June 16, 2008

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

June 15, 2008

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.)

June 13, 2008

Redeemer

Redeem: to buy or pay off; clear by payment
to buy back
to recover (something pledged or mortgaged) by payment or other satisfaction
to discharge or fulfill (a pledge, promise, etc.)
to obtain the release or restoration of, as from captivity, by paying a ransom.
Theology. to deliver from sin and its consequences by means of a sacrifice offered for the sinner
to set free; rescue or ransom
to save from a state of sinfulness and its consequences
to restore the honor, worth, or reputation of
to repurchase by right
to receive or adopt
excepted from the operation or burden of some law; released; free; clear; privileged

Meditating on the idea of redemption, I am having a hard time with the thought that it is because I am so valuable that God would seek me out and then save me. I knew what a wretched state I was in before He redeemed me, even in very midst of that state. I wasn't worthy of love- I wasn't. But God loved me anyway, right back into Himself. Still, I find no comfort in my own value, for I know that apart from God, I have no value.

I am much more comforted by the sovereignty of the One Who sought me out in my state of wretchedness, to redeem, to buy back what was always supposed to be His. That the fact that God loves me and redeemed me has nothing to do with how great I am but, rather, how Great He is.

I have been so focused these past few years on finding out who I am, and gratefully have found security in who I am in Christ.

But I now want to know more of Who He is. Who is He as Redeemer?

June 8, 2008

A Pastoral Statement on Euthanasia

"Human suffering is a reminder of our need of the Savior Jesus Christ and the eternal life that comes through His atoning death and resurrection." Gary Knapp from his pastoral statement on euthanasia from his site The Undershepherd.

The statement (full post here):

  • A Pastoral Statement on Euthanasia and Imposing Death by Starvation and
    Dehydration

    Believing that human life at all stages from conception until
    natural death and in every condition regardless of disability or cognitive
    ability bears the image of God, we, the undersigned offer our voice in support
    of life and in opposition to imposing death on the ill and disabled, in
    particular through starvation and dehydration.

    Those of us who minister in Delaware have a special concern at the potential imposed death by starvation of one of our citizens, Lauren Richardson. We urge those who have influence over Lauren’s life, her guardian and the Delaware court system, to act on the basis of hope which comes from faith and reverence for human life, of which God is the author and finisher (Deuteronomy 32:39).

    Acknowledging the tragedy and difficulty of human suffering we ask our fellow citizens to consider the following:

    1. Euthanasia is an act of hopelessness. Human suffering
    humbles us as we see our inability to heal suffering despite our many medical
    advancements. But by imposing death on the ill and disabled, society is
    declaring that there is no purpose in suffering. This is contrary to the message
    of Scripture as seen in the lives of many people, most notably Job, and
    ultimately our Lord Jesus Christ.

    2. God has told us clearly that He is
    the author and finisher of our existence. Fear of God should prevent us from
    ever seeking to end our own life or the life of another prematurely, especially
    by depriving them of the sustenance that is essential to human existence.

    3. We express our concern that nutrition and hydration have been classified as
    medical treatment by many medical authorities and in the legal system. Food and
    water are now referred to in some legal documents as “life support”. This
    classification then becomes the basis for interpreting unguarded or uninformed
    comments from individuals about life support as an expressed declaration of
    their intent. The result is a deceptive vehicle by which many people are starved
    to death.

    4. We urge our citizens to reject the claim that euthanasia is a private act. Even if one’s wishes to have his life ended prematurely were documented (Lauren Richardson left no such written documentation), society must live its approval to euthanize, which it has not done. Euthanasia advocates demand that society validate the so called private decision and make provision for the practice of imposing death. By depicting euthanasia as a purely private act, euthanasia advocates hide the reality that if Lauren is starved to death, we will all share in the decision to do this to her.

    5. New Jersey recently ceased capital punishment calling death by injection “cruel and unusual punishment”. If imposing death by injection is cruel, how much more so death by starvation, which can be a two week process!

