Crisis Pregancy Centers

A deeper look at Google’s NARAL-influenced decision on CPC ads

By Dave Andrusko
Since yours truly, along with most of America, has not seen the “documentation” NARAL provided Google, it’s very difficult to evaluate NARAL’s allegation that most CPC ads are deceptive, according to Google’s own ad criteria.
If you add a post that appeared on the pro-abortion website rhrealitycheck.org yesterday, here’s what we can tease out.
#1. We know, according to a story in The Washington Post, that NARAL insists a whopping 79% of CPCs “that advertised on Google indicated that they provided medical services such as abortions, when, in fact, they are focused on counseling services and on providing information about alternatives to abortion.”
“Indicated,” “medical services,” “such as abortion” is awfully vague and could and no doubt does mean many different things, likely none of them the least bit nefarious.
In a different story in The Hill newspaper, we read that “NARAL logged a series of complaints with Google about ads that it claimed were deceptive, and spent the last month urging the company to take action,” wrote Julian Hattem earlier this week. “According to NARAL, more than two-thirds of the ads it passed along to Google were removed.” (emphasis added)

If you put these two figures together—and this is obviously guess work—it would suggest an awful lot of CPC Google ads no longer appear.But we don’t know, specifically, which ads have been taken down or removed. The real number may be a handful, or none. That’s #1.
#2. Major CPCs organizations have consistently denied they have done anything wrong, prior to the NARAL/Google agreement, and since. We asked Heartbeat International for a response. Here is part of it:

Heartbeat International is well-versed in using Google AdWords effectively with honesty and integrity, and we are thankful for every life saved because of our Option Line’s reach through Google.

Further, Google’s advertising policy has always prohibited “misleading, inaccurate and deceitful ads.” So does the Commitment of Care and Competence (CCC), the ethical guidelines promulgated by Heartbeat International and every other national pregnancy center organization.

Our CCC states: “All of our advertising and communication are truthful and honest and accurately describe the services we offer.”

#3. Again, I don’t have whatever it is NARAL provided Google, but consider this from Emily Crockett, a Reporting Fellow, in a story that ran Tuesday in RH Reality Check.

“There are some 4,000 CPCs in the United States, and their ads typically display the slogan ‘Pregnant? Scared? You’re not alone.’ NARAL found that 80 percent of Google searches for ‘abortion clinic’ performed in the 25 largest U.S. cities resulted in at least one crisis pregnancy center ad.”

Two things. First, on its webpage, NARAL has a photo of a bench with that language on it. We can only conclude, to NARAL, this is misleading. “Pregnant? Scared? You’re not alone.” That is “deceptive” or “misleading? In what universe?

Second, assume for the sake of argument that the second sentence is approximately accurate (BTW, I’m assuming the 80% refers to the same thing as the 79% in the Post story). If you go the 25 largest U.S. cities, there will be “at least” one ad for a crisis pregnancy center, 80% of the time.
NARAL wouldn’t use “at least one” unless in most instances it WAS only one. 80% of the time
How many abortion clinic ads appear on Google in these 25 largest cities? Many, I’ll bet, and they will appear 100% of the time.

And that’s assuming NARAL’s “analysis,” shared with Crockett is more-or-less accurate. Remember what Heartbeat International said.
#4. As is always the case with the Abortion Establishment, which has tons of money and is able (as NARAL has) to persuade like-minded city and council councils to go after CPCs, you have to look at the big picture.

NARAL has had very limited success in the courts with patently unconstitutional statutes mandating that CPCs say they do not perform abortions. They are trying with Google—with clear implications they will be going after other search engines—to accomplish what they been unable to persuade most courts to do: throttle CPCs.
Remember, NARAL will do anything, stoop to anything, to kill off CPCs.

Source: NRLC News

PVS

 

Three scientists doggedly fight the PVS dogma

By Dave Andrusko

Scott Routley was misdiagnosed as being in a PVS for more a decade until his brain activity was scanned in an fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine. Routley’s neurologist Prof. Bryan Young said the scan results overturned all the behavioral assessments that had been made over the years.

