by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/20/12 11:02 AM
Shocking news from England today has top NHS officials indicating doctors acting in the UK government-run health program annually kill as many as 130,000 patients prematurely because of overcrowding at hospitals, medical clinics and nursing homes.
Professor Patrick Pullicino indicated doctors are turning to a so-called “death pathway” protocol that is essentially active euthanasia of patients, according to a London Daily Mail news report. Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, made his remarks in a speech before the Royal Society of Medicine in London.
He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country. It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.
It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours. There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.
Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’. He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.
Pullicino admitted patients are too quickly put on the pathway who need basic medical treatment and have long lifespans ahead of them. He said he personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated and told the paper it is “palpably false” that all patients subjected to euthanasia have a grim medical prognosis.
In the example he revealed a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift.
Professor Pullicino said he had returned to work after a weekend to find the patient unresponsive and his family upset because they had not agreed to place him on the LCP.
‘I removed the patient from the LCP despite significant resistance,’ he said.
‘His seizures came under control and four weeks later he was discharged home to his family,’ he said.
The revelations are not new, as NHS has long been a focus of criticism from pro-life advocates for euthanasia and rationing medical care or basic needs like food and water.
A May 2011 story in the Daily Mail showed how patients were being starved and dehydrated to death.
Doctors are prescribing drinking water for neglected elderly patients to stop them dying of thirst in hospital. The measure – to remind nurses of the most basic necessity – is revealed in a damning report on pensioner care in NHS wards. Some trusts are neglecting the elderly on such a fundamental level their wards could face closure orders.
The snapshot study, triggered by a Mail campaign, found staff routinely ignored patients’ calls for help and forgot to check that they had had enough to eat and drink.
Dehydration contributes to the death of more than 800 hospital patients every year. Another 300 die malnourished. The latest report – by the Care Quality Commission – found patients frequently complained they were spoken to in a ‘condescending and dismissive’ manner.
The watchdog said three of 12 NHS trusts visited in the past three months were failing to meet the most basic standards required by law.
A July 2011 report in The Independent revealed how hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among the many operations that two-thirds of health trusts in England are now putting on a “non-urgent” list in an attempt to help save the government-run health care program $20 billion over the next four years. The newspaper revealed one third of health trusts have already expanded the list of rationed procedures in the last 12 months and others are expected to follow suit.
Some of the examples of rationed surgical procedures include limiting hip replacements to those experiencing severe pain, cataract operations are on hold for those whose eyesight problems don’t yet affect their ability to perform on the job, and patients with varicose veins will only be allowed operations if they are experiencing pain or internal bleeding.
American bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, bemoaned the news, saying, “The UK’s National Health Service continues its collapse. And it is only going to get worse, considering the trajectory. Imagine the screaming here if HMOs did any of that.”
“The continuing collapse of the NHS is not only an indictment of single payer health care: It is a warning to the U.S. about centralized control of health care,” he said. “The continuing collapse of the NHS is not only an indictment of single payer health care: It is a warning to the U.S. about centralized control of health care.”
“Adding injury to injury, how easy it is for the bureaucrats to lard on the goodies on the private insurance companies’ dimes–as is already happening. What makes us think that a too strained and bureaucratically suffocated private sector won’t eventually end up in a collapse–further harming the economy–and unable to provide for patients properly?” he said. “Once that happens (with malice aforethought?) Obamacarian class warriors will give a war whoop of triumph for having destroyed the dreaded private sector–and force us into single payer.”
MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:
Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together
An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans
Released January 12, 2012
Dear Friends: The promotion and protection of marriage—the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife—is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children. As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities, we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition. One of these consequences—the interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of “marriage”—warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. For this reason, we come together with one voice in this letter. Some posit that the principal threat to religious freedom posed by same-sex “marriage” is the possibility of government’s forcing religious ministers to preside over such “weddings,” on pain of civil or criminal liability. While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts. Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct. There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result. These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of “marriage” does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others. So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married.” Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex “married” relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses.” Religious employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action—no matter how modest— against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex. This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass. Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions—the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other benefits. For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex “wedding” there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex “domestic partnerships” in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex “domestic partners” as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds. In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil “marriage” is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage. Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless institutions and citizens in this country. Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation. May we all work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift of religious freedom.
