There is a terrible proposal in Springfield being shopped around behind closed doors – a  bill to legalize assisted suicide in Illinois. Certain members of the Illinois General Assembly are trying to rush a measure through so that the Governor can sign it into law, but is this a good idea? What does the Bible say about such things?

There are a number of examples of suicide that are recorded in the Bible and they are all tragic and terrible. King Saul threw himself on his own sword in 1 Samuel 31 after the LORD declared that the Kingdom would be taken from him and given to David. King Zimri is another example. 1 Kings 16:18-19 tells us,

“When Zimri saw that the city was taken, he went into the citadel of the king’s house and burned the king’s house over him with fire, and died, because of his sins which he sinned, doing evil in the sight of the Lord, walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, making Israel sin.”

And who can forget the most famous account of suicide in the Bible, when Judas after his betrayal of Christ went and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5).

In these, and other accounts, the Bible makes it very clear that suicide is sin. Life is precious, and life has sanctity because God is the Author of it. Our own lives are not ours to take whenever we wish. They belong to God, and God determines when life begins and ends, not us. Listen to the words of Deuteronomy 32:39,

“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My Hand.”

And again in 1 Samuel 2:6,

“The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up.”

Do you see that? GOD ALONE has authority over life and death. GOD ALONE is able to take life and give life. He is the Author of Life!

Scripture does not give us license to take our own lives. Suicide is self-murder, and murder is always wrong. Those who say that people should have the right to go to a physician to assist them in killing themselves are engaging in foolish talk. It is the sort of talk that Job’s wife took part in after Job lost his wealth, his children, and his health.

^“Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!” But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” (Job 2:9-10).

Job’s attitude was righteous, but his wife’s was foolish and evil.

And this foolishness will only increase if legislation allowing physician assisted suicide passes in our state. It will be presented as a “mercy” for terminally ill people, but inevitably it will snowball into “compassionate suicide” for people with all sorts of various maladies like chronic arthritis and depression as it has in European nations, and eventually it may even culminate in forced euthanasia. What a disaster such legislation would be for Illinois.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your local state senator and state representative today and tell them you are against any bill that allows assisted suicide in our state!

And friend, for anyone who is considering suicide, I want to share with you a story from the Bible about a man who was just like you, but he found hope in Christ. If there was hope for this man, there is hope for you too. No matter what sort of trial is happening in your life, there is always hope in Jesus.

^“But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened. When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 

But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” (Acts 16:25-34).

Psychiatrists Call for Assisted Suicide for Patients with Anorexia Terminal illness is a difficult subject for most people to approach. No one wants to think of themselves or their loved ones suffering from a debilitating illness. Patients with these diagnoses worry about the pain and decreasing levels of independence and hope to limit the suffering they and their families may experience. However, some politicians and physicians believe that assisted suicide is a solution to end the suffering of these terminal patients. After years of debate, several states have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Now, members of the medical community would like to extend the definition of terminal illness to include several mental illnesses, including anorexia nervosa.

Physician-assisted suicide is currently legal in nine states: California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Additionally, there are legal precedents that could allow for assisted suicide in the states of Montana and New Mexico. These states have experienced a devastating increase in suicide levels as a result. The ending of these people’s lives is tragic, but even more appalling is that some would want the mentally ill to qualify for physician-assisted suicide.

The Journal of Eating Disorders, a peer-reviewed journal for those who treat and research eating disorders, recently published an article calling for states to allow psychiatrists to assist patients with severe forms of anorexia nervosa to end their lives. Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder that is a treatable mental illness and is not considered terminal. Typical treatment for the condition includes therapy, anti-anxiety, anti-depression medications, and sometimes hospitalization to assist with various psychological and physical needs. It is a difficult disorder to overcome, but certainly not impossible.

Depression is linked to anorexia, so the patient might not even be mentally stable enough to make such a consequential decision. Psychiatrists should be trusted professionals that individuals seek to help them navigate various mental illnesses and traumas. Physicians assisting patients in ending their lives is a breach of medical ethics to “do no harm.” Psychiatrists lose their credibility by willingly allowing and even assisting patients they know are suffering from depression and perhaps other mental ailments to commit suicide.

