A virus is spreading throughout the world. It affects the comprehension and common sense portion of the brain and leaves its victims dumbed-down and easily herded by the propaganda masters and their political cult. Carrie’s Take strives to provide an antidote to the mind-control and hopefully will stir up memories of long ago when our society demanded truth & honesty in journalism and expected it to be the guardian of facts, rather than PR mouth pieces for self-serving politicians and their personal agendas. ~Carrie K. Hutchens
Ferguson, Missouri unrest is an “in-your-face” example of a wrong getting wronger and wronger as time goes on. It shows where living in the past, causes dying and destruction in the present. If in doubt, think of Michael Brown, Officer Darren Wilson, the looting and the threat of rioting and bloodshed if the officer isn’t arrested and convicted regardless of whether he is or is not actually guilty of anything beyond being white.
It’s beyond sad that slavery ever took place, but it isn’t a situation unique to the Blacks of the 19th and 20th century. Slavery has been experienced by many other peoples at various other times throughout history. (White women and children were considered property of fathers and husbands in early America, too.) Why then should it be a free pass (according to some) for present day Blacks to do whatever and demand whatever or scream injustice and racism without proof in any given situation? It shouldn’t be. It serves no good purpose. It serves no one, but the activists and politicians that profit from keeping the “victim” mentality alive and active, while continually stirring up the hate.
Blacks, according to the activist-minded, supposedly have no future because no one will let them out of the realm of poverty and violence? Who is no one? Who teaches and encourages the sense of hopelessness and helplessness? Who teaches the Black child he or she is “entitled” because of the wrongs of the past? Who teaches that the Black child should take whatever, because the white man will never let him or her succeed? Who tries to keep the Black voter in line and tells him or her who to vote for? Who teaches that everything that happens is because of racism on the part of a white person? Who teaches to hate the people called “white”, simply because they are Caucasian? Who teaches the child they are neither responsible, nor accountable… because whatever happens… it happens because of what the white man once did?
I’m sorry, I have no sense of “white” guilt. I wasn’t involved in any of the wrongs done unto the Black community ever. However, I have been done wrong and targeted to be attacked and even targeted to be killed at the hands of some Blacks. I don’t blame all Blacks for the actions of some. I blame the people responsible. What a concept. Blame those who did the deed, not those who simply look like the deed do’ers. Maybe it should be a lesson quickly learned by others, especially, but not solely, those in present day Ferguson.
Blacks have no chance, because the white man will hold him down and not let him succeed? Perhaps those who believe that account of possibilities ought to go talk to Dr. Ben Carson. Tell him that’s how life is and must be and will always be. Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t agree. He is, after all, a shining example that proves there is a way out of the victim-hood. A way out and a way to a successful end.
It doesn’t matter how the Black man and woman have been wronged in the past. It doesn’t even matter how Blacks have been wronged by the Ferguson police force in particular. (That’s another story to be dealt with on its own.) Right now, what matters… all that matters… is what took place on August 9th between Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson. Those events and the “facts” … “actual facts”… involved, are all that should be considered — not the declaration of automatic guilt because the officer happens to be white and the young man happens to be Black. Justice — true justice — should be color blind from all sides involved.
How would the Ferguson community react if the officer was Black and the young man was white and riots were threatened, unless the Black officer was immediately, without an investigation completed, charged, arrested and convicted because whites said so? It would be a different story then, wouldn’t it?
Rather than let the Al Sharptons of the world stoke the fires meant to invoke emotions of raging hatred and burning revenge with unproven claims of racism, perhaps the community should ignore him and the likes of he and dwell on the actual… real… wrongs and what can be done to correct them.
Rather than threaten bloodshed and riots, if a police officer isn’t indicted — perhaps the community should be waiting on the facts to be established and then let those facts determine the outcome.
Rather than call for justice, with that so-called justice already determined to be the indictment of a police officer, though the investigation remained (and remains) incomplete, perhaps people should actually be seeking the truth and actual justice. Yes, truth and “actual” justice based upon the “actual” facts, rather than revenge for the wrongs real or perceived from the past or other events involving other people.
