Over this past weekend a good friend, Paul Byrne, M.D., sent an interesting comment my way. He pointed out that one of the root words of palliative is pall.

I checked it in my trusty Merriam-Webster's dictionary and found the following:

2b (1): a heavy cloth draped over a coffin (2): a coffin especially when holding a body
3a: something that covers or conceals; especially: an overspreading element that produces an effect of gloom <a pall of thick black smoke> <a pall of suspicion> b: a feeling of gloom <his absence cast a pall over the celebration>

In the context of the ongoing debate regarding whether or not a form of euthanasia may appear in the final version of the nationalized health care [insurance] reform bill, this word has a connotation which cannot be ignored. It has already been shown that palliative care can be used to either relieve pain or expedite a quick exit for the patient. It all depends on who is administering the medicine and whose orders are being followed.

The Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance for Health Care Workers wrote the following in the seminal document, Charter for Health Care Workers, in addressing “The use of painkillers for the terminally ill” in Chapter III, 246:

Sometimes the systematic use of narcotics which reduce the consciousness of the patient is a cloak for the frequently unconscious wish of the health care worker to discontinue relating to the dying person. In this case it is not so much the alleviation of the patient's suffering that is sought as the convenience of those in attendance. The dying person is deprived of the possibility of "living his own life", by reducing him to a state of unconsciousness unworthy of a human being. This is why the administration of narcotics for the sole purpose of depriving the dying person of a conscious end is "a truly deplorable practice."

It is a different matter when there is a serious clinical case for the administration of analgesics which suppress consciousness, as when there is violent and unbearable pain. In this case the anesthetic is said to be licit, provided certain conditions are fulfilled: that the dying person has fulfilled or could still fulfill his moral, family and religious obligations.
 

In other words, the very same medication that can bring relief can also be used to kill. It’s not that difficult to comprehend. This is but one reason to be concerned that current discussions relating to Obamacare could lead to some pretty unfathomable horrors.

All anyone has to do is pay close attention to the discussions regarding end-of-life care. It is not beyond the pale to imagine that in one form or another, euthanizing the older generation may become one of those cost-cutting activities that cannot be avoided.

Consider the recent comments of author-screenwriter Richard Dooling, who is clearly no health care expert. Be that as it may, he weighed in with these acrid words in a New York Times commentary: 

One thing’s for sure: Our health care system has failed. Generational spending wars loom on the horizon. Rationing of health care is imminent.

I am not, of course, talking about euthanasia. I’m just wondering why the nation continues incurring enormous debt to pay for bypass surgery and titanium-knee replacements for octogenarians and nonagenarians, when for just a small fraction of those costs we could provide children with preventive health care and nutrition. Eight million children have no health insurance, but their parents pay 3 percent of their salaries to Medicare to make sure that seniors get the very best money can buy in prescription drugs for everything from restless leg syndrome to erectile dysfunction, scooters and end-of-life intensive care.
 

Then there’s Ross Douthat, who wrote about the enormity of the "burden" created by overspending Medicare dollars:

And if you think reform is tough today, just wait. We’re already practically a gerontocracy: Americans over 50 cast over 40 percent of the votes in the 2008 elections, and half the votes in the ’06 midterms. As the population ages — by 2030, there will be more Americans over 65 than under 18 — the power of the elderly and nearly elderly may become almost absolute.

In this future, somebody will need to stand for the principle that Medicare can’t pay every bill and bless every procedure. Somebody will need to defend the younger generation’s promise (and its pocketbooks). Somebody will need to say “no” to retirees.

Both of these writers did not mention other citizens whose care can be very costly. For example, the extremely premature baby who is born with specific problems caused by early birth, or the newborn with critical problems requiring special attention, or the individual who suffers a severe disability due to accident or genetic anomaly. In each of these cases, large sums of money are required to treat them. What about their future under regulated health care spending? Based on the sensitivities being expressed toward spending too much on certain types of treatment, it isn’t difficult to imagine that those I have just mentioned could also be required to make sacrifices for the greater good of a culture committed to financial savings over life saving.

It’s all about “quality of life” after all, and some people are, well, expendable!