Sincerely Yours: Rev. Leith Anderson Dr. Barrett Duke Dr. Jo Anne Lyon President Vice President for Public Policy and Research Chair Board of General Superintendents National Association of Evangelicals Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty The Wesleyan Church Commission
By Samantha Singson Co-Authored by Nicholas Dunn
ACCRA, GHANA, November 25 (C-FAM) Earlier this month, a UN office partnered with abortion heavyweights to push for widespread legal abortion at a conference in Ghana, Africa. Conference participants insisted that access to “safe and legal abortion” is central to reducing maternal mortality, and attacked organized religion and restrictive laws as being obstacles to preventing maternal deaths. Continue reading →
BERLIN, November 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Doctors associated with the German umbilical cord blood bank Vita 34 say that they have cured a child’s leukemia completely using an infusion of stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Continue reading →
New Global Study Shows Maternal Mortality Significantly Lower Than Previously Thought/Policy Implications Worry Abortion Advocates
New Global Study Shows Maternal Mortality Significantly Lower Than Previously Thought/Policy Implications Worry Abortion Advocates
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A new study out this week by the leading British medical journal shows maternal mortality rates have been significantly overestimated by United Nations (UN) agencies. The Lancet reports that maternal deaths worldwide in 2008 totaled 342,900 rather than the 500,000+ used by the World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in recent years. Continue reading →
A few months ago, a woman was awarded R500 000 in damages by a Pretoria Court because of a botched abortion, which resulted in an emergency hysterectomy and left her unable to bear any more children.
The woman claimed the damages from Dr GMM Leeuw, who was on duty on January 22 1999 when she went to the Marie Stopes Clinic in Pretoria for an abortion. The woman said Leeuw examined her and told her he could perform the abortion. Continue reading →
Prenatal screening, followed by selective abortion for disability, is fast becoming the norm in many societies. Not only is such a practice widely accepted, but increasingly expected, so that those parents, who decline to undergo testing, or to abort their disabled child, are becoming the exception to the rule.
It is necessary to investigate this trend specifically within the context of the wider abortion debate for a number of reasons. Firstly, many “soft” pro-life advocates view disability to various degrees as one of the exceptional cases in which abortion, which is otherwise a great evil, may be morally acceptable. This viewpoint has its parallel in legislation – abortion law is often made by the “hard cases”, one of which is the disability of the unborn child, so that the legalization of abortion for this reason, and in other tragic circumstances such as rape and incest, often precedes the legislation of abortion on demand. .
By an abortion survivor
Having been asked to write about my experience with abortion, and my ready acquiesce, once seated in front of my computer, all sorts of emotions assault me. Even having known God’s awesome grace aiding and abetting my emotional escape through healing, a sadness rises from a place deep within. A sadness most profound.
Growing up was quite normal despite the usual family dysfunctions. My parents were of the old school that believed overt demonstrations of emotion were a sign of weakness. Thus words or acts of love, acceptance or affirmation did not feature in my relationship with them. This had a profound impact on my self-esteem.
Pray Daily for an end to abortion, for women tempted to have abortions, for doctors and nurses, for legislators, for clergy, for those who work in the pro-life movement, and for those who do not realize how wrong abortion is. Form pro-life prayer teams or prayer groups in homes or parishes. “Spiritually adopt” an unborn child, praying for him/her throughout a nine-month period. Perform acts of fasting and self-denial.
Read! Be more informed about abortion from such books as Abortion: Questions and Answers, by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke (Available from Pro-life, tel. 021-552 3850 along with other resources)
Wear the “Precious Feet” pin, which shows the baby’s feet at 10 weeks after conception. (Available from Pro-Life)