It doesn’t matter how any officer from the Ferguson police department has ever acted towards anyone or everyone. What matters… all that matters… in this particular case, is what transpired between one young man — Michael Brown, and Officer Darren Wilson on that fateful day in August. After all, Officer Wilson is not, and has never been, responsible for the actions of all others. Any attempt to hold him accountable for the wrongs of others, or the wrongs of the past, does not call for, or offer the hope of, justice or solutions to evolve. It only calls for injustice to continue and wrongs to fester. It keeps people living in the past wrongs with hate that leads to dying in the present. Is it really worth it? Or is it time to seek justice because what is “actual justice” can lead to healing and getting the real wrongs righted? What a concept!
Do assisted suicide supporters really expect doctors and nurses to be able to assist the suicide of one patient, then go on to care for a similar patient who wants to live, without this having an effect on their ethics or their empathy? Do they realize that this reduces the second patient’s will to live to a mere personal whim—one that society may ultimately see as selfish and too costly?
Right now, twenty-nine-year-old Brittany Maynard is standing on a virtual window ledge, while the crowd below shouts its support for her “right” to jump. She says November 1 will probably be the day she kills herself.
Brittany is a beautiful young newlywed. Tragically, Brittany has a brain tumor that is expected to end her life in the near future. She and her family have moved to Oregon so she can legally take a doctor-prescribed lethal overdose, to avoid the suffering she expects as she approaches death.
Maynard has also joined with “Compassion and Choices” to promote their campaign to legalize physician-assisted suicide throughout the United States. In the last few weeks, C&C’s video telling her story has gone viral and been picked up by news organizations all over the world, including People magazine.
Groups supporting physician-assisted suicide now call the promotion of Ms. Maynard’s story “a tipping point” in their decades-long push to gain public support for changing laws.
A Different Point of View
I am a registered nurse with forty-five years of experience caring for many suicidal people, both personally and professionally. I also lost a beautiful, physically healthy thirty-year-old daughter five years ago to suicide. After a sixteen-year battle with substance abuse, my daughter committed suicide after visiting suicide websites and reading Final Exit by Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society (the former name of Compassion and Choices). The medical examiner called my daughter’s suicide “textbook Final Exit.” It was not an easy death for her, or for those of us who loved her.
While I am sure Ms. Maynard is sincere and well-meaning, campaigns like hers can have a devastating impact on vulnerable people like my daughter, and be misused to promote a one-sided debate on legalizing assisted suicide.
Unlike most suicides, assisted suicide involves two parties. It’s worth looking at the impact of this agenda on both of them.
Groups promoting assisted suicide routinely dismiss suicide victims like my daughter as collateral damage, while some even provide how-to instructions that can be accessed by any depressed person. The central focus of the legal agenda is the frail elderly. Consistently, the median age of people taking their lives under Oregon’s assisted suicide law has been seventy-one. Less than 1 percent are under thirty-five years old. And there is a generation gap on this issue. As the Newark Star-Ledger has reported: “A recent poll showed that people over 65 oppose assisted suicide by a 12-point margin while those under 35 support it by 18 points.”
Brittany Maynard’s position is consistent with that of others in her age group. Yet the elderly—the people overwhelmingly affected by these laws—say “No.” They know how hard it can be to convince younger generations that they still have lives worth living and worth respecting. Others who strongly disagree with C&C are the people with disabilities who belong to groups such as Not Dead Yet. Those with disabilities face a great deal of bias from able-bodied people who seem to think people with their conditions are “better off dead.”
Ironies abound in this debate. For example, when a convicted murderer tries to discourage efforts by lawyers to stop his or her execution, this is often considered as a sign of stress or mental disorder, while a sick person’s wish to die is considered an understandable and even courageous decision. How do we reconcile the two views that a lethal overdose is the ultimate punishment for a convicted murderer and, at the same time, the ultimate blessing for an innocent terminally ill or disabled person?
Healing or Harming: What about Those Who “Assist”?
Then there are the medical professionals being called on to “assist.” Few people would seriously consider legalizing friend- or family-assisted suicide. The inherent dangers of this type of private killing are much too obvious. So the goal is to lend this act professional respectability by promoting physician-assisted suicide—or, more accurately, medically assisted suicide, since nurses also are necessarily involved when the assisted suicide occurs in a health facility or home-health situation. Many people are not aware that groups such as C&C oppose conscience rights for medical professionals like me, as well as for hospitals that believe that helping to terminate a life is unethical.