America is no longer on the slippery slope of a declining society. Instead, we are falling into the abyss of depravity as we find new ways to kill the innocent and the infirm. Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1998. Since then, only 3.3 percent of the victims have received referrals to see a psychiatrist first. That is an alarming statistic in and of itself. Now suppose psychiatrists are allowed to define mental illness as terminal.

There would be no possibility of preventing suicide of depressed individuals that may otherwise have the chance of recovering with the proper treatment.

The saddest aspect of this call for physician-assisted suicide for patients with anorexia nervosa is that many of those patients are women and girls, especially teenagers. Approximately 15 percent of all teenage girls have an eating disorder. Approximately 5 million Americans have suffered from an eating disorder. If we allow physician-assisted suicide for eating disorders, it would not take much for it to become a genocide against the mentally ill.

Life is too valuable to allow physicians and politicians to determine when the end of life should occur. The medical community should support both the terminally ill and the mentally ill in fighting for their lives and value life at every stage.

I Peter 4:12-16 tells us:

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

By allowing the medical world to end the lives of the suffering, they become meddlers and murderers who stop the unique blessing that can come from suffering. How many mentally ill individuals come to salvation due to seeking God out of desperation? If they are allowed to die by suicide, they may never have the chance to become desperate for the saving grace of the Almighty. The spiritual destruction that assisted suicide laws create is the biggest tragedy of all.

Take ACTION: If you oppose physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill or the mentally ill, please contact your representatives and ask that they dedicate themselves to resist any attempts of creating legislation that would support the industry of physician-assisted suicide.

An April, 2019 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association titled “Attitudes Toward Physician-Assisted Death From Individuals Who Learn They Have an Alzheimer Disease Biomarker” found that  approximately 20% of cognitively normal older adults who had elevated beta-amyloid — a biomarker that is thought to increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease — said they would consider physician-assisted suicide if they experienced a cognitive decline. Not everyone with amyloid plaques goes on to develop Alzheimer’s disease.

Although no state with legalized physician-assisted suicide currently allows lethal overdoses for people with Alzheimer’s or other dementia, Emily Largent, JD, PhD, RN (one of the authors of the  study) said that:

“Our research helps gauge interest in aid-in-dying among a population at risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease dementia and grappling with what they want the end of life to look like”

And

“Public support for aid-in-dying is growing…Now, we are seeing debates about whether to expand access to aid-in-dying to new populations who aren’t eligible under current laws. That includes people with neuro-degenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease.”

CHOOSING DEATH

As the U.S. birth rate declines to a 32-year low  while people are living longer, now there are more people older than 65 than younger than 5. This has major economic and cultural implications, especially with diseases such Alzheimer’s that usually affect older people.

Back in 2012, I wrote about a Nursing Economic$ Summit “How Can We Afford to Die?” that had an 8 point action plan. One of the points discussed the importance of getting everyone over the age of 18 to sign “living wills” and other advance directions that also included the caveat: “if many patients have advance directives that make positive, cost-conscious systemic change impossible, most of the other efforts discussed as part of our  action plan will go for naught”. (Emphasis added).

It should not be a surprise that the latest Oregon physician-assisted suicide report shows that 79.2% of those people dying by assisted suicide were age 65 or older and most reported concerns such as “loss of autonomy” and “burden on family, friends/caregivers”.

With Alzheimer’s disease routinely portrayed as the worst case scenario at the end of life for a person (and their family), there are now programs to “help” people plan their own end of life care.

Such programs include Death Cafes where “people drink tea, eat cake and discuss death” and the Conversation Project that is “dedicated to helping people talk about their wishes for end-of-life care.” The Conversation Project was co-founded by journalist Ellen Goodman after years of caring for her mother, who had Alzheimer’s.

Compassion and Choices (the former Hemlock Society) is the largest and best funded organization working for decades to change laws and attitudes about assisted suicide and other deliberate death options. Compassion and Choices now has a contract rider for people in assisted living facilities that:

 “will respect Resident’s end-of-life choices and will not delay, interfere with nor impede any lawful option of treatment or nontreatment freely chosen by Resident or Resident’s authorized healthcare proxy or similar representative, including any of the following end-of-life options” which include:

“Forgoing or directing the withdrawal of life-prolonging treatments

Aggressive pain and/or symptom management, including palliative sedation,

Voluntary refusal of food and fluids with palliative care if needed

Any other option not specifically prohibited by the law of the state in which Facility is located.” (Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION

I have both a professional and personal interest in Alzheimer’s disease.

