-a-vis their patients, bioethics... focuses on the relationship between medicine, health, and society", pages 4-5. This means that the Hippocratic method of doctors doing what is best for their patients first (in fact many, if not most, doctors do not even take the Hippocratic oath anymore) is being abandoned for the bioethical ideals of what is 'best for society'.

The implications of this leads to things like legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia (for reasons such as easing the burden of family members who have a very sick family member or a family member with a severe cognitive disability). In addition, Futile Care Theory, where medicine is rationed, leaving the most sick and vulnerable medically neglected, is being practiced so that 'limited' resources can go to those with the best possibility for the greatest 'quality of life'.

The book addresses that society is abandoning the 'equality of life' ethic and actually valuing some lives as unworthy of life. Those designated 'unfit' in eugenics theory and 'useless eaters' during the Third Reich are now being termed 'nonpersons' in contemporary bioethics.

Smith sums us this book with this paragraph:

Whatever our moral future- whether based on life's inherent equality or upon subjective judgments of quality- that which we sow through our public policies and ethics protocols, we surely shall reap in the way in which we and those we love are treated in our individual lives. We all age. We fall ill. We grow weak. We become disabled. A day comes when our need to receive from our fellows adds up to far more than our ability to give in return. When we reach that stage of life, will we still be cherished, cared for, valued? Will we still be deemed persons, entitled to equal protection under the law? These are the questions that hang in the balance as we enter the new century.

This is a must read, or even a must 'skim through', not just for those in the field of medicine or healthcare, but for all of us. These are society's responsibilities. We need to know these things to be informed voters. More importantly, though, as Christians (this was not a Christian book) we need to informed pray-ers.

That's it?

So, that's it for my summer reading... But, I think I'd like to read something else. Any suggestions?

Tod Bentley and the Use of Words

Crippled People

As I watch the revival unfold on various video clips, I am continuously awestruck by Mr. Bentley's mockery and overall disrespect of people with disabilities. This disrespect is evidenced not only by his physical assaults on those with illnesses and disabilities or the way he has people do dangerous things to their bodies (having people with back problems twist and turn) by also by his use of the phrase, 'crippled people'.

I do not expect every church leader to keep up with the ever changing list of words used to describe disabilities and how to refer to people who have them. However, I would appreciate it if they at least understood the some of the words they do use in the context of the word's history and how much it has offended and hurt people with disabilities. I asked my mother, who has a physical disability, how she would feel is someone referred to her as a crippled person, and just the question hurt her feelings.

The word 'crippled' is not necessarily a bad word. However, it is an old word, one that connotes past images of how we used to see those with disabilities- helpless, useless, and a drain on society. Yet, many in the Church have been throwing it around a lot, including Todd Bentley, his followers, and the media covering this revival. Why? Who is not aware that referring to people with disabilities as 'crippled people' offensive to many with disabilities these days?

My own thoughts is that it is evidence that much of the Church, not just those who are a part of this revival, has ignored the struggles of those with disabilities. Their whole struggles, struggles of not just physical pain, but the emotional toll of having a disability, the loneliness associated with it, the abuse and rejection many with disabilities face.

Paul wrote about being all things to all people, including becoming weak with those who are weak for the sake of the Gospel, to share the blessing of it (1 Corinthians 9:22-23). To be disabled with those who are disabled means to understand that referring to people as 'crippled people' these days means that those with disabilities will not want to hear the message of the Gospel if they those preaching it to them are hurting their feelings.

For more information on language and disability, visit Disability is Natural's webpage on People FirstLanguage. Also, for a personal perspective on society and disability, read Degree of Disability from the blog Wheelie Catholic.

The Evangelical Sensation at the Moment

In April Todd Bentley of Fresh Fire Ministries in Canada began leading a revival in Lakeland, Florida. Intended to last just a few days, he has extended these revival meetings well into this summer, taking a small break after this ABC Nightline interview, but returning not long afterward. Very concerned about what is happening in Lakeland, I'd like to write about this Nightline interview.