When Obama spoke to a gathering of 50+ Americans at an AARP gathering, he recommended that they consider his suggested reforms to the Medicare program as fiscally responsible and necessary in today’s economy. Among Obama’s preferences is the Independent Medicare Advisory Committee. IMAC has been defined as a group of individuals who would oversee how Medicare is administered and would recommend ways to make it more efficient. Some have suggested that such a committee could recommend health care rationing based on cost cutting. Washington Post political commentator David Broder wrote, 

Obama's proposal almost certainly would accelerate change in the way health care is delivered -- and it might actually save money in the long run.

But Congress will have to decide if it is willing to yield that degree of control to five unelected IMAC commissioners. And Americans will have to decide if they are comfortable having those commissioners determine how they will be treated when they are ill.

Without belaboring this point, it is wise and prudent to step back and examine the ramifications of any proposal in view of the groups of citizens for whom the proposal could have life-altering effects. For as Mark Steyn wrote recently,

The problem with government health systems is not that they pull the plug on Grandma. It's that Grandma has a hell of a time getting plugged in in the first place.…This ought to be of particular concern to Americans. As is often pointed out, U.S. life expectancy (78.06 years) lags behind other developed nations with government health care (United Kingdom 78.7, Germany 78.95, Sweden 80.63). So proponents of Obamacare are all but offering an extra "full year" of Euro-Canadian geriatric leisure as a signing bonus.

While some might think that Steyn is flippant about the problem that is confronting our nation, I would counter by suggesting that at least Steyn is talking about it! It is a provocative subject, and the more that is said about it, the better. There is still time, at this point, to stop such madness, but first the electorate has to realize that the White House smoke-and-mirrors show has another agenda, and it’s not a pretty one.

Leave it to Pat Boone, a dear friend and outspoken critic of Obamacare, to set the tone. He explains it is not just the "radicals" who are beginning to tell the truth about Obamacare:

•    Congress plans to pay for this "reform" by cutting $500 billion from Medicare. –Washington Post (July 16)
•    There will be long waits for care. –USA Today (July 17)
•    There will be cuts to MRIs, CAT scans and other vital tests. –Associated Press (June 24)
•    Seniors will lose their choice of doctors. –New York Times (April 2)
•    Government bureaucrats – not doctors – will decide if older patients are worth the costs of care. –Los Angeles Times (June 25)

Friends, these are not "right-wing" talk-show hosts holding the president's feet to the fire – these are some of the most liberal media outlets in the country! Even they are realizing that this bloated, misleading and outrageous scheme will set the stage, in actual practice and predictable bureaucratic perversion, for Orwellian governmental control over who gets care and what kind. They factually have to report that it's IMPOSSIBLE to cut Medicare by $500 billion and still provide for the 40 million more baby boomers who are coming into eligibility! The president's analysts say they can – but ordinary citizens know it's IMPOSSIBLE.

Obamacare is having the expected effect on the general population. The pall has been placed over the truth, and the unsuspecting will go forth believing that Obama is providing them hope and change! 

Pallbearers will soon be the next change agents unless we stop this current rush to reform, bury it and start over.

This guest commentary was published on the Lead Us Not into Temptation blog site on August 3, 2009 and is used with its kind permission.

By Carol McKinley

It’s been a tough few weeks for President Obama. The urban legends he has told to garner support for the march towards socialism are finally losing their traction.

You could hear the sound of screeching brakes all over America at the collision between an elite Harvard professor and a president making a racial incident out of a police officer’s response to a 911 call – and the government takeover of health care. America is coming out of the trance.

As a warrior in the trenches, I couldn’t count the number of times prayer mercenaries have transformed a blunder into a period of grace. Catholics had better take full advantage of the reprieve. We have a lot to lose in the ethical conundrums of rationing treatment and mercy in a government-controlled HMO.

The mission of providing ethical, compassionate, quality health care to the sick and poor is about to be “reformed” into setting criteria that determine the value of the patient’s life measured against the cost of treating their illness.