Having taken care of a mother with Alzheimer’s until her death, I treasure many of the moments I had with her. It is possible to both begin the eventual mourning and still appreciate the special moments that indeed do come. My mom was a very high-strung woman who constantly worried about everything. The Alzheimer’s calmed her down somewhat and especially blunted her anxiety about the presence of a tracheotomy for her thyroid cancer.

One of my favorite memories is sitting on a couch with my mom on one side and my then 2 year-old daughter on the other. Sesame Street was on and I noticed that both Mom and my daughter had exactly the same expression of delight while watching the show. A friend thought that was sad but I found it both sweet and profound that their mental capacities had intersected: One in decline, one in ascension. Perception is everything.

Also, I often took care of Alzheimer’s patients as a nurse and I enjoyed these patients while most of my colleagues just groaned. Even though such patients can be difficult at times, I found that there is usually a funny, sweet person in there who must be cared for with patience and sensitivity. I found taking care of people with Alzheimer’s very rewarding.

And although I might be at a higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease myself because of my mother, I won’t be taking a test for biomarkers to try to predict the future.

Instead, I will spend my time living the best life I can and hopefully helping others. I believe that life is too  precious to spend time worrying about things that might happen.

This article was originally published at NancyValko.com.

As I have written before, I was almost fired for refusing to increase a morphine drip “until he stops breathing” on a patient who continued to breathe after his ventilator was removed. The doctors mistakenly presumed he had a massive stroke and thus was irreparably brain-damaged. I was told at that time that giving and increasing the morphine even though the patient showed no discomfort was merely “comfort care” that would “prevent pain.” I knew it was euthanasia.

I remembered this terrible incident when I read the April 1, 2019 Federalist magazine article “This Belgian Nurse Watched Euthanasia Turn Pain Management Into A Death Prescription”

Belgium has had legalized euthanasia for many years, including organ donation euthanasia and now even minors and psychiatric patients. But Sophie Druenne, a palliative care nurse, reached her breaking point when she had to call a doctor back to give another lethal injection when the patient didn’t die from the first injection. Sophie caught herself laughing at the absurdity of the situation at first but then realized the horror of the situation and began to question Belgium’s so-called social experiment with euthanasia.

What changed Sophie’s opinion was working in Belgium’s integrated palliative care (IPC) system. Palliative care is “medical aid that treats symptoms of a typically serious disease rather than the disease itself, which sometimes cannot be treated or not easily.” However Belgium’s euthanasia framework now includes integrated palliative care in the framework.

As the article states, palliative care used to be defined by the anti-euthanasia beliefs of its founder, Dame Cicely Saunders, a British nurse who developed holistic care for the dying in the 1940s. Dame Saunders believed that “that a patient’s request for euthanasia represented a failure to adequately care for the patient’s spiritual, emotional, and social needs.”

Although Belgium tried to reconcile Dame Cicely Saunders’ standard with its euthanasia laws, Sophie observed that the guiding intention to relieve suffering changed from “first, do no harm” to “first, relieve suffering.” This allowed euthanasia to become an “easy” solution that could effectively nullify even patient consent.

Sophie finally left Belgium to take a position in Paris at a hospital where terminally ill patients are treated with traditional palliative care

THE SITUATION IN THE US

Recently I was giving a talk on assisted suicide/euthanasia when I noticed that a woman in the audience was visibly upset. After I finished, I went over to her to ask if I said something that upset her. She responded that she was a nurse for 30 years and, when I related the story about the morphine overdose I refused to give, she said that she suddenly realized the truth of what was happening in her hospital. She started to cry while I held her hand. She was devastated just like the Belgian nurse.

Palliative care is a wonderful holistic approach to evaluating the patient’s needs beyond just the physical but it must not include causing death.

Unfortunately, a recent Delaware assisted suicide bill  actually tried to define assisted suicide as a palliative care option.

