Monday, November 29, 2010

Medical Ethics

In medicine, technology has surpassed ethics. In religion, relativism for the most part, has replaced doctrine. In advertising, there are no holds barred any longer. In airports, anything goes. While this opening may sound flip, what was once unthinkable, is now the norm. So too with the euthanasia movement.

In 1930 it was known as the Euthanasia Society of America. It's goal was to secure legalization of passive euthanasia (death encouraged by omission, through neglect of necessary treatment & care) leading to a patient's death. The goal of which, was to change public opinion on the issue, so that active euthanasia (death caused or hastened by the act of commission, using a lethal agent ) could be accomplished and legalized. I would say, they've accomplished their goals.

When wondering, if euthanasia is taking place, one has to look at what is the intent of the treatment, or lack thereof. Remember, euthanasia can be carried out by omission (passive) or commission (active). There is no moral difference.

We've come a long way since the 1930's. Today's debate is more sophisticated, but equally lethal.
We now have bio-ethical think tanks. These think tanks are shaping public opinion and religious beliefs, as well as legislative policy. They are embedded in government regulations, state and federal laws and ethical guidelines around the world.

Pope Benedict XVI discussed a fundamental problem with bio-ethics, in his address to the Pontifical Academy for Life. He said, "Some ethicists warn that modern bio-ethics is in fact a new normative system of ethics, that, based on principles of utilitarianism can never be compatible with Natural Law's principles. Under traditional medical ethics, the guiding principle is,"do no harm". But contemporary bio-ethics abandons this ... in an effort to find the utilitarian goal of the "greatest good for the greatest number". Under these principles, preserving the life of the human patient is not considered paramount."

More on ethics to follow.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Sarah Palin Right All Along

There is no doubt that health care costs are escalating. There are myriad reasons for this. To name a few, Americans are living longer, technology is increasing and the cost of drug research is rising.

National health care laws, where they exist, have produced rationing in order to treat the growing number of people who are covered. This is simple economics 101. The more you have to cover, the greater the cost. If costs are to be reduced, you need to reduce the number.

Remember Sarah Palin? The media had quite a day when she mentioned death panels, when the country was debating national health care under President Obama. Well now we have national health care - and guess what? New York Times columnist Paul Krugman addressed the subject of escalating health care costs. He stated on ABC's This Week, "Some years down the pike we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes." In fact, Mr. Krugman has written 19 columns mentioning death panels. Almost all of them have been smug. He has spoken previously of "death panel smear" and "death panel lie" and "the death panel people" as being part of a lunatic fringe.

Well, well, well. It seems as if Mr. Krugman came clean on ABC. His other 19 columns were apparently just a clever smoke screen in order to get health care passed. I think he's wanted death panels from the start. I wonder if he knows about eugenics?

Sarah Palin was right. National health care is wrong. National health care will economically and morally break the back of this country.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Some Choices Are Always Wrong And Have Consequences

WOW! In the UK, 67% of respondents to a recent poll, support legalizing euthanasia.
What's even more scary, is that 55% of those polled express the view, that people who assist terminally ill sons or daughters to end their lives, should not be punished, and 58% believe, "people who help a person to commit suicide should not be prosecuted."

Trial balloons in the United States are being floated, that it would be better to assist a person who has profound illness, or just debilitating illness, to commit suicide; either with medical assistance or a friend's "help". Letters to the editor are frequent. Heart wrenching as it may be, suicide is always the wrong choice. We need to remember that, no matter the tragic circumstances. It is always the wrong choice.

One goal of the euthanasia movement is to legalize assisted suicide. They would use the rationale, if we, or the person who wants to commit suicide, has their nutrition either withheld or voluntarily given-up, wouldn't it be more humane to simply legally, lethally inject, rather then allow the person to die of dehydration?

A recent book titled "Imperfect Endings: A Daughter's Tale of Life and Death" by Zoe Fitzgerald Carter, narrates the story of her mother who "chose" to end her life by dehydration. The author narrates how she herself comes to terms with her mother's "choice" to end her life, because she slowly comes to terms that the suffering person has rights. So in the end, she supported her mother's "choice" to end her own life.

We have to reject the mantra of "choice". Euthanasia protagonists have taken up this mantra of an individual's personal "choice", to blur and obfuscate the real issue, which is that there are some choices which are simply wrong.

The mental health and suicide prevention organizations need to take a stand against assisted suicide. Suicide is an unmitigated horror that is being soft-pedaled to the public, while putting vulnerable people at risk, as well as, destroying our medical and legal ethics.

Back to the Brits - British disability rights campaigner Alison Davis, who belongs to the disability rights group, "No Less Human". and who herself is disabled, states, "It is "sheer folly" to propose legal assisted suicide for the disabled, but to spend public funds on suicide prevention programs instead."