Medical groups such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Nurses Association oppose legalization of physician-assisted suicide. The AMA has said that allowing physicians to participate “would cause more harm than good,” observing that “physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.”
When I worked as a hospice nurse years ago, our guiding principle was that we neither prolong nor hasten dying. I felt great satisfaction helping my patients and their families live as fully and meaningfully as possible until natural death. We nurses not only made sure that our patients were physically comfortable—we also helped with spiritual, emotional, and practical concerns.
Unfortunately, with the help of the media, assisted-suicide groups have had some success trying to convince both medical personnel and the public that natural death is agony and that medically assisted suicide should be a civil right. Yet this drive for totally controlling death profoundly changes the medical system, even for people who may recover or who may live with disabilities—and for patients who would never consider suicide.
The Ethical Impact
Society has long insisted that healthcare professionals adhere to the highest standards of ethics, as a protection for society. Without that clear moral compass, it has been said, the physician is the most dangerous man in society. The vulnerability of a sick person, and the inability of society to monitor every healthcare decision or action, are powerful motivators to enforce such standards. For thousands of years doctors (and nurses) have embraced the Hippocratic standard that “I will give no deadly medicine to any one, nor suggest any such counsel.” Erasing the bright line doctors and nurses have drawn for themselves—which separates killing from caring—is a decision fraught with peril, especially for those who are most vulnerable.
As a nurse, I am willing to do anything for my patients—but I will not kill them nor help them kill themselves. In my work with the terminally ill, I have been struck by how rarely such people say anything like, “I want to end my life.” I have seen the few who do express such thoughts become visibly relieved when their concerns and fears are addressed, instead of finding support for the suicide option. I have yet to see such a patient go on to commit suicide.
This should not be surprising. Many of us have had at least fleeting thoughts of suicide in a time of crisis. Imagine how we would feel if we confided this to a close friend or a relative, who replied, “You’re right. I can’t see any other way out either.” Would we consider this reply as compassionate, or desperately discouraging? The terminally ill or disabled person is no less vulnerable than the rest of us in this respect. And to think that an entire society, through its laws, can give such a response—to you, and to anyone with a similar health condition—may be the ultimate form of suffering.
Do assisted suicide supporters really expect us doctors and nurses to be able to assist the suicide of one patient, then go on to care for a similar patient who wants to live, without this having an effect on our ethics or our empathy? Do they realize that this reduces the second patient’s will-to-live request to a mere personal whim—perhaps, ultimately, one that society will see as selfish and too costly? How does this serve optimal health care, let alone the integrity of doctors and nurses who have to face the fact that we helped other human beings kill themselves?
Stories like Brittany Maynard’s can feed into a society that is fascinated by tragic love stories, but does not understand how such stories are used as propaganda to promote a dangerous political agenda that can affect us all—and our loved ones.
Personally, I will continue to care for people contemplating suicide or who have made an attempt regardless of their age, condition, or socio-economic status. I reject discrimination when it comes to suicide prevention and care. I hope our nation will do so as well.
Nancy Valko, RN, ALNC, is a longtime writer and speaker on medical ethics issues who recently retired from critical care nursing to devote more time to consulting and volunteer work. She is also a spokesperson for the National Association of Pro Life Nurses.
Earlier this week, Missouri state Senator Jamilah Nasheed, a Democrat who has sponsored several anti-gun bills, was arrested while protesting in front of the Ferguson Police Department, The Blaze reported Tuesday. What made the arrest interesting is that Nasheed was carrying a 9mm handgun with extra ammunition.
Authorities also said Nasheed “smelled strongly of intoxicants.” But Nasheed refused to take a breathalyzer test and maintains she was not intoxicated.
“Sen. Nasheed, along with another male, entered the street, were told numerous times by not only by the St. Louis County commander, but other officers on scene, that they needed to leave the street or they were subject to arrest,” said St. Louis County Police Sgt. Brian Schellman. “They failed to comply, and they were taken into custody.”