Currently, hospice/palliative care is held up as a good way to combat assisted suicide. However,  Compassion and Choices touts  that “(a) growing number of national and state medical organizations have endorsed or adopted a neutral position regarding medical aid in dying (physician-assisted suicide) as an end-of-life option for mentally capable, terminally ill adults.”

Barbara Coombs Lee, CEO of Compassion and Choices even issued a 2017 “Call to the Palliative Care Community for a Patient-Centered Response to Medical Aid in Dying (aka physician-assisted suicide)” stating that assisted suicide actually “could improve the image and acceptance of palliative care” by taking a position of  “engaged neutrality” that “indicates that it is a professional organization’s obligation to provide its members with the clinical guidelines, information, and tools they need if they choose to support their patients’ requests” for assisted suicide.” (Emphasis added)

Not surprisingly, Compassion and Choices had supported the 2016  “The Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act” (reintroduced this year as H.R. 647) that would provide millions of dollars in grants or contracts to “increase the number of permanent faculty in palliative care at accredited allopathic and osteopathic medical schools, nursing schools, social work schools, and other programs, including physician assistant education programs, to promote education and research in palliative care and hospice, and to support the development of faculty careers in academic palliative medicine.” (Emphasis added)

Fortunately, a provision was added to forbid federal assistance to any health care item or service causing or assisting death such as assisted suicide. Since then, the Compassion and Choices website has been silent on the Act.

CONCLUSION

Over the years, the public has been told that assisted suicide is a humane answer to emotional and physical suffering at the end of life. But if doctors, nurses and their professional organizations come to agree with this, we all will lose the protection of truly ethical healthcare that rejects causing death as a solution. We must be able to trust that our healthcare system will  give us the care we need and deserve, especially at the end of our lives.

We cannot become like Belgium.

This article was originally published at NancyValko.com.

Written by Peter Rosenberger

The church has all too often let the world hijack social issues.  Now valuing life for the chronically and terminally ill—and their caregivers—stands on the precipice. Paraphrasing Keith Green, the world is dying in the dark “…that the church just can’t fight, ’cause it’s asleep in the light!”

While the debate continues as more states adopt paths for medically assisted deaths, family caregivers remain virtually omitted from the conversation and care. The lid of this Pandora’s Box is opening wider as Christians flounder in sharing a biblically founded position.  History shows when governments draw and then move this line about the value of life, then it can cause genocide (Germany) and infanticide (abortion).  Quality of life and suffering remain subjective.  Death, however, is not.

Starting January 1, 2019, Our Care, Our Choice Act in Hawaii went into effect for “medically assisted death” (see here or here).

For those wanting to end their lives due to extreme sickness, disability, and/or suffering, the act requires two witnesses attesting to the patient’s desire for death and two doctors agreeing the patient has six months or fewer to live. Furthermore, while mental-health evaluations are normally prescribed for those who unsuccessfully attempt to end their life, this legislation also requires such an evaluation to successfully end one’s life—effectively eliminating those suffering from dementia or other mental incapacitation.

While some term this act “physician-assisted suicide,” physicians are not necessarily administering the lethal drugs. Others call it “State Sanctioned Suicide” inferring the state is codifying the act.  Legally, however, it is not deemed suicide—if performed according to the act’s procedural outline. Regardless of the name, the outcome remains the same.

Shifting boundaries

Bluntly speaking, for those weighing suicide as an option, the sole impediment is an innate moral boundary shifted only by impairment, disease or societal manipulation. With an increasing number of similar legislative actions making their way through state assemblies, it appears that more elected officials wish to alter that boundary.

The move to legislate this act raises significant questions and concerns. For instance, the act states the fatal dose of prescriptions is to be self-administered. If physically unable to administer the dosage of drugs for themselves, should a friend or family caregiver help perform the act?  Does performing this act result in legal consequences for the caregiver or the loss of life-insurance benefits?

Additionally, once a “qualified patient” decides to take their own life, they are to be counseled by their doctor to avoid ending their life alone or in a public place. So, who gets to be present? Again, the attending caregiver, not the attending doctor, seems the most likely choice.

Instructions remain unclear regarding the well being of the caregiver left to deal with the emotional consequences of helping end the life of another human being.  Although the law requires a mental health evaluation for the patient, it omits the same requirement for those caring for the patient.