Thankfully, whenever there is another study that proves yet again that we over-categorize severely brain-injured patients as being in a PVS, there is coverage not only of the original investigation but also what the study means—its larger context.
We’ve written about last week’s dramatic study reported in The Lancet and the New York Times bumbling attempt to commandeer the study’s findings for the Times’ unceasing campaign to misrepresent the tragic death of Terri Schiavo.  I would highly recommend you take a few minutes and read them both.
The best overview I believe I’ve ever read on the whole topic of how “a mind might be coaxed back into awareness” appeared today in the British publication, The New Statesman. Written by Roger Highfield, who was the newspaper’s science editor for two decades, the piece is not perfect but nonetheless hugely impressive.
The science is remarkable complex, but because Highfield and the three scientists whose work he profiles are gifted communicators, laypeople (like yours truly) can grasp at least the outlines of the big picture. While I would strongly encourage you to read the analysis, because it is over 8,000 words [www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2014/04/reading-minds-those-trapped-their-own-bodies-unable-ask-help], I’ll provide a summary/overview.

• “Medical doctors do not like to be told they are wrong,” neurologist Nicholas Schiff told Highfield. What was it that was ”condemned as a waste of time” by almost all their peers? Lots of things, starting with them questioning the accuracy of sweeping in so many into the PVS category reserved for the “hopeless.” And there was the certainty that since “no patient in a persistent vegetative state was conscious” (as Highfield puts it) “Doctors, with the best intentions, thought it was perfectly acceptable to end the life of a vegetative patient by starvation and the withdrawal of water. This was the age of what [Steven] Laureys calls ‘therapeutic nihilism.’” As a result, “Schiff, Laureys and [Adrian] Owen cut lonely and isolated figures at academic conferences, desperately trying to explain their findings to their peers, who remained unconvinced, even antagonistic.”
• As the equipment becomes more sophisticated and the researchers more ingenious at using these and older techniques, there is an urgent need to rewrite textbooks. For example, Scott Routley was in a PVS for more a decade, at least according to the standard tests. But after doctors asked him questions while having his brain activity scanned in an fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine, it turns out they were wrong all along. Routley’s neurologist for a decade, Prof. Bryan Young at University Hospital, London, said the scan results overturned all the behavioral assessments that had been made over the years [1]
• One other of what could be many, many item. The British medical establishment is grudgingly coming to recognize that are ways that “might jump-start a stalled brain,” as Highfield describes it. “Over the years, a remarkable series of experiments have shown how a mind might be coaxed back into awareness” and “how a brain can rewire itself even decades after an injury.” So there has been progress; those who do not exactly embrace the work of Owen, Schiff, and Laureys insist they are no longer “skeptical,” only “cautious.”

Highfield ends his piece with an interesting twist, especially for pro-lifers:

“Back on Skype, Owen smiles, considering whether to tell me what he is planning next. Owen’s [wife], Jessica Grahn, also a neuroscientist, became pregnant at the start of 2013. What happens when consciousness winks on in the developing brain?

“He emails me a video of their unborn child, a montage of fMRI slices through their baby’s head, as it twists and turns in Jessica’s womb. ‘My colleagues have been doing fMRI on my wife’s tummy every week for a few weeks now to see if we can activate the fetus’s brain.’ he writes. ‘It is AMAZING.’”

[1] The BBC included an explanation of how patients like Routley communicate.
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging measures the real-time activity of the brain by tracking the flow of oxygen-rich blood

The patients were repeatedly asked to imagine playing tennis or walking around their home
In healthy volunteers each produces a distinct pattern of activity, in the premotor cortex for the first task and the parahippocampal gyrus for the second

It allowed the researchers to put a series of yes or no questions to severely brain-injured patients. [Some] were able to answerby using the power of thought.

Source: NRLC News

Life Affirming

 

Another mother rejects advice to abort, Maisie doing wonderfully

By Dave Andrusko

Maisie Smith, now aged 18 weeks, with her mother, Amy

This will be a short post for two reasons. Maisie Smith’s wonderful story is the last story of the day and I’ve been meaning to write about Maisie and her wonderful mother, Amy, for two days.
(The full story can be read at www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Croydon-mum-8216-Doctors-advised-abortion-8211/story-21006651-detail/story.html.)

Maisie’s and Amy’s story is one of those life-affirming accounts of a “you’ve got to be kidding me” response when a physician looks at a problem diagnosed prenatally and suggests “termination.”
That’s what happened after Amy went in for an ultrasound. At first the doctors thought what they saw was a cyst. In fact it was CDH– congenital diaphragmatic hernia—meaning her “organs slipped into her chest area, leaving little room for her lungs to grow.” according to reporter Rachel Millard.
“We were then told to go for a scan at St George’s Hospital where we were given the terrible news that our little girl did in fact have a right-sided congenital diaphragmatic hernia, and her chances were 50/50,” Amy told Millard.