The Church’s teachings

Denying medical care to the poor, elderly and catastrophically ill to benefit the government is diametrically opposed to Catholic ethics and the Catholic animus. Pope Benedict XVI expounded on “[t]he inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual” as a “constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2273, emphasis in original) in his recently published encyclical, Caritas in Veritate:

Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man’s true good… (Section 28, emphasis in original)

In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology… (Section 51, emphasis in original)

To the tragic and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future – indeed it is already surreptitiously present – the systematic eugenic programming of births. At the other end of the spectrum, a pro-euthanasia mindset is making inroads as an equally damaging assertion of control over life that under certain circumstances is deemed no longer worth living. Underlying these scenarios are cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in turn foster a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life. Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development?... While the poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks, on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human. (Section 75)

Obama projects that giving access to our health care system to 50 million more people will cost Americans less money than it does now. In fact, at the breaking point, Obama claims his health care program will start paying for itself. Like his projections about the economy, writing off the debt of irresponsible people who caused the mortgage crisis, cash for clunkers and “racial profiling,” Obama is, once again, way off the mark.

You don’t have to be a mathematician to figure out that giving access to 50 million more people in an already burdened health care system and spending less means the patients currently in the system will be sacrificing their present level of care and services. There have been negative impacts on health care access, cancer survival rates, and the quality of life for the elderly, learning disabled and sick in every country where there has been a government takeover of health care. Obama can’t escape the laws of supply and demand. Supporting laws destined to place life-threatening hardships upon the disadvantaged and suffering is fundamentally immoral.

We’ve got to digest the threats to the sanctity of life and Catholic conscience protections, educate grassroots Catholics and make a lot of noise in the public square in the next several weeks. We’re going to see Obama infomercials pushing overhaul in the mainstream media in the month of August, ad nauseam. The theologically fallacious Catholics United is firing salvos. Catholic Charities USA, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul and the Catholic Health Association are banding together to advance the taxpayer-funded abortions and euthanasia assistance crafted into the legislation.

Stand up and fight.

The threat to the elderly

Reading the proposals, there is no doubt that seniors would pay a heavy price. The White House has proposed the creation of an independent panel to recommend Medicare and Medicaid cuts. Seniors would not only be losing benefits. From all indications, it appears that they would be losing control over life-and-death decisions and care. This is inhumane.

Last week, EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo put up a must-read post on his blog, raising the same concerns many have over disturbing references in the bill:

The elderly or people with catastrophic diseases are clearly in the sights of the administration and the congressional leadership for the simple reason that they cost too much. A quarter of all Medicare payments occur in the last year of life, costing the government more than 100 billion dollars a year, according to Forbes Magazine.

“One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’ This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.” [interview with Betsy McCaughey, patient advocate and former lieutenant governor of New York]

This “Advance Care Planning Consultation” would encourage all of us, but especially those with severe illnesses to submit to hospices rather than pursue expensive therapies that might extend life (and cost a bundle). The bill also establishes a tracking system to insure that doctors are advocating “advance care directives” where you predetermine what type of care you would accept or refuse at the end of life. The problem with all of this is it assigns a utilitarian value to human life. If you are too old or disabled, there will be a built-in incentive to push you into hospice and palliative care rather than work to beat the disease.

This isn’t hype and hysteria from the fringe. Calm, credible people reading the bills are drawing these same conclusions across the board. Arm yourself with citations from the bill, go to senior centers in your hometown and educate them about the contents of the “reforms.” The mainstream media is not going to publish the truth, but there is nothing holding us back from doing a little “community organizing” of our own.

‘By their fruits, you will know them’

Seniors and, in fact, most people in this country, are unaware that Obama recently appointed a science czar (John Holdren) who co-authored a book entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Among Holdren's philosophies are the following: 

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.”

This correlates with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent, breathtaking admission that Roe was to rid us of undesirables, i.e. “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The president has surrounded himself with radical pro-abortionists, including Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who will have a heavy hand of influence in shaping and executing policies. Catholics, other Christians and other decent people can’t ignore the dangers of giving such people power over life, death and health. Educate your priests and those in your parish. With enlightenment on Obama’s trajectory, the health care bill will take on a new patina.

The Massachusetts experience

Catholics should be outraged that the poor are being used and exploited by the White House to swindle them out of benefits and life itself. Catholics United, Catholic Charities and other social pirates who are propagating the myth that this type of health care “reform” is about service to the poor should be vigorously castigated. The poor already have health coverage in combined federal- and state- subsidized programs. (For example, in Massachusetts, there is MassHealth – Medicaid and SCHIP.)