Should the patient complete this act, a caregiver remains to live with the guilt, sorrow, anger, resentment and other feelings that often come in conflicting waves. While family caregivers may not possess a legal voice on this issue, they certainly can claim a stake in the process—as well as the consequences.

Other questions arise.  While discussing medically assisted death is often framed with compassion,is it not also compassionate to encourage suffering loved ones and remind them of their lives’ importance? Is life only valuable if pain-free and if death remains further out than six months? The line of “six months” itself opens the door to more difficult questions.  Why six and not five—or seven, or twelve? One can’t help but think that if government assemblies can draw a line regarding life expectancies and quality of life, then those same governments can also adjust that line.

Again, quality of life and suffering remain subjective.  Death, however, is not.

Words of encouragement to caregivers

During times of suffering, a caregiver’s is the primary voice heard by someone suffering. A caregiver’s words and attitude can compound feelings of despair or inspire and strengthen. Emotionally unhealthy caregivers struggle to offer strength and encouragement. Yet, healthier caregivers can speak words of life and value to suffering loved ones—even those facing a difficult death looming on the horizon.

As a caregiver for a wife with severe disabilities and in chronic pain for more than thirty years, I understand the heartache in watching someone in agony. Serving as a bystander to relentless suffering can leave one distraught, exhausted and disoriented. It’s difficult to understand the right path in such conditions. Yet those times are not without great meaning and even joy—even in grim circumstances.  We may never feel better about the harsh things we experience or observe. Yet feeling better seems a shallow pursuit. Would not being better serve as a worthier goal?

Granting legal permission for suffering patients to end their lives may offer a path toward what some call “dying with dignity.” In doing so, we possibly deprive those who suffer, as well as those who care for them, the opportunity to embrace such challenges, while still living with dignity.

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue…” Proverbs 18:21

Editor’s Note:  If you need or want additional information related to suffering, please visit here for a recommended resource.  Also, this author does a show called “Hope for the Caregiver” and often takes questions on Saturday from 7-8 a.m. CST during the show.  Call 1-888-589-8840 during that time.  Or find American Family Radio stations with his program here to listen.

This article was originally published on AFA.net

Come join in a thoughtful mealtime discussion as we return to the original idea of a symposium – a philosophical banquet – and share with physicians, nurses, and other healthcare leaders on what inspires them to improve the human environment surrounding their practice.

Featuring: Rita Marker, founder and executive director to The Patients Rights Council

Panelists:

Rebecca Davis Mathias, Ph.D., Ethicist at St. Anthony Hospital in Chicago, Consulting Ethicist for the Franciscan Sisters of Chicago Service Corporation, Adjunct Professor of Bioethics at Dominican University in River Forest, and Board Member for the Integritas Institute.

Mark Grzeskowiak, MD

Sean O’Mahony, PhD

Opening Remarks:

Most Rev. Joseph N. Perry, JCL, DD, Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago and Convenor of the Integritas Institute Advisory Boards.

Welcome:

Rev. Connor Danstrom, Chaplain, St. John Paul II Newman Center

Emcee:

Mary Keen, MD

Check In and Social: 5:00pm

Dinner and Formal Program: 5:30pm (Buffet style dinner)

An article in the May, 2018 issue of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society titled “Rational Suicide in Elderly Adults: A Clinician’s Perspective”  by Meera Balasubramaniam, MD, MPH  recently appeared in both medical and nursing news sources.

Dr. Balasubramaniam begins with a case study of  “Mr. A” who at age 72 is considered a “baby boomer”, along with a whole section on the “baby boomer” generation-those born between 1946 and 1964 (ages 54-72).

Mr. A was a retired widower who had recently undergone successful cancer surgery and used a walker. He had no terminal illness but  he told a nurse that he always entertained the idea of ending his life “while I’m still doing well” and that if his health showed signs of failing or became too arduous, he would consider suicide. He stated “I’ve lived a good life. I’ll see how it goes, but it’s better to die well in my early 70s than have a life in which I have to be anxious before every doctor’s visit or have repeated surgery or end up in a nursing home.” (Emphasis added) A psychiatric consult showed no mental health problem.