The arrest was conducted without incident, CBS St. Louis said. Nasheed, however, chanted as she was taken away. On Tuesday, Nasheed said hers was a “symbolic arrest” to send a “message to the protesters that we can protest peacefully and that we must protest peacefully and that we want justice for Michael Brown.”
But her arrest and news that she was in possession of a firearm brought charges of hypocrisy. According to attorney Eric Vickers, Nasheed needs the gun for her own protection and Nasheed says she holds a concealed carry permit. But if Nasheed had her way, other Missourians would not have the same right.
DEVILS LAKE, ND (WDAY/CNN) – Every once in a while in sports the results don’t matter.
Hundreds of cross country runners were in Minnesota for a race, but the winner from the event was someone who didn’t even place, but instead showed compassion for a fellow runner.
Devils Lake senior Melanie Bailey carried an injured and distraught Danielle Lenoue, who runs for Fargo South, across the finish line at the EDC cross country meet at Ponderosa Golf Course near Glyndon.
“I was past the 2-mile mark, I was right around the corner from the finish line,” Lenoue said. “It happened instantly, like I was just running along and felt like a little pop in my knee and down I went. It was that fast.”
Lenoue’s left knee buckled during the race and she injured her patellar tendon.
“Just sobbing and everything, so I just started walking and I stopped cause I couldn’t go any farther and all of a sudden this girl comes up and she grabs my arm and she said ‘here, come on.’” Lenoue said. “And we just started walking and couldn’t walk at all. And she was just like ‘this isn’t working’ and so she said ‘here hop on my back.’ And she bent down, picked me up. She’s like half my size.”
All you people claiming to advocate for the elderly and disabled, just who do you think you are to challenge judicial decisions, facilities, attorneys, conservators, guardians and fiduciaries? They are, after all, proven, by their positions, to be above reproach. How dare you challenge their intent, actions and/or character!
Judges, attorneys, CEO’s and others in charge have proven by the stations they have risen to, to be of perfection… the elite of the world… the all-knowing… and the all honest. Never do they take advantage of their positions for personal financial gain nor to have a personal agenda in play. Never do they do anything beneath their position. To suggest otherwise is to be singled out to be disgraced and to possibly be labelled a threat or even mentally unbalanced.
I’m not sure what has happened to common sense and healthy thought process, but some kind of virus has been on the attack, it would seem. Facts seem to be subjective or totally irrelevant. It’s almost as though we are living in the “mad house” out here in the everyday world. Too many things, arguments and decisions are outright crazy.
We have various Courts that worry about individuals taking advantage of the elderly or disabled, while signing off on outrageous fees for attorneys, appointed guardians and so forth. What is the difference between the latter and the former? Oh, is it because the latter is condoned by the courts and protected by some carelessly written law or skillful misinterpretation? That somehow makes one right and the other wrong?
Worse than the money drain by the courts and appointed anointed-ones is the power to isolate the victims. (Yes, victims. What else would you call the people, who suddenly are imprisoned and forced to be and have done unto them what they would not, and do not, want done unto them and theirs?)
How can someone that robs another of companionship, enjoyment, freedom, money, property and simply an existence called living, be considered humane? Animals are treated better than many of the elderly and disabled thrown into the system, because they could be thrown into the system — even if by a wrongful technicality in the law or by a court that is complicit due to bias or simply doesn’t look beyond the surface or listen to the bothersome advocates or nobodies that dare speak against the supposed “perfect” attorneys, professional guardians and such? They never lie or steal or do unethical things, now do they?
In recent news, we have heard…
“WASHINGTON — Three central Ohio nursing homes were among 33 in 11 states cited for improper care and billing practices yesterday as part of a $38 million settlement among a major nursing-home company, the U.S. Department of Justice and the state of Ohio.
“The announcement in Washington and Columbus resolved an investigation by the federal government, Ohio and seven other states into charges that Extendicare of Canada provided services at those 33 homes that were “materially substandard” or “worthless” because the company did not provide care to residents that meets federal standards, according to the settlement agreement.” (Federal investigation finds three local nursing homes lacking )
Now wait a minute. I thought “all” facilities provided only the best of care and that complainers were just making things up or exaggerating. They weren’t?