'Just him and God'

In this interview, we learn that Bentley "defiantly steers clear of any organized denomination, any chain of accountability. As he sees it, it is just him and God." The idea of 'just him and God' sends off alarm bells in me. I am not so much bothered that he is not connected with any denomination, for I myself attend a nondenominational church. But the fact that he is not connected to any denomination for accountability and is not accountable to anyone in what he is doing in these revivals- again, alarm bells.

A person of Mr. Bentley's growing fame needs the accountability of counselors. (Actually, all believers need accountability.) That person can get lost in his own thoughts and ideas, believing he is walking in the way of God, yet, without the wise counsel of of othrs, can err in doctrine and even in conduct. He can be caught up in secret sin, as well-known men and women of God can be more tempted than other believers in areas of pride, self-righeousness, greed, and other sins, only to eventually fall loudly and disgracefully.

I can understand the idea of 'just me and God', I really can, having spent spent most of my Christian living that way. However, I can also attest to the freedom I found from secret sins and in incresing faulty ideas about God born of my own fallen mind and introspection when I began adding other believers into the 'just God and me' formula.

As Psalm 37:30 says, "The godly offer good counsel; they teach right from wrong." Proverbs 11:14 says, "Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety." Proverbs 19:20 says, "Listen to counsel and accept discipline, that you may be wise the rest of your days." Colossians 3:16 says, "Teach and counsel each other with all the wisdom he (Christ) gives."

'I believe miracles happen in their own time'

June Cochran (sp?) interviewed in this piece says Bently's followers pressure her to come to the revival and be cured. "They're not hearing what they're saying," Cochran feels. "They're saying something's wrong with us, and if we don't already have our self esteem already built up, then it just tears us down even more. Like we're not even worthy to be here."

I have to wonder. How many of Christ's followers would notice a woman like June Cochran, a woman who gets around town in an electric wheelchair, were it not for the idea that 'revival' is happening and the belief that people like 'that' are getting healed? How many of Christ's followers really see Ms. Cochran, beyond the disability to the woman, instead of a broken body needing to be mended.

How many of Christ's followers have seen Ms. Cochran and invited her to church, just as she is, no strings attactched, no expectation of healing, just invited her to be a part of the community of God, encouraging her toward repentence and faith in Christ and in growing fully in that relationship? How many respect her belief of, "I believe miracles happen in their own time", understanding that the timing of physical and other kinds of healing in a person are up to God?

How many followers will go back to ignoring the June Cochrans when the sensation of the healing revival dies down?

'Not a single miricle claim of Bentley's could be verrified.'

And how about those healings?

When asked by Nightline for verifiable information of just three people who've been healed (we just want three people, they said), Bentley offers a them a 'media package' with incomplete contact inormation and a few pages of incomplete mediacl records with doctors names crossed out.

Nightline was given the name of a woman whose cancerous tumor had shrunk upon returning to the doctor after she saw Bentley. However, her husband stated that this could just be a coincidence because she is still receiving medical treatment. He did send Nightline some of his wife's medical information, but with doctors names and clinics named obscured. Not a single miricle claim of Bentley's could be verrified.

I am concerned that the ministry of Todd Bentley is clearly spiritualy abusing and deceiving many. More on that later.


Pt. 1



Pt. 2

Update of Janet Rivera

Update of Janet Rivera

From the Fresno Bee:

Rivera cousin granted temporary conservatorship

The cousin of Janet Rivera, a comatose Sanger woman, was granted temporary conservatorship of Rivera this morning, which means she will be kept on life support for now.

see full article

Related post, A Waste of Life?

I Am a Hypocritical Christian

I think there's a bit of hypocrisy in the post I just wrote. As a Christian it is much easier to speak out against the errors of the secular world. The secular world almost by definition is errant. Without the redemptive viewpoint of Christ, its morals and ideology are fallen.

But what about when those in the Church are erring? What about when, in the name of God, pastors spew false theology, thus blaspheming God, and in grandiose manner, claiming the gift of healing and prophesy, mock, abuse, and financially exploit their followers, hurting most those who are hurting most- those struggling with disabilities illnesses, and other painful life issues? Who holds them accountable?