“In Maisie’s case her liver and bowel were in her chest. After being told that she had CDH, we were offered a termination, which quite took me aback. I couldn’t believe what the doctor was saying to me. I told him that wasn’t even an option.”

Maisie was born at 37 weeks, a little over three months ago, weighing 5lb and 4oz. She was immediately taken away to be intubated and had her operation on the day after “Boxing Day” (in England Boxing Day is celebrated the day after Christmas).
“It was the longest few hours of my life,” Amy said. “Since then Maisie has just gone from strength to strength.”

Millard concludes her lovely story with a description from Amy–Maisie is “the best baby.”

“She sleeps through the night and is always, always smiling. It melts my heart because she has been through so much yet she is always, always smiling. I am welling up just talking to you.”

Source: NRLC News

Oklahoma and Life

Gov. Fallin Signs Oklahoma Perinatal Hospice Bill into law

By Dave Andrusko

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin

The good news is in and now it’s official. On Monday pro-life Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin signed HB 2685—the Perinatal Hospice Bill—into law.

HB 2685 addresses a rare but tragic circumstance: when a pregnant woman is told that her unborn child has a fetal anomaly incompatible with life. All too often the physician encourages the mother to consider abortion as the “humane” response to such a diagnosis. The Perinatal Hospice Bill is the pro-life alternative.
The mother (and father) facing these circumstances will receive information about public and private agencies and services available to her which offer perinatal hospice and palliative care if, instead of abortion, she decides to carry her baby to term.

Even the Associated Press wrote about the new law in respectful terms. “Perinatal hospice services provide support from the time of diagnosis through the infant’s birth and death,” the AP explained, “Those services can include obstetricians, neonatologists, psychiatrists or other mental health professionals as well as clergy, social workers and specialty nurses.”

Tony Lauinger, State Chairman, Oklahomans for Life, told NRL News Today, “Our throw-away culture today too often exhibits a coarsened attitude toward the intrinsic value of each individual human life – especially the life of a child with a diagnosis of severe or lethal disability – and too readily regards killing as an acceptable ‘solution’ in such a case.” He added, “The least we should do when a family faces the heartbreak of such a diagnosis is provide them information about the positive alternative of perinatal hospice, comfort care, and family counseling.”

Earlier this month, NRL President Carol Tobias eloquently wrote about “Pro-Life Caring, Pro-Life Compassion.”  Here are some excerpts:

It must be a devastating thing to be told your unborn child might have a condition incompatible with sustaining life. Sometimes, of course, the child survives and thrives despite the diagnosis. But when these tragedies do occur, they are very real and painful to the families. And often, the attending medical personnel recommend, or even pressure, the mother to abort.

In response to these tragedies, our state Right to Life affiliate worked with advocates, legislators, and NRLC, and passed an amendment to the state’s Woman’s Right to Know informed consent law to ensure parents would receive helpful information about public and private agencies and services that offer life-affirming hospice for these infants (called perinatal hospice), with palliative care, and counseling for the parents.

Armed with such support, the parents could partner with these agencies to help their children receive the love and nurturing they need and deserve. Knowing this support is available in such a difficult circumstance, parents are far less likely to succumb to pressure to abort. …

Intentionally taking the child’s life is no answer – any more than killing any other individual with a disability would be justified. “Perfection” is something none of us can claim, and using “quality control” as grounds for aborting a baby is unworthy of a society that respects the sanctity of each innocent human life.

There are many effective ways we can fight against the notion that some life can be deemed “disposable.” Support for laws like this in states across the country is one such way.

Congratulations to Oklahomans for Life!

Source: NRLC News

Memories of Abortion

 

Rocker’s memoir tells of being haunted by her abortion, defends “right” to abortion anyway

By Dave Andrusko
This will be a brief post because I could find very little about “Clothes, Clothes, Clothes, Music, Music, Music, Boys, Boys, Boys,” the memoir of Viv Albertine.
Okay, I didn’t who she was, either. She was the star of the 1970s all-girl punk band, “The Slits,” a group that was apparently hugely influential in breaking through in a male-dominated industry.
Her story intersects with us in that she had an abortion in 1978 “rather than give up her career,” as a publicity blurb for the book puts it. In the years to come Albertine tried IVF treatments eleven times and “lost two babies before finally becoming mother to a little girl in 1999.”