More recent news…
“The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended Akron attorney Rami M. Awadallah from practicing law after ruling that he fraudulently and deceptively represented several of his clients — including some in Lorain County — during court proceedings.” (Ohio Supreme Court suspends area attorney)
What’s that? An attorney “fraudulently and deceptively represented several of his clients”? But… but… but… I thought that was impossible? I thought “all” attorneys “always” spoke nothing but the truth and “always” acted in the best interest of the client or ward. He didn’t? What’s up with this?
More in the news…
“Paul S. Kormanik, a Columbus attorney considered up until two months ago to be legal guardian to more incompetent people than anyone else in the nation, was indicted today on theft charges by a Franklin County grand jury.
Prosecutor Ron O’Brien and Attorney General Mike DeWine will announce the charges this afternoon after the grand jury determined there was sufficient evidence that Kormanik stole about $41,000 from two of his wards.” (Lawyer indicted for theft from those he was supposed to protect)
An attorney — a legal guardian — was indicted for what? Stealing? Stealing from people he was the guardian for? Oh my! Bubble buster!
While we are talking about a system lacking perfection and often tilted towards the powerful, though not necessarily the righteous or side with the cleanest of hands, let’s return, for a moment, to discussion involving isolation of the wards. What judge or guardian or facility could possibly think isolation of a non-violent, non-contagious person is a good thing?
Decades ago, researchers found there is such a thing as “failure to thrive”. It actually exists. There is no question. Why then, would anyone place another person in isolation and risk that person dying due to “failure to thrive”? Why? How can it be justified? It can’t! Therefore, I believe, anyone involved in isolating a non-violent, non-contagious person, should have to answer why they should not be charged with kidnapping and abuse or even murder, should the person die as a result.
I can think of numerous cases where people have been thrown into isolation and the ironies surrounding it all is out there in a suburb of the Twilight Zone. Yes, so amazing is it all that I’m surprised a “duh” isn’t permanently imprinted upon both the perps and the out-of-touch — can’t get it — zombie followers that go around drooling false talking points, as though it is gospel, while alleging the truth-tellers are the liars.
When a ward is put into isolation, who is the threat? The one that ordered the isolation or the one challenging it?
When a petition is presented to starve & dehydrate a ward, who is the threat? The person who did the petitioning or the one that fights for life, visitation, rehabilitation and stimulation?
The answers should be quite easy to figure out, but instead, it looks as though too much power and trust has been placed where not deserved. It would seem, according to recent news, that we can’t always assume the courts and appointed anointed-ones are of perfection and holier than thou after all. Maybe sometimes they are up to no good and their word isn’t worth what comes out of a donkey’s rump. And, maybe sometimes people are wrong, but without any ill-intent. Maybe they just lost sight and are blinded by self-preservation and inability to admit error. But how do we know? How do we know, if we don’t inquire and investigate behind the curtain, especially a curtain pulled tightly, as if to keep any from peeking in?
Advocates are necessary in a world that seems to have lost its way. A world with too many who have come to believe good is evil and evil is good. People that see the lie as truth and the truth as lie. People who often admire the wrong-doer and find fault with the victim and the victim’s advocates. People who aren’t even aware any longer that they might be wrong, because they are somehow “entitled”. Aren’t they supposed to get more and be treated better than those they treat so poorly?
No? Who says? Who dares to challenge the new rule of they who control the lives and assets of vulnerable ones ordered to be incompetent, even though they — the vulnerable — might not be as incompetent or alone as decreed by a court?
Who dares to give challenge?
The advocates, whether they be professional advocates or family or friends or even concerned citizens made aware of someone’s plight — that’s who dares give challenge!
Yes, true advocates are necessary as long as the madness and wrongness reigns. May the war be quickly won and the vulnerable-victims placed in the hands of those who dare to truly and unselfishly care!
It’s time to challenge! It’s time to win! It’s time to give lives back to those who have been violated by a system gone wrong!
On September 25, 2014, Santa Clara County Public Guardian Don Moody was “escorted from his office” according to San Jose Inside. Moody is on administrative leave following two consecutive Civil Grand Jury reports of serious deficiencies.