    6. Faith leads to hope. We readily acknowledge that suffering is tragic and painful, both for the one suffering and for their loved ones. But because God is real and active, the end of our life is not certain until He makes it so. Often doctors using their best judgment declare that there is no hope; often they are wrong. Faith believes
    that God can heal, and that if He doesn’t, He is with us and has a purpose for
    our suffering.

    7. Human suffering is ultimately a result of the fall by which our first parents Adam and Eve turned away from God and brought death (physical and spiritual) upon themselves and their offspring. Human suffering is a reminder of our need of the Savior Jesus Christ and the eternal life that comes through His atoning death and resurrection. We call our fellow citizens to acknowledge God’s prerogative in beginning and ending life.

    We encourage prayer to God in Jesus’ name on behalf of those who suffer.
    We call on the medical profession and government to turn from their irreverence for
    God demonstrated in the sinful act of starving and dehydrating the ill and
    disabled.
    We remind us all that because mankind bears God’s image our
    treatment of life is taken as our attitude toward God Himself (Genesis 9:6).
    Finally, we remind us that God sees our actions and will render to each one
    of us according to our deeds (Jeremiah 17:10

June 4, 2008

Now, I Have Some Questions

From West Palm Beach Florida:

Family's Fight Over Feeding Tube Reminiscent Of Schiavo Case
Husband, Mom At Odds Over Tube

A Florida woman put on a
feeding tube after she had a stroke is at the center of a court case similar to
the dispute over whether Terri Schiavo should be kept alive.

Karen
Weber's husband wants to have her feeding tube removed and have her transferred
to a hospital ward, where she would likely die. He claims that his 57-year-old
wife is in a vegetative state, but Weber's family is fighting to keep her alive,
arguing she's alert and responsive...

...A judge in Weber's case has
issued an injunction prohibiting the feeding tube's removal while a committee
determines the woman's competency. She does not have a living will and can not
talk.
Her husband, Raymond Weber, said he doesn't want this to become a
media event, but her mother, Martha Tatro, said she refuses to let her daughter
die.
Read complete story here.

Now, I have some questions. For one, is this woman alert and responsive or not? If so then she is not in a so-called 'vegetative state'. I understand that due to privacy laws, Mrs. Weber's doctors may not explain her condition to the media. But either she is or she isn't.

(I use the word 'so-called' because the terminology of vegetative state is ridiculous and undignified. An individual in such a state is not a plant in the corner being kept watered occasionally. He or she is someone who has lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retains noncognitive function and a preserved sleep-wake cycle. In other words, he or she is still a person, one with profound cognitive disabilities.)

Second question, since there many cases of misdiagnosis of and treatment for this state, such as the sleeping pill Zolpidem which can temporarily revive people in a so-called permanent vegetative state, or one similar, to the point where they can have conversations, have these treatments been attempted?

Thirdly, why is removing her feeding tube even an option. Mrs. Weber is alive, with brain function and breathing on her own. A feeding tube has technically legally been deemed life support lately, but unlike removing a breathing tube of someone with absolutely no brain activity who will instantly die when that breathing tube is removed because he or she is already dead, pulling out the feeding tube of Mrs. Weber is not 'letting her die'. It is refusing to feed a woman who needs help eating; it is willful neglect. It is death by neglect. It is murder.

Lastly, what difference does it make whether she is in a 'vegetative state' or not? What if Mrs. Weber never regains awareness of her surroundings or even of her very existence? What if she remains totally and completely dependent on others the rest of her life for every aspect of her life?

I wonder if a life like hers is testimony that a person's worth to us and to God is not at all dependent on abilities, but on simply the fact that she is a fellow human being. Now is our chance to show we believe that idea when we tell our children, "God loves you for who you are, not for what you can do" by protesting this woman's murder, caring for those most in need of caring around us, and caring for their families.

Some say that it would be undignified to 'allow' Mrs. Weber to remain alive in such an event. However, is it not more undignified to refer to her as a vegetable, rescind her status of personhood, and starve her to death?