Friday, November 12, 2010

Lake County Right to Life Action Alert

Oppose Senate Bill 1716 - Civil Unions

Senate Bill 1716 will grant homosexual couples “the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses.”

Children are the State’s #1 interest in Limiting ‘Marriage Status’ to Husband and Wife.

· Marriage is recognized – not created – by the state as both a personal relationship and institution.

· The government has legitimately defined marriage as an institution and has limited its membership.

· The state recognizes that marriage is centrally concerned about the children.

Senate Bill 1716 is a stepping stone to legalizing same-sex “marriage”.

“We are using the civil union bill as a foundation to go for equal marriage … That is exactly what we want!” said homosexual lobbyist Rick Garcia at a Joliet rally last year.

At a forum on same-sex marriage at the Chicago History Museum on September 14th, lesbian State Representative Deb Mell said, that she was confident they have the votes to pass a civil unions bill.

“Gov. Quinn believes that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples,” Quinn campaign spokesperson Mica Matsoff recently told the State Journal Register. “There is a bill in the legislature, and Gov. Quinn looks forward to signing it.”

The deadline for SB1716 has purposely been extended to Nov. 30th during the lame duck veto session. If it passes the House, it will go back to the Senate. Inevitably, this kind of legislation will be used to teach about homosexual unions in all public schools.

Call Your Elected Officials – Tell them to vote No SB 1716

State Rep. Sandy Cole - 847-543-0062

State Rep. Ed Sullivan - 847-566-5115

State Rep. Jo Ann Osmond - 847-838-6200

State Rep. Mark Beaubien, Jr. - 847-487-5252

State Rep. Carol Sente - 847-680-5909

State Rep. Rita Mayfield – 847-623-0060

State Rep. Karen May – 847-433-9100

State Senator Dan Duffy – 847-277-7100

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

A Post Mortem of Illinois Elections

Some rambling thoughts on why we had minimal gains in Illinois, while there was a major landslide across the nation. The first thought that comes to mind is that the Democrats and their allies like Personal PAC framed the candidates. One has to ask why did the candidates allow that to happen? After all, Personal PAC has been sending nasty mailers in elections for many years. This year was no different. The Republican candidate for Governor was framed as a women hater, one that would even put abortive women in jail. After all, he voted against a mammogram bill that would save women's lives. Probably, worst of all, he didn't like equal pay for equal work. Even a rookie working a campaign knows those were all lies. No abortive woman would ever be put in jail. That is not what the pro-life movement is all about. There's already federal and state laws on the books that mandate equal pay for equal work. As far as mammograms, the vote was not against women, it was simply a vote not to require all insurance companies to cover this procedure. The vote was against government mandates, not women. So, that being said, why didn't the campaign frame the response to Personal PAC's attack.

On the other hand, did the pro-life movement as a whole counter Personal PAC's accusations? Personal PAC has been the cause of many conservative candidates losses. Surely the candidates and the movement can counter some of these anticipated accusations before they are made. In other words, did we fail to frame the issue, thereby allowing the other side to frame the issue?

As a pro-life movement, have we educated enough? The answer is clear. If a majority of women believe Personal PAC's accusations, the answer is obviously no. The next question comes to mind. What more could we do and why don't people know the truth? I personally don't think the pro-life movement has made Illinois a Democratic state. The voters made it a Democratic state and they hide behind misinformation from various sources, rather than seeking the truth.

How about the shepherds across denominational lines - where was the teaching on the sanctity of human life? Where was the teaching on the moral responsibility to vote and to inform ones conscience on the moral issues before voting? If I was a visitor from outer space visiting some churches, I might think they were a Democratic stronghold, rather than a house of God.

In Lake County Illinois, there are 404,637 registered voters, however, only 205,507 voted, that's 50.86% of voters in each precinct. You have to be kidding! That is no way to be an American. So, who's to blame. You tell me.

Why We Should Repeal Health Care, Not Amend It

There's a movement afoot again to use your taxpayer money for abortion under the guise of contraception in the health care bill. After all, with Senator Barbara Mikulski as the author of the women's health amendment in the now passed health care bill, the intent was to include family planning. The Senator is a pro-abortion feminist and there is far more than family planning in the health care bill.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood is advocating for free contraception under the health care bill. Is birth control preventive medicine? The Food and Drug Administration classifies the morning-after pill as birth control along with Ella One, IUDs and implants, all of which are abortifacients.

Before everyone jumps on board with the idea that contraception is ok, we need to look at what the government means by covering "contraception." The fact that a pro-abortion senator and Planned Parenthood are pushing for this coverage ought to make most Americans think twice.