A grand jury report out this summer—the second in as many years—noted that Moody fails to track the amount of work and number of clients he handles. The people he hires to manage clients’ property don’t go through a thorough background check, the report found. Instead of having a panel of experts determine whether to assume control of a person’s estate, effectively revoking their civil rights, the decision lies with one person. And for years, countless referrals from the court have reportedly fallen through the cracks.
The latest grand jury report was spurred by a complaint that the office mishandled a case in which a client died before being conserved by the county.
The 2013 Civil Grand Jury report noted that written procedures at the Public Guardian’s office were not current. In some cases, procedures were years out of date.
The 2014 Civil Grand Jury report noted that written procedures at the Public Guardian’s office had current dates, but content was not current. Procedure 804.0 (slideshow above) concerning “Client Visitors, Phone Calls, Personal Mail” is of special interest given Moody’s history of unlawful imprisonment and isolation of conservatees.
In 2012, the Public Guardian was isolating conservatees from family and friends. No visitors. No phone calls. No mail. The 2013 Civil Grand Jury investigation was initiated in response to a complaint filed by this Examiner.
Conservatee Gisela Riordan was unlawfully imprisoned and isolated at San Jose assisted living facility Villa Fontana for over two years. Conservatee Lillie Scalia was isolated for a year. Both women had families who wished to visit them and to care for them. Moody used his victims’ own funds to pay to the unlawful imprisonment and isolation.
ABC7 I-Team investigated numerous abuses by Moody’s office. See video above.
Media coverage and citizen advocacy led to passage of Assembly Bill 937 (2013), which clarified that conservatees have the right to receive visitors, phone calls, and personal mail. Governor Brown signed the bill on August 19, 2013. The bill amended Probate Code 2351(a) as of January 1, 2014.
2351. (a) Subject to subdivision (b), the guardian or conservator, but not a limited conservator, has the care, custody, and control of, and has charge of the education of, the ward or conservatee. This control shall not extend to personal rights retained by the conservatee, including, but not limited to, the right to receive visitors, telephone calls, and personal mail, unless specifically limited by court order.
Procedure 804.0 fails to comply with the legislative intent or the plain language of AB 937. Conservatees have an immediate right to have visitors. The Probate Code does not modify the right such that elderly or disabled individuals can only receive visitors after a week’s delay or if the Public Guardian decides to cooperate with the visit.
The plain language of the Code is clear. Conservatee’s have the right to receive visitors, unless specifically limited by court order. The 2015 Civil Grand Jury might find Procedure 804.0 to be of interest.
A silent and deadly epidemic is moving across America. No one is broadcasting it. No one is writing about it. Almost no one is even talking about it. But every day in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices across the country, more and more of our medically vulnerable loved ones are being euthanized.
Indeed, some physicians have admitted to this behavior. A 1998 article from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that hastening death is occurring and is not rare. In a survey of 355 oncologists, “(15.8%) reported participating in euthanasia or physician assisted suicide,” and “38 of 53 (72%) oncologists described clearly defined cases of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.1
These decisions are being made by paid medical professionals. And loved ones, to their horror, are finding they’re not even part of the discussion. The patients’ crimes? They’re charged with having insufficient quality of life, being too expensive to keep alive, and being beyond the reach of medical science and therefore beyond hope.
Such judgments may lie behind what seems to be an increase in the “brain death” diagnosis. The difficulty of making a pinpoint diagnosis in such complex neurological matters—and the lucrative financial incentives to harvest organs—will ultimately propel this issue into the forefront of public consciousness and discourse.
Not surprisingly, the current procurement market for human tissues and organs in the United States is booming, driven by insufficient supply and heavy demand. According to The Milliman Report (see page 4), if all 11 tissues and organs could be harvested from a single patient declared brain-dead, however unlikely, the going rate for procurement would exceed half a million dollars. If all costs related to those 11 transplants are counted—preparation, physicians’ services, post-op care and the like—the money involved exceeds $5.5 million.2
It’s crucial to shed a bright light on this menacing darkness, but we need your help. Here are four ways you can assist:
First, we need to hear from healthcare workers and professionals. If you’ve witnessed this happening in your work environment, please come forward and share your observations with us. Perhaps you or someone you know has inside knowledge of the organ donation process as it relates to a situation of euthanasia.