Dr. Balasubramaniam says she wrote this article to “explore whether ethical arguments in favor of physician–assisted suicide apply to elderly adults who are tired of living but are not terminally ill”. (Emphasis added)

While claiming to not take a view on “whether suicide in non–terminally ill elderly adults can be rational,”  Dr. Balasubramaniam states that “It is important to consider the possibility that the combination of negative perceptions toward aging and dependency, greater social isolation, increasing access to drugs, greater need for autonomy, and an overall generational familiarity with suicide may be accounting for a higher proportion of older adults like Mr. A expressing the wish to end their lives on their own terms”. (Emphasis added)

It may seem incredible to even consider “tired of life” and older age as a “rational” reason for medically assisted suicide. However, Holland and Switzerland already allow it and the article itself cites the UK group “My Death My Decision” (formerly SOARS, The Society for Old Age Rational Suicide) that supports the idea that mentally competent older adults should have the right to assisted suicide rather than face an uncertain life that may be “fraught with frailty and dependence”.

As a Baby Boomer myself, we baby boomers were among the first teenagers exposed to a growing societal acceptance of new concepts like divorce , “free love” with the help of the birth control pill and legalized abortion, the “population bomb” predicting global cataclysm if people didn’t stop reproducing, the use of illegal drugs like marijuana and LSD for recreation, the rejection of religious principles and the slogan “don’t trust anyone over 30”.

So perhaps it should not be puzzling that people over 55 comprised the majority of people dying by physician-assisted suicide in the latest Oregon report since we saw so many of the traditional civil and moral moorings in society pulling loose when we were at an especially vulnerable age.

As one sage said, “Old age ain’t for sissies!” But, of course, this is not a “rational” excuse for legalizing assisted suicide for anyone-of any age.

Still, our older citizens are an especially high risk group for elder abuse, household accidents, money scams, social isolation, age-related medical bias and poor or even dangerous nursing home care.

Having friends, family and a meaningful purpose in life becomes harder when older people see their loved ones die or move far away and physical or mental limitations develop in themselves. Many older people fear losing their independence as well as being a “burden” on others.

Medically assisted suicide is not the answer but what else can we do to help?

We can start with our own family members, friends and neighbors. Like all of us, older people need to feel loved and appreciated. Look for ways to assist an older person that he or she might not have considered or be too embarrassed to ask about.

When I was a young wife and mother, our church parish started a Good Samaritan program to identify and help people with special needs of any age. It was a great success and our parish became more inclusive and accessible to everyone, especially the elderly. That was a benefit to all of us.

Other programs such as visiting one person for one hour each week in a local nursing home have helped some parishes to combat the sad reality I have seen that few people in nursing get  visitors, especially people with dementia.

Many of us naturally feel uncomfortable about going to nursing homes, but such places are usually thrilled to have volunteers and most have training programs.

Personally, my first volunteer activity was as a young teenager in a nursing home and it changed my perception of “old people” and life itself. I was amazed by the wisdom and stories the residents told as well as how much they appreciated anything I did. It was a great experience for a shy, gawky teen like myself.

Many years later, I took my young children to visit their grandmother in a nursing home after telling them what to expect in terms of sights, smells and sounds. Afterwards, my youngest daughter asked why everyone wanted to touch her leg while I held her. When I explained that the residents rarely saw a 2 year old and were so glad to see her, she grinned and said “OK!”.  She understood even at that young age.

In a society that seems to constantly celebrate youth and health, we need to make sure that our elderly also feel valued and supported.

And we might just save a life!

This article originally posted at NancyValko.com

With the American Medical Association considering changing its’ long-standing opposition to physician-assisted suicide despite the recommendations of its’ ethics committee and the California assisted suicide law declared unconstitutional now reinstated pending appeal, assisted suicide/euthanasia groups like Compassion and Choices (the well-funded former Hemlock Society) are ramping up efforts nationwide to legalize assisted suicide.

Along with major media outlets overwhelmingly supporting their efforts and a recent Gallup poll showing  that the “Majority of Americans (73%) Remain Supportive of Euthanasia”, how do we fight against this and educate the public?

One excellent answer can be found in the recently released 80 minute film “Fatal Flaws”.