What about those who claim a secret message of Jesus, where Christianity becomes a life of good works and relativism, where the mystery of the faith morphs into mysticism, the Word of God is questioned as the actual Word of God, and the sacrificial atonement of the cross becomes, rather, more of a generalized sacrifice for suffering?
All kinds of Christians come together to march for life, but it feels to me that we are reluctant to come together to speak for truth.

Gerri McGhee of Abiding Life Ministries wrote, "Beware that now in many churches self-appointed prophets, pretending to be sheep, are working at redefining Biblical Christianity; treating the Word of God as if it were irrelevant."

And I've been becoming aware. I don't know what to do with my awareness. Who am I to speak out against my brothers and sisters, or at least what they are doing? Who am I not to?

What, as Christians, do we do in light of false teaching in the name of our God and our faith? In this church of billions, how do we, as Biblicaly mandated, go to them in first in private, and then, if they do not respond, let the church deal with them? Who are the elders of these elders who will love them back into the faith?

We can't just stay mostly silent as we have been- can we?

A Waste of Life?

In Fresno County lies a woman, Janet Rivera, in a coma. Not able to eat, she uses a feeding tube for nutrients. Not long ago, some court case somewhere decided that feeding tubes constitute life support. Of course, I disagree.

Either way, the county, her legal guardian, wants this piece of 'life support' removed, and had it removed for a little while. However, Mrs. Rivera lived longer than expected, so they reinstated her feeding tube to get a judge's opinion.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Rivera's family wishes to keep her alive. So, apparently, the county of Fresno can decide over her families wishes to take Mrs. Rivera's life.

The medical ethicist and legal experts interviewed for this article, continue to refer to end of life issues, calling this an end of life issue. However, Mrs. Rivera would not be at the end of her life had the county and these medical and legal folks not stepped in.

A person could live a long time with a feeding tube. Mrs. Rivera is alive. She is breathing on her own and she is not close to death. What is at issue here, is a judgment of her quality of life. The county deems it (her life) a waste.

A waste of what- money?

Her family feels that if she had more money or better health care coverage. While those involved in this situation say that financial considerations play no role in the decision to remove her feeding tube, some bioethicists say,

that regardless of whether money is an issue in Rivera's case, her situation raises a question that's impossible to ignore in the end-of-life debate: how to decide whether it's worth spending limited resources to maintain life support in an apparently hopeless case.

"The stewardship of scarce resources does require us to take resources into account," said Ben Rich, a University of
California at Davis bioethics professor. "But it has to be done
carefully."

from the article

Gotta love that bioethics field. I am currently reading Wesley J. Smith's book, Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America. This is what he has to say in that book about bioethics:

Medical ethics deals with the behavior of doctors in their professional lives vis-a`-vis their patients. Bioethics, as it has developed over the last few decades, focuses on the relationship between medicine, health, and society. This last element allows bioethicists to espouse values higher than the well-being of the individual and to perform the philosophical equivalent of triage.

...bioethics seeks to create a new morality of medicine that will define the meaning of health, determine when life loses its
value, and forge the public policies that will promote a new medical and moral order. More than a set of tenuous speculations, bioethics in recent years has ossified into an ideology.

So, bioethicists work to change our morals, people debate or blog in response, and Mrs. Rivera lies in a coma, her fate in the hands of her county, apparently. Should she be allowed to suffer in this way? Not really our call. She's alive, and we aren't supposed to end a life. We are supposed to care for the person suffering, and for Mrs. Rivera's family.

Harming the Hidden

From Daily News Brooklyn

A shocking video shows a woman dying on the floor in the psych ward at Kings
County Hospital, while people around her, including a security guard, did
nothing to help.

After an hour, another mental patient finally got the
attention of the indifferent hospital workers, according to the tape, obtained
by the Daily News.

Worse still, the surveillance tape suggests hospital
staff may have falsified medical charts to cover the utter lack of treatment
provided Esmin Green before she died.

"Thank God for the videotape
because no one would have believed this could have happened," saidDonna
Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

This is for real. This is what is happening in our hospitals and institutions for those with mental illnesses, developmental and other disabilities, and the elderly. This is not an isolated case.

This kind of mistreatment and abuse did not start with our generation or with the one before ours. It has been so since, I imagine, the beginning of the existence of such disabilites. Since the beginning of human weakness and false human strength.