Second, we need your personal stories. We’re also looking for family members willing to share healthcare experiences involving a loved one that are similar to what we’ve conveyed in this letter.
Please trust that if you request your identity be held in confidence, that confidentiality will not be violated.
Finally, we need your prayers. This is, first and foremost, a battle against powers and principalities. We cannot hope to win on our own. Only the power of prayer will permit us to expose this hideous and inhumane attack on precious human life.
If you prefer not to be on television, we still need you. Our ultimate goal is to build a network of people who can speak publicly about these issues to educate others regarding this horrific, unnoticed practice. This may entail speaking to pro-life groups or others sympathetic to protecting innocent human life; addressing a state legislative committee regarding pending legislation; or speaking to a hospital ethics committee as they struggle with a challenging situation or policy. Our goal is to develop a network of experienced experts who can speak directly to the issues at hand.
This is literally a life-and-death matter. And we who are blessed to have life and a voice must intervene to help those who are in danger of having life taken from them. We hope to hear from you soon.
Reach us by e-mail or visit the Euthanasia page on the Life Issues Institute website.
For more information about this troubling issue, visit www.lifeissues.org and www.lifeandhope.com.
Sincerely for the vulnerable among us, Bradley Mattes Bobby Schindler Executive Director Executive Director Life Issues Institute Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network
Life Issues Institute is dedicated to changing hearts and minds of millions of people through education. For over 23 years, organizations and individuals around the world have depended upon Life Issues Institute to provide the latest information and effective tools to protect innocent human life from womb to tomb.
Investigative journalist joins Bev Cooper to detail his recent investigations into guardian abuse both in Chicago and in Memphis, Tennessee.
Volpe is the author of two books, “Prosecutors Gone Wild” and “The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers”, and Volpe will talk about Norman Hughes, a Korean and Vietnam War veteran who is being held against his will in a nursing home in Memphis, and Mildred Willis, whose family recently lost their home on the order of the Cook County Public Guardian.
In 2009, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, the first sitting attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress, said that America is a “nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing race relations.
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” Holder said in February, 2009, his first speech after taking office.
It wasn’t just a slip of the tongue. In July of this year, the nation’s first black Attorney General stood by his smear, telling ABC News in an interview, “I wouldn’t walk away from that speech,” he said about his 2009 speech where he called Americans cowards. “I think we are still a nation that is too afraid to confront racial issues.”
Appearing on Sean Hannity’s FOX News special, Firestorm in Ferguson, last night, civil rights leader and Executive Director of TheTeaParty.net Niger Innis told a panel that included Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that when it comes to race relations, it’s Eric Holder who’s the real coward.
Hannity pointed out that in Ferguson, MO, there were almost immediate rally chants, led by the New Black Panthers, shouting, “The only good cop is a dead cop,” and “Who do we want? Darren Wilson [police officer]. How do we want him? Dead!”
Ferguson, Missouri unrest is an “in-your-face” example of a wrong getting wronger and wronger as time goes on. It shows where living in the past, causes dying and destruction in the present. If in doubt, think of Michael Brown, Officer Darren Wilson, the looting and the threat of rioting and bloodshed if the officer isn’t arrested and convicted regardless of whether he is or is not actually guilty of anything beyond being white.
Earlier this week, Missouri state Senator Jamilah Nasheed, a Democrat who has sponsored several anti-gun bills, was arrested while protesting in front of the Ferguson Police Department, The Blaze reported Tuesday. What made the arrest interesting is that Nasheed was carrying a 9mm handgun with extra ammunition.
was someone who didn’t even place, but instead showed compassion for a fellow runner.
.”
All you people claiming to advocate for the elderly and disabled, just who do you think you are to challenge judicial decisions, facilities, attorneys, conservators, guardians and fiduciaries? They are, after all, proven, by their positions, to be above reproach. How dare you challenge their intent, actions and/or character!
These decisions are being made by paid medical professionals. And loved ones, to their horror, are finding they’re not even part of the discussion. The patients’ crimes? They’re charged with having insufficient quality of life, being too expensive to keep alive, and being beyond the reach of medical science and therefore beyond hope.
Second, we need your personal stories. We’re also looking for family members willing to share healthcare experiences involving a loved one that are similar to what we’ve conveyed in this letter.