“Fatal Flaws” features filmmaker Kevin Dunn who spent three years traveling throughout Europe and North American asking the question “should we be giving doctors the right in law to end the life of others by euthanasia or assisted suicide?”

In the film, Mr. Dunn respectfully interviews people and experts on both sides of the issues and the candid testimonies are powerful and moving. I have viewed the film myself and I believe that showings of this film to senior citizen groups, pro-life groups, churches and clergy, medical professionals, etc. would go a long way in educating the public, many of whom are supportive  or unsure of where they stand.

The film was produced in association with The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. For information on purchasing the  “Fatal Flaws” film and/or the accompanying pamphlets, please go the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition “Fatal Flaws” site.

There will be a preview viewing of the film at the National Right to Life Convention June 29, 2018. Watch the trailer here:

On a personal note: I am speaking at the NRL convention myself on the Alfie Evans’ case June 30, 2018 and I would love to meet those of you attending the convention.

This article was originally published at NancyBalko.com

As a nurse threatened with termination for refusing to participate in an unethical health care decision years ago, I have a special interest in conscience rights for health care professionals.

Over the past several decades, new threats to conscience rights have widened from refusing to participate in abortions to other deliberate death decisions like withdrawal of feedings from people with serious brain injuries, VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking), terminal sedation and physician-assisted suicide.

Thus, I am pleased that the Trump administration recently announced the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division  in the department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce “federal laws that protect conscience and the free exercise of religion and prohibit coercion and discrimination in health and human services”. The division specifically mentions “issues such as abortion and assisted suicide (among others) in HHS-funded or conducted programs and activities” and includes a link to file a conscience or religious freedom complaint “if you feel a health care provider or government agency coerced or discriminated against you (or someone else) unlawfully”.

Predictably, both Compassion and Choices and Planned Parenthood immediately condemned the new department.

In a recent fundraising email, Compassion and Choices states that:

 “This office (OCR) is not about freedom; it’s about denying patient autonomy. Under their proposed rules, providers are encouraged to impose their own religious beliefs on their patients and withhold vital information about treatment options from their patients — up to, and including, the option of medical aid in dying. And your federal tax dollars will be used to protect physicians who make the unconscionable decision to willfully withhold crucial information regarding their care from a patient and abandon them when they are most vulnerable.” (Emphasis added)

Planned Parenthood is just as adamant and includes other issues in their reaction:

“OCR is an important office within the HHS that’s meant to protect health care for marginalized communities, including LGBTQ people and underserved women. But the creation of the new “Conscience and Religious Freedom Division” paves the way for discrimination against people for a variety of reasons — be it their gender identity, sexual orientation, or decision to access a safe, legal abortion.” (Emphasis in original)

A SHORT RECENT HISTORY OF FEDERAL CONSCIENCE RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

In response to declining numbers of doctors willing to do abortions in the 1990s, efforts began to mainstream abortion into the health professions such as requiring abortion training for OB/GYNs, shifting training and practice into teaching hospitals and  integrating abortion into regular health care.

The National Abortion Federation along with Medical Students for Choice, pushed for change and in 1995, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education ruled that OB/GYN residency programs must include abortion training or lose accreditation.

That was overturned the next year with the Coats Amendment passed by Congress but  efforts to marginalize pro-life medical professionals continued, especially with newly passed physician-assisted suicide laws and well-publicized withdrawal of feeding tube cases like Terri Schiavo’s.

In 2008, the Christian Medical Association compiled a list of dozens of real-life cases of discrimination in health care, including doctors, medical students, nurses and pharmacists.

That same year, President Bush strengthened the HHS rules protecting the conscience rights of doctors and nurses to refuse to perform abortions.

In 2011, the Obama administration dismantled key provisions of the Bush administration conscience rights rules.

That same year, 12 New Jersey nurses faced firing for refusal to participate in abortion and had to rely on groups like Alliance Defending Freedom to bring a  lawsuit defending their rights. They were finally vindicated in 2013.

Right now, Wisconsin is considering a physician-assisted suicide bill that states a doctor’s refusal to prescribe the lethal drugs or refer the patient to a willing doctor “constitutes unprofessional conduct”.