In the book (we are told) she writes, “I didn’t regret the abortion for 20 years. But eventually I did and I still regret it now. I wish I’d kept the baby, whatever the cost. It’s hard to live with.” But, she adds, the right to choose “cannot and must not be ever taken away from us.”
A couple of thoughts. Even though she is “adamant” that abortion be legal, she also “admits the abortion haunted her throughout the process of trying to have a baby.”

How it could it not? Having exercised her “choice” to abort the baby fathered by another rock star, for the longest time everything pointed to her never being able to conceive again. And then she loses two babies (presumably to miscarriages). Of course Albertine is “haunted”—by regret, by remorse, and, perhaps, by a little ghost.

And it is equally understandable that the regret she had bottle up might not make its way to the surface of her mind until around the time she had her little girl (maybe when she had her child; the blurb is not exact).

When Albertine looked at her, how could she not see a reminder of the child whose life was less important to Albertine than her career?
Her story reminds you of what so many, many post-abortive women have said with insight and remorse: abortion doesn’t make you unpregnant; it makes you the mother of a dead baby.

Source: NRLC News

NARAL and Crisis Pregancy Centers

 

Having won over Google, NARAL looks for more ways to stop CPCs from advertising

By Dave Andrusko
Over the next few days, we should learn more about NARAL’s successful campaign to convince Google to pull ads paid for by Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Yesterday we talked about what could be gleaned from a story in the Washington Post (“Google accepts NARAL’s ‘analysis,’ rejects pro-life CPC ads”). Today we’ll talk about what comes through in NARAL’s victory lap fund-raiser and a story in The Hill newspaper.

For those who missed yesterday’s post, Google accepted NARAL’s assertion that CPC’s were deliberately misleading in their advertising. The Post story intimated that only “some” CPC ads would be affected. In fact, NARAL targeted 79% of CPC ads.

But, in fact, what NARAL is attempting to do is far worse than that. They are trying to parley their success with Google to convince other search engines to bow down to NARAL—and, of course, raise money from their supporters at the same time.

So what have we learned in addition? First, from Julian Hattem of The Hill, “NARAL logged a series of complaints with Google about ads that it claimed were deceptive, and spent the last month urging the company to take action. According to NARAL, more than two-thirds of the ads it passed along to Google were removed.” More than two-thirds!

Second, no backsliding will be tolerated. “NARAL, though, says it will work with Google to make sure that the ads don’t come back,” Hattem writes. “It’s also organizing a thank you note to CEO Larry Page, to ‘support your commitment to ending this manipulation of women making vital health decisions.’”
What else? “Google’s leadership in removing the majority of these ads is a victory for truth in advertising and for the women who have been targeted by a deliberate misinformation campaign by crisis pregnancy centers,” Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement Monday. “The action taken by Google to address this pressing problem raises the bar for other search engines to monitor and enforce their own advertising policies.”

So we’re clear. NARAL is not content (as if anyone would think they would be) to have Google take “appropriate actions”—which includes (as a Google spokesman told The Hill) “account disablings and blacklists — as quickly as possible.” They want Bing and Yahoo and Ask and AOL Search to squelch CPC advertising as well.

And, of course, no NARAL assault would be complete without hypocrisy and trolling for money. As we reported yesterday, Hogue piously insisted to the Post, “We have no problem with crisis pregnancy centers advertising online; we have no problem with their existing.”
Really? So the laws you get compliant city and county councils to adopt to drive them out of business—laws that are flagrant violations of First Amendment rights—don’t count? Or the bogus “studies” you grind out to “prove” the falsehoods you brought to the table are “true” are incidental?
But on top of all that, Hogue sends out an email with this:

“It won’t be long before CPCs and their supporters go after Google for making this change because deceptive ads are one of the primary ways they lure women into their doors.” (boldface in the original).

Let’s ignore the obvious—that Hogue and NARAL are so wedded to multiple layers of deception they wouldn’t know a truthful statement if it smacked them in the face. Hogue would have her readers believe that CPCs, which charge nothing or next to nothing for their services and are largely run by volunteers, are so powerful that NARAL would be pulverized if Hogue’s supporters don’t fork over even more money.
No wonder President Obama loves NARAL. They are two peas in a pod.

Source: NRLC News

Obama and the People

 

Obama popularity craters in new Post/ABC News poll

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama

When the headline for the lead story in today’s Washington Post reads, “Post-ABC News poll shows Democrats at risk in November as Obama’s approval rating falls,” you know the results of this survey of 1,000 adults must have been ominous.
And that conclusion is certainly borne out by Dan Balz’s and Peyton M. Craghill’s lead paragraph:
“Democrats face serious obstacles as they look to the November elections, with President Obama’s approval rating at a new low and a majority of voters saying they prefer a Congress in Republican hands to check the president’s agenda, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.”
Since awful poll numbers for President Obama are nothing new, let’s investigate why the Post is panicking.