June 2, 2008

Assisted Suicide Initiative Being Promoted in Washington State

From their website, "In Washington, the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide has formed to combat I-1000, the assisted suicide initiative that is being promoted for the 2008 ballot."
With the passing of this law assisted suicide would be legal in Washington State, allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to patients with terminal illnesses to kill themselves. This law would be modeled after Oregon's Law.

In the Netherlands, where assisted suicide and euthanasia have been practiced for the last 20 years, since both have become less of a rare occurance and more of a standard practive, improvements in pain management and palliative care have slown down. "Pressure for improved pallitive care seems to have evaporated," according to Herbert Hendin, M.D., a Director of Suicide Prevention International.

From the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide website, we see what a slippery slope the acceptance of assisted suicide is:

"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."


Research shows that, for one thousand people a year in the
Netherlands, physicians have ended their patients' lives without any request
from or consultation with the patients.

This would be our future. Go to the website and offer support now.

June 1, 2008

Please Continue to Pray

From Christian Examiner Online (emphasis mine):

California Assembly approves legislation promoting euthanasia of terminally ill patients
Christian Examiner staff report

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — An end-of-life bill that would require doctors
to tell their terminal patients about options to hasten their deaths, including
starving themselves, passed the Assembly May 28 and will be heard on the Senate
floor
.

According to an analysis by Concerned Women for America,
the bill undercuts established medical advances to ease dying for terminal
patients and, in some cases, would allow end-of-life medical care to be passed
on to less qualified health-care providers such as nurse practitioners and
physician assistants.

“While careful pain management and palliative care
at the end of a truly terminal illness are extremely important and support must
be given to dying patients and their families, this bill, as
written, is a step down a very slippery slope toward the assisted suicide bill
we fought in last year’s session
,” the CWA analysis reads.

Opponents of the bill say that it paves the way for a shift in pallative
care that goes beyond pain relief to unconscious dehydration and starvation
through the use of strong sedatives.

Further, they argue that the
one-year-left-to-live diagnosis is arbitrary and often wrong, and
requiring doctors to offer end-of-life options hits patients when they are most
vulnerable
. Some medical experts also believe that forcing doctors to
even discuss those issues constitutes endorsement of the practices.

Finally, opponents are concerned those without health
insurance and who are poor, might feel pressured into end-of-life decisions
because of burdensome financial legacies for their families
.

But
Patty Berg, a Santa Rosa Democrat, who sponsored the bill with Lloyd Levine,
D-Van Nuys, said the legislation is merely promoting “honest talk” about medical
options. Berg, who was unsuccessful in three previous attempts to legislate
physician-assisted suicide, decided this year to try a different approach.

Her latest bill is supported by Compassion and Choices, a
pro-euthanasia group that was formerly called the Hemlock Society
.

“Unlike my previous end-of-life bill, which was rejected and which I no
longer am pursuing, my new bill doesn’t give anyone any new options,” Berg wrote
in a May 15 opinion piece for Capitol Weekly. Everything that is illegal now—and
that most notably includes physician-aided dying—would remain illegal. AB 2747
changes none of that. Instead, it provides a precious commodity— information.

“Most people in the Capitol understand the difference. Some, however,
are still fighting last year’s battle and are trying to convince the gullible
that my new bill is a Trojan horse, designed somehow to legalize aid-in-dying.
That is simply not the case.”

But Marilyn Golden, a policy analyst at
the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, disagrees and in a May 22
rebuttal in Capitol Weekly.

“The real ‘honest talk’ about AB 2747 is
that it has very little to do with improving care,” Golden wrote. “For this
bill, the devil is really in the details. Close inspection reveals it to be a
vehicle for Compassion and Choices’ long-term agenda: facilitating assisted
suicide. Let’s not forget that this is the organization formerly
known as the Hemlock Society and one of the primary sponsors of this
legislation
. The bill includes many elements that would significantly
undermine end-of-life care in service of this goal.”

The Assembly vote
was 42-34. The bill will now be heard in the Senate Judiciary committee.For more
information on AB 2747, the end-of-life bill visit these links:
Assembly bill text and history
Concerned Women for America
California ProLife Council
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

Click
here to see- How
the Calif. assembly members voted on the end-of-life bill