No one will argue that the morning-after pill, aka Plan B, is dangerous, especially to young women due to the fact that it has 40 times the hormonal content of one birth control pill. Recent studies show a strong indication that the hormonal content of the birth control pill has contributed to the meteroric rise in breast cancer.

So, if Plan B was bad, now Ella One. Marketed under the guise of contraception, it is really a dangerous abortifacient What you need to know is that the government approved and labelled this dangerous drug as a contraceptive, instead of an abortion pill that acts like the nefarious abortion drug RU486.

So the government's idea of contraception isn't really contraception, it's chemical abortion, and the're mandating taxpayer funding.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

How Many Kids Will The Liberals Put In Jail?

In San Fran-sicko, they've outlawed happy meals (Hat tip to Brutally Honest):

San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed the law on Tuesday on a veto-proof 8-to-3 vote. It takes effect on December 1.

The law, like an ordinance passed earlier this year in nearby Santa Clara County, would require that restaurant kids' meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with toys!

Just in time for Christmas, A new twist on Toy Story from the Dark Side. The eminent Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, has just made their city the first in the nation to take away free toys for children in McDonald's Happy Meals, because the meal they're eating is deemed too fattening.

Two days after the mid-term elections, and after having read ad infinitum Personal PAC's literature accusing pro-life candidates of wanting to put women in jail who have had abortions, a question comes to mind, regarding this logic and the new logic of banning toys in children's food.

If San Francisco is really serious about outlawing toys in Happy Meals, does that same logic equate? Are they saying that kids will be arrested for eating McDonald's food? If their logic concerning women being thrown in jail for having an abortion is a reasonable argument, does that mean we can apply the same reasoning to this new San Francisco ordinance?

You can't have it both ways guys. If pro-life candidates can be accused of wanting to put women in jail because of their opposition to abortion, then these food police must be subject to the same logic.

It seems really hypocritical that we live in a society where food can be outlawed, while the slaughter of millions of the innocent unborn is the protected law of the land. If we are truly concerned about the health and welfare of our children regarding what they eat, we should be just as concerned about their health and welfare, while they are still in their mother's wombs.

But more than this, pro-lifers are routinely subjected to the dual nonsensical arguments that either, a) they cannot be serious about protecting unborn life in law unless they advocate jailing women who seek abortions; or, b) they are just such horrid, evil, extremist ogres that they want to put poor innocent women behind bars for simply wanting to have control over their own bodies.

OK, so now the shoe is on the other foot: either the San Francisco Board of Supervisors isn't really serious about this measure, as evidenced by their refusal to throw kids in jail who buy Happy Meals, or else they are such evil, extremist, interventionist ogres that they want to put little Jimmy and little Mary (oops, sorry! San Francisco! -- little Atticus and little Moonglow) in San Quentin.

Come on you guys! Admit it! You'll be rounding 'em up like that creepy guy in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang before you're done, won't you?

(You'll be mandating condoms in Happy Meals next, too, won't you?)

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Civil Unions Coming to Illinois?

Regardless of the outcome of the election on Tuesday, current state lawmakers are scheduled to return to Springfield, Illinois November 16-18 and November 29 - December 1 for a "veto session."

Governor Quinn (D) is on record, before the election, on whether civil unions could be legalized during these veto sessions. Quinn, known to be a strong supporter of civil unions, went on record to say: "The votes are there, I believe-in the Senate for sure, and definitely I think we can do it in the House."
It is important to know that victories by pro-family candidates on November 2, 2010 do not take effect until January 2011. So the veto session to complete unfinished state business will include both defeated and retiring lawmakers-legislators who will not be held accountable in the next election cycle.
Therefore, it is vital that we contact our current state legislator and ask him or her to vote against civil unions and to continue to preserve traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Ask them to vote "NO" on SB 1716. Same-sex civil unions are a steppingstone to same-sex marriage. The Illinois SB1716 makes "party to a civil union" the same as "spouse" in every part of Illinois law. It equates marriage and civil unions by making the actions for dissolution identical for both. SB1716 also says that a marriage between persons of the same sex legally entered into in another jurisdiction shall be recognized in Illinois as a civil union. Thus a same-sex marriage solemnized in Massachusetts would be considered a civil union in Illinois. (More information on this bill can be found at our website; Civil unions and same-sex "marriages," will destroy marriage as we know it. Voters across the country have strongly rejected same sex marriages. Thirty states have passed defense of marriage amendments to their constitutions.

Let's do our part to stop this legislation in Illinois! Please call your state representative now. Their phone numbers are on the left. We cannot afford to let this bill get to Governor Patrick Quinn's desk, as he has made it clear that he will sing it.