• Obama’s approval number is down to 41%. So? It was at 46% the first three months of the year. If you read carefully a ton of stories over the last couple of weeks, you know that reporters and columnists had convinced themselves that Obama—and by extension the Democrats running in November—had turned a corner. And then….this. (And a National Journal poll, which we’ll discuss below.)
• The Post and ABC News keeps cranking out poll data that shows the public is much more supportive of ObamaCare than does any other poll; indeed slightly more approve than disapprove in this one. Just a couple of weeks ago, however, a national survey by the Pew Research Center and USA Today found that 50% disapproved to only 37% who approved, virtually the same as the month before.
• But having found what it was looking for, the Post/ABC News survey ran into this unwelcomed news: “A 58 percent majority say the new law [ObamaCare] is causing higher costs overall, and 47 percent say it will make the health-care system worse. While a majority say the quality of the health care they receive will remain the same, a plurality expect it to result in higher personal costs for that care.” And to be clear, only 8% think their costs have gone down.
• A huge part of the narrative that things had finally started moving in the right direction–that the debate was “over” over ObamaCare—was because a certain number of people had (we were told) signed up. But the Post/ABC News survey found that barely 3 in 8 (37%) approve of the President’s handling of the implementation of ObamaCare.
• On the all-important question of whether people think the country is headed in the right direction, “Americans express continued discontent about the country’s direction, with two-thirds saying things are on the wrong track,” Balz and Craighill write. This is hardly surprising, especially given that “Just 42 percent approve of his handling of the economy.”

And then there is this. “Another measure of voting intentions came when people were asked whether they thought it was more important to have Democrats in charge in Congress to help support Obama’s policies or Republicans in charge to act as a check on the president’s policies. On this, 53 percent of voters say Republicans and 39 percent say Democrats. That is almost identical to the results of the same question when it was asked in September 2010, two months before the GOP landslide.”

• Switching over to a preview of a National Journal poll that appeared yesterday written by Ron Brownstein, we learn that Obama’s approval is at 41% in that survey as well. An abysmal 27% said the country was on the right track.
• One other all-important number coming out of the National Journal poll: intensity. Barely one in five–21%–strongly approve of the President’s performance. But nearly four in ten–39%–strongly disapprove, almost twice as many.

The President (and certain Democratic strategists) insist that vulnerable Democrats are better off running in support of ObamaCare. If they actually believe that—which is highly unlikely—and Democrats take their advice, they will rue the day.

Source: NRLC News

Contraception

  

Royal College of Ob/Gyn bars pro-life doctors from receiving its degrees and diplomas

by Peter Saunders

Doctors and nurses who have a moral objection to prescribing ‘contraceptives’ which act by killing human embryos are to be barred from receiving diplomas in sexual and reproductive health even if they undertake the necessary training according to new guidelines.
Under new rules issued by the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health (FSRH) earlier this year these doctors and nurses are also to be barred from membership of the faculty and from specialty training.

The FSRH is a faculty of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists established on the 26th March 1993 as the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. In 2007 it changed its name to the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare.
Whilst many contraceptives act by preventing the union of sperm and egg, some, including most IUCDs (intrauterine contraceptive devices) and the morning-after pill EllaOne (ulipristal acetate), also act by preventing the implantation of an early embryo. In other words they are embryocidal or abortifacient, rather than truly contra-ceptive.
Many doctors, of all faiths and none, have a moral objection to destroying human life and wish therefore to avoid using drugs or methods which act after fertilisation.
In fact this position was once held by the British Medical Association (BMA) when it adopted the Declaration of Geneva in 1948. This states, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception even against threat’.
But in 1983 the words ‘from the time of conception’ were amended to ‘from its beginning’ due to sensitivities about increasing medical involvement in abortion. The word 'beginning' was left undefined, giving doctors the

opportunity

to argue, contrary to the biological reality, that early human life was not actually human life at all. 

  Now it seems that doctors who wish to abide by the original wording of the Declaration of Geneva are to be barred from practising in certain medical specialties. This is an extraordinary about face.
The Faculty may argue that they are not barring doctors and nurses from practising, but simply from obtaining certain qualifications. But as many job appointments will be conditional on applicants having these qualifications this is effectively also a bar on practice.

