Progress in the War Against Conscience Rights

September 7, 2023 by admin

by Nancy Valko, RN

As I wrote in my 2016 blog “Conscientious Objection, Conscience Rights and Workplace Discrimination” :

The tragic cases of Nancy Cruzan and Christine Busalacchi , young Missouri women who were claimed to be in a “persistent vegetative state” and starved and dehydrated to death, outraged those of us in Missouri Nurses for Life and we took action.

Besides educating people about severe brain damage, treatment, cases of recovery and the radical change in medical ethics that could lead to the legalization of euthanasia, we also fought for healthcare providers’ rights against workplace discrimination for refusing to participate in deliberate death decisions. We talked to nurses who were threatened with termination.

Although Missouri had some protections against forcing participating in abortion, there were no statutes we could find where health care providers were protected against being forced to participate in deliberate death decisions. We were also told by some legislators that our chance of success was almost nil.

Nevertheless, we persisted and after years of work and enduring legislators watering down our original proposal to include lethal overdoses and strong penalties, Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 404.872.1 was finally signed into law in 1992. It states:

Refusal to honor health care decision, discrimination prohibited, when.

404.872. No physician, nurse, or other individual who is a health care provider or an employee of a health care facility shall be discharged or otherwise discriminated against in his employment or employment application for refusing to honor a health care decision withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment if such refusal is based upon the individual’s religious beliefs, or sincerely held moral convictions.

(L. 1992 S.B. 573 & 634 § 7)

(Continue Reading)

Proposed Changes to Definition of Death Threaten Brain-Damaged Patients

August 7, 2023 by admin

BROOMALL, Pa., July 21, 2023—The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) and the National Catholic Partnership on Disability urge the Uniform Law Commission not to change its recommendation for the definition of brain death from the irreversible cessation of brain function to the permanent cessation of most brain activity. Such a change in policy would allow living patients with severe brain damage to be declared legally dead.

Under the proposed changes to the Uniform Determination of Death Act, whole brain death would be replaced with partial brain death. Consequently, nonresponsive patients with severe neurological injury could be declared brain dead even if they still exhibit some integrated brain function. Rather than improve the accuracy of clinical protocols, this change would bring them in line with current practices, which have been criticized for their lack of rigor and potential for abuse. Moreover, although motivated by a noble desire to save lives through organ donation, relaxing the existing standard of whole brain death involves an implicit judgment that doctors can violate the physical integrity of these vulnerable patients to benefit other patients whose lives are considered more worth saving.

Patients with severe neurological injury cannot speak for themselves, and given the complexity of their conditions, it can be very difficult for their family and friends to effectively advocate on their behalf if they do not have medical expertise. Consequently, the medical and legal communities have a special duty to protect these patients by establishing adequate safeguards so that vital organs may not be procured prior to death or be the cause of the donor’s death. In this context, relaxing the criteria for declaring a person brain dead not only could dissuade people from becoming donors but also could have a disastrous effect on trust in the physician-patient relationship.

To ensure that organ donation remains a selfless gift motivated by genuine love of neighbor, and to support a strong relationship of trust between patients and physicians, the standard for determining brain death must include the complete and irreversible cessation of integrated function in the whole brain. Commenting on the review process, NCBC Staff Ethicist Edward Furton said, “The Uniform Law Commission is about to affirm that current neurological criteria for determining death are too rigorous and need to be relaxed. Instead of calling for their more careful application, the lax standards are to be incorporated into the rule. This will result in the withdrawal of support from those who demand complete confidence that the patient has died before organs are donated.”

The National Catholic Bioethics Center provides education, guidance, and resources to the Church and society to uphold the dignity of the human person in health care and biomedical research, thereby sharing in the ministry of Jesus Christ and his Church. The NCBC envisions a world in which the integral understanding of the human person underlying Catholic teaching on respect for human life and dignity is better understood and more widely embraced in America and worldwide. More information can be found at ncbcenter.org.