Obviously, conscience rights cannot depend just on litigation, conflicting state laws or professional organization positions like the American Medical Association’s  or American Nurses Association’s that don’t vigorously defend conscience rights.

As explained on the Dorsey Health Care group website ,

“In January 2018, OCR announced a proposed rule to strengthen conscience-based protections for individuals and entities with objections to certain activities based on religious belief and moral convictions.”

“OCR now proposes to return much of 45 CFR part 88 to its 2008 Bush-era form, adding a requirement that certain recipients of HHS funds certify they comply with conscience protection laws and notify individuals of their rights thereunder”, enhance investigative and enforcement abilities and expands its enforcement authority to more conscience-protection laws than the 2008 or 2011 iterations. It will also “handle complaints [both formal and not], perform compliance reviews, investigate, and seek appropriate action,” including terminating funding and requiring repayment. OCR states “that a more centralized approach to enforcement of conscience protections is necessary in part due to rapidly rising complaints.” (Emphasis added) Comments on this proposed rule can be submitted by March 27, 2018.

CONCLUSION

Health care professionals with pro-life views have been under attack for decades. It’s more than just not being “politically correct”; the very existence of such health care professionals threatens the appropriation of health care by groups dedicated to promoting abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia as civil rights.

Without strong conscience rights protections like a successful Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, they will succeed in making health care termination-friendly.

But in the end, enforcement of the most basic civil right of health care professionals to provide care for patients without being required to participate in life-destroying  activities should not be determined by politics or popularity polls but by the acceptance of the universal principle of respect and protection for human life.

This article was originally published at NancyValko.com

Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser  quietly signed an assisted suicide bill into law on December 19, 2016 after a majority of the city council voted for it.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress has exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia. Congress has just 30 legislative days to review a law of the District of Columbia once it is passed by the city government. Resolutions of disapproval must be passed by both houses and be signed by the president to block a D.C. law.

In a race against time, the first step  to block the assisted suicide law was taken January 12, 2017 by U.S. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) who introduced introducing a resolution in the U.S. Senate that opposes D.C.’s  “Death With Dignity Act”.

A companion resolution was introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) also said that he would push to block the law.

COMPASSION AND CHOICES HAS ALREADY STARTED A LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN TO LEGALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

In a message to assisted suicide supporters, Compassion and Choices claims that “more than 2400 supporters” have “sent more than 7,000 messages to members of Congress”.  The organization also emphasizes “the importance of including your personal testimony” as “often the most effective way to change the minds of lawmakers”.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to urge your U.S. Representative to reject this assisted suicide legislation.

Background

While many legislators (as well as the public) are persuaded by the “safeguards” to support assisted suicide laws, the Washington D.C. bill has many of the same problems with “safeguards” that other assisted suicide bills have. (For example, see my blogs “The slippery Slope-Tactics in the Assisted Suicide Movement” and “Pain and ‘Choice’“.)

In the D.C. assisted suicide law, such problems include:

1.The extraordinary immunity protections against civil, criminal liability or professional  disciplinary actions for doctors who participate in “good faith compliance” with the law.

2. Protection from life or annuity insurance problems due to suicide (“Neither may a qualified patient’s at of ingesting a covered medication have an effect upon a life, health, accident, insurance, or annuity policy”)

3. Minimal reporting requirements and secrecy in public records (“The Department will generate and make available to the public an annual statistical record of information collected”) Emphasis added.

4. Require mental health evaluation only for the purpose of determining if the person is mentally capable to make the decision to end his or her life. (“‘Counseling’ means one or more consultations as necessary between a state licensed psychiatrist or psychologist  and a patient for the purpose of determining that the patient is capable and not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment.”)

CONCLUSION

There are many reasons to oppose legalizing assisted suicide including risk for elder abuse, discrimination against people with disabilities and/or terminal or chronic conditions, the destruction of the most basic rule of medical ethics to not kill patients or help them kill themselves, suicide contagion, etc.

Assisted suicide, legalized and approved by society, is a manifestation of despair and abandonment-not empowerment. We cannot afford to be bystanders while others like Compassion and Choices continue to demand that we all accept legalized assisted suicide as a constitutional and civil right.

This article was originally posted at NancyValko.com