I have lots of ideas about solutions, but I am no expert and really haven't the energy right now to cover them.

Some day I'll share my experience as a patient in various psych hospitals. The one thing I will say now, is that sometimes people in attempt to be sympathetic will show horror that I had to be in there with 'those' kinds of people, meaning of course my fellow patients. And I try as best as I can, without getting into much detail with them, to explain that the patients were not a source of fear or terror for me. It was the staff, well, to be fair some of the the staff, not all of them. More than them personally, though, it was the 'system'.

Years later, I became a 'staff' working in care facilities and group homes for those with developmental disabilities. Their stories and long term experiences in care facilities and institutions were mild compared to my short time spent in psych hospitals. The first facility I worked in was so bad and my experience in the psych hosptitals was still so fresh in my mind that I quit working there only a couple of weeks after I started and steered clear of that kind of work for many years. But I went back because something in my heart pulled me back there.

Thankfully, all of my other jobs, working with those with developmental disabilities have been in small care failities and group homes. Those places weren't perfect by far, believe me, they had their share of problems, but even a small care facility of three to sixteen beds makes all the difference in comparrison to large institutions and nursing home sized facilities.

While working for a six bed care facility, a nursing home sized facility in a town nearby us for men and women with developmental disabilities was shut down. After two deaths and untold amount of abuses.

Several of the former residents came to our facility with such emotional scars that my heart won't let me write anymore.

But here's an old news article about the facility: Choctaw Had Legacy of Abuse

This says much. From the above article, "The things that go on out there, while they are not excusable, they are somewhat tolerable because of the alternative," then-Deputy Health Commissioner Brent VanMeter said after the body of the resident who had been dead for six days was discovered. "What are you going to do with these people if you don't keep them there and hope that that facility is doing the best that it can?"

Here's a related news article: Care Center Bear History of Abuse

It's hard to blog through tears.

Competent Enough to Live

Competent Enough to Live
By Bobby Schindler

Recently, yet another situation similar to that of my sister Terri Schiavo has made headlines. In West Palm Beach, Florida, Raymond Weber is asking the court to dehydrate his disabled wife, Karen, to death.

If you have read any of the reports in mainstream media, it’s just another case of a husband looking out for the “best interest” of his spouse. And just as in Terri’s case, Raymond Weber is asking the government to deliberately kill his wife who is not dying and is guilty of nothing more than having difficulty swallowing and therefore needing help, in the form of a feeding tube, to eat.

Not surprisingly, in a story by the AP, was a quote from the husband’s attorney who so touchingly referred to his client’s brain-injured wife as a “vegetable,” thus offending the tens of thousands of people and their families who do live with a profound brain injury.

The reporter also wrote that the decision whether Karen should live or die will depend upon whether or not a committee finds her “competent” to go on living. Yes, that is correct, competent enough to live. I guess passing an IQ test will be next.

Factors such as what is being taught in our medical schools, the breakdown of our health care system, the powerful influence of assisted suicide organizations, and the propaganda of our mainstream media have taken their toll.

As a result, the physically and mentally “inferior” are being denied the most basic care—food and water—in our nation’s medical facilities every day. (Thank goodness we have laws making it a felony if we do the same to an animal, although I would expect there would be a greater outcry if it were the family pets at risk.)

Equally as disturbing is the fact that our politicians, including our two presidential candidates, ignore this issue and because of it are failing in one of the most important responsibilities they have as leaders—to protect our most vulnerable citizens.

continued

Obama's Pro Choice Record, More Than Just Pro Abortion

The Audacity of Death from the Wall Street Journal

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define
as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions... Mr. Obama said in a
speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly
emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal
protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment...

...Mr. Obama has
compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any
and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in
teenagers' abortions
To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is
"one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first
thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would
overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the
federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of
abortion."

Then there's Mr. Obama's...opposition to laws that protect
babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as
Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide,"
then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

On the campaign trail, Mr.
Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments
of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit
things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say
that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case
from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his
"biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?
...He recently compared his
relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a
group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with
stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn...

...In "The Audacity
of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the
ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which
epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.

(Thank you, Ron.)