###

Source:
Proposed Changes to Definition of Death Threaten Brain-Damaged Patients

Non – Brain Death Organ Donation

February 6, 2015 by Guest

Part One

By Nancy Valko, RN, ALNC

Most people who sign organ donor cards assume that they will be carefully diagnosed as “brain dead” before their organs are donated. That was generally true years ago, but a new non-brain death organ donation procedure was developed in the 1990s even though the language on organ donor cards did not change.

The current non-brain death organ donation policy started with ethics journal articles in the 1990s. At that time, it was called “non-heart beating donation” and promoted as a way to increase the supply of organs for transplant beyond the usual “brain death” organ donations. This was made possible by linking organ donation to withdrawal of treatment decisions from people considered hopelessly ill or dying but who did not meet the criteria for “brain death.”

This change in policy came in the wake of court decisions upholding the right to refuse treatment for incapacitated patients like Nancy Cruzan, a brain-injured woman said to be in a so-called “vegetative state.”

Since Dr. George Isajiw and I presented the following paper (“Non-heart beating organ donation” and the “vegetative state”) in 2004, the term “non-heart beating organ donation” has been changed to “donation after cardiac death” (DCD) and now around 5% of organ donations are from nonbrain death organ donors.[i] The numbers are expected to increase with organ donation policies such as the following: In June 1996, the American Medical Association issued its opinion that non-brain death organ donation was ethical.[ii] Eventually, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (Joint Commission) required all hospitals to develop policies for DCD, effective January 2007, while the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) proposed new bylaw amendments requiring all transplant centers and Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) to develop DCD policies by January 1, 2007.[iii]

Moreover, hospitals currently are being asked to report all deaths, imminent deaths and potential organ donor situations to the local organ procurement organization. Years ago, when only brain death criteria could be used, doctors themselves talked to families about organ donation. Now, many hospitals have policies that only trained organ donation representatives talk to families about donation. Such policies are said to increase the number of families consenting to organ donation.

In Part Two, I will discuss other strategies to increase the number of organ donations.

[i] “The Challenge of Organ Donation After Cardiac Death,” Matt Wood, Science Life, 02/20/2014; http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/2014/02/20/the-challenge-of-organ-donation-after-cardiac-death

[ii] “Opinion 2.157 – Organ Donation After Cardiac Death,” AMA Code of Medical Ethics, issued 06/1996 and updated 06/2005; http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion2157.page

[iii] “Donation After Cardiac Death: Analysis and Recommendations from the New York State Task Force on Life &the Law,03/17/2007;http://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/task_force/donation_after_cardiac_death/docs/donation_after_cardiac_death.pdf

Nancy Valko, RN, ALNC, has been a registered nurse for 45 years and is a spokesperson for the National Association of Prolife Nurses (www.nursesforlife.org). A long-time speaker and writer on medical ethics and other health issues, she has a website at: http://www.wf-f.org/bd-nvalko.html.She is also now a legal nurse consultant (www.valkogroupalnc.com ).

Source:
Newsletter for the Pro-Life Healthcare Alliance

This article is printed with permission.

The Market for Brain Death

September 27, 2014 by admin

From

Life Issues Institute, Inc

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.

Third, we need people willing to be interviewed on camera. We have a golden opportunity to educate more Americans to euthanasia in our midst. A special episode of the Emmy© award-winning pro-life television series Facing Life Head-On with Brad Mattes plans to feature real-life accounts of people sharing specifics of this American travesty. The program reaches tens of millions of American households, so imagine the number of people whose eyes could be opened. America will be told what is happening to the elderly, the chronically sick and the cognitively disabled. If necessary, we can keep the identity of our TV guests confidential.

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

1 http://www.hospicep atients.org/questionable-death.html
2 http://publications.milliman.com/research/health-rr/pdfs/2011-us-organ-tissue.pdf

9/26/14

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.

Receive information like this – in your Inbox.
Subscribe to Life Issues email updates here.
– See more at: Life Issues