Interestingly doctors who have a moral objection to abortion are still able to complete the Faculty’s qualifications because the Abortion Act 1967 contains a conscience clause which protects them. But there is no law protecting those who object to destroying human embryos.
Many Christians believe that every human life, regardless of age, sex, race, degree of disability or any other biological characteristic, is worthy of the utmost respect, wonder, empathy and protection.
This is based on the idea, taught in the Bible, that human beings are made in the image of God. In a society which is becoming more hostile to Christian faith and values it is perhaps not surprising that we are seeing institutional discrimination of this kind.
Perhaps it is time for Christian doctors and nurses, and others who share their prolife views, to set up an alternative training programme.

Reprinted with permission from PJ Saunders

Source: LifeSite News

Cloning

 

The Washington Post’s 180 degree turn on human cloning

By Michael Cook
Good for the Washington Post! It certainly takes a principled stand in its editorial on stem cell research. Not even its potential for curing dread diseases is sufficient reason to cross a bright line, it argues. “The creation of human embryos specifically for research that will destroy them is unconscionable. The government has no business funding it.”
Unfortunately, that was in 1994 (October 2). Almost exactly 20 years later, the Post took a very different line. An editorial last week argued: “As long as scientists do not cross ethical lines much farther from where they are now … researchers should have the flexibility to go in whichever direction is scientifically useful.”

As Emerson once said, “a foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” No one can blame the Post for recalibrating its positions with the years. But a 180-

degree

turn is a different matter.

The 1994 editorial warned of the “slippery slope.” Anyone who denies that this lacks force as an argument should read both editorials carefully. Twenty years ago, the “deeply alarmed” Post said that creating embryos for experimentation was “flat wrong”. Now it says that “Some ethical worries are reasonable, but they are not enough reason to hold back this research.”

What is very discouraging in this comparison is not so much the change in the Post’s position as its decline in moral sophistication. Back in 1994, it recognised that serious ethical issues were involved. The issue could not be decided simply by acquiescing to scientists’ demands. Now its position is essentially that the only thing that matters is financial and scientific success. Is this really progress?
Editor’s note. This appeared at bioedge.org.

Source: NRLC News

The Ghost of Kivorkian

 

Assisted Suicide Frees Doctors’ Inner Kevorkian

By Wesley J. Smith
Pathologist Jack Kevorkian infamously assisted the suicides of people he had not actually treated, or even examined. He would look at medical records, speak to the victim, and bring on the carbon monoxide or suicide machine.

Similarly, a Swiss doctor assisted the suicide of a man he did not physically examine, and took umbrage that authorities brought a case against him. From The Local story:

“A Neuchâtel doctor is considering an appeal after being fined 500 francs ($517) by a local court that found him guilty of helping an 89-year-old patient die without getting a proper diagnosis of the man’s condition.

“The prosecution argued that Freiburghaus had ‘crossed the line’ by failing to follow the legal regulations, which require that a doctor must properly diagnose the presence of an incurable illness and a short life expectancy before assisting suicide.”

Are they kidding? In recent days, we have seen Swiss suicide clinic deaths of healthy elderly women, one upset with modern technology and the other about losing her looks.

Back to the story:

“The doctor said he was reproached for not having gone far enough with his diagnosis. But Freiburghaus said he obtained a complete history of the man’s illness from the patient. From this he determined the man was suffering from rectal cancer. The doctor testified, however, that his patient did not want to be treated or examined and threatened to commit suicide by his own means.

“The doctor’s appalling abdication of professionalism reminds me of Dutch

nursing

home euthanasia death doctor, Bert Kaiser, who wrote in Dancing with Mr. D, that he euthanized a man due to lung cancer even though the diagnoses wasn’t certain.” Freiburghaus is upset that his prerogatives could be limited:

“Freiburghaus remained unrepentant, expressing disbelief over the court’s decision, according to an online report from Le Matin. ‘Soon a doctor will no longer be able to do anything without contravening legal niceties,’ he is quoted as saying by the newspaper.”

Similarly, Kaiser wrote that as he was on his way to lethally inject the patient, he told colleagues, “If anyone so much as whispers ‘cortisone’ or ‘uncertain diagnosis,’ I’ll hit him.” (Page 39.)
Here’s the moral of the story: Assisted suicide/euthanasia eventually brings out some “doctors’” inner Kevorkian. That is just one reason why we should reject the death agenda.

Editor’s note. This appeared on Wesley’s great blog.

Source: NRLC News