In Massachusetts, where health care “reform” was instituted in 2007, benefits have been siphoned off from the indigent and transferred to households earning $77,400 for a family of five. For a family of eight, the household income can be up to $111,080. But families earning $30,000, previously eligible for free health care, are burdened with premiums and co-payments costing nearly $10,000 for the least expensive plan.

In fact, in early July, Boston Medical Center (formerly known as Boston City Hospital, serving the poorest of the poor in Boston) filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The suit says the hospital will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and stopped paying Boston Medical “reasonable costs” for treating other poor patients.

“We filed this suit more in sorrow than in anger,” said Elaine Ullian, the hospital’s chief executive. “We believe in health care reform to the bottom of our toes, but it was never, ever supposed to be financed on the backs of the poor, and that’s what has happened in Massachusetts.”

The central charge in the suit is that the state has siphoned money away from Boston Medical to help pay the considerable cost of insuring all but a small percentage of residents…

According to the suit, Massachusetts is now reimbursing Boston Medical only 64 cents for every dollar it spends treating the poor. About 10 percent of the hospital’s patients are uninsured – down from about 20 percent before the law’s passage in 2006. But many more are on Medicaid or Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized insurance program for low-income residents.

Astoundingly, with all the rancor and rhetoric from Democrats about the compassionate immigration policies absent in the Republican agenda, when the cost of operating “health care reform” produced an ever-growing deficit, 30,000 legal immigrants were the first people thrown under the bus by the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts legislature: 30,000 of them received letters of health care termination.

The cost of providing health care to the 30,000 immigrants is approximately $130 million a year. A vote on July 29 restored $40 million of the budget, leaving uncertainty about the effect of eliminating $90 million in coverage for permanent residents who have had green cards for less than five years.

Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s former senior adviser, provided an informed analysis of the siphoning off of funds from the poor:

Mr. Obama’s problem is that nine out of 10 Americans would likely get worse health care if ObamaCare goes through. Of those who do not have insurance – and who therefore might be better off – approximately one-fifth are illegal aliens, nearly three-fifths make $50,000 or more a year and can afford insurance, and just under a third are probably eligible for Medicaid or other government programs already.

For the slice of the uninsured that is left – perhaps about 2% of all American citizens –Team Obama would dismantle the world’s greatest health-care system.

Don’t wait for clerical leadership

There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Catholic trenches in Boston in terms of what lies ahead nationally. In late February of this year, the Caritas Christi health care delivery network sought and was awarded a contract that includes providing abortions, family planning services and other moral evils to the uncatechized, the unsuspecting poor and women emotionally distraught due to an unplanned pregnancy.

With the advice and public consent of Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Caritas gave the Commonwealth written assurances that Catholic medical staff would inform women of health care options, including abortions. They appointed NARAL members to serve as advisors and agreed to give them access to monitor Catholic health care workers to ensure compliance.

Caritas set up a corporation, sought out and signed contracts with abortionists, set up a 24-hour family planning/abortion hotline number and hired employees to direct women to the abortionists with whom it contracted and took a 49-percent interest in the operation. A handful of Catholics relentlessly exposed the arrangement and, with some assistance from American Life League, we were able to get Cardinal O'Malley to retreat from ownership in the operation. However, the arrangement marched forward with all the abortion contracts, the 24-hour hotline, written assurances and NARAL oversight of Caritas employees intact.

It should be noted that Cardinal O’Malley tried to generate support for the arrangement by purporting that Catholic theology permitted entering into a contract that binds a Catholic in the performance of moral evils; in effect, he claimed that even though we realize the sinful nature of performing those moral evils, so long as we recruit others to perform the evils, it does not violate Catholic ethics. Theologically, spiritually and ethically, nothing could be more unsound. Knowing something is wrong and sinful, and then baiting somebody else into doing it who doesn’t know, compounds the sin. The Caritas arrangement is as ethical as hiring Kevorkian to kill your elderly parents when they become a personal and financial burden.

The cardinal outsourced his conscience to the National Catholic Bioethics Center, which reportedly gave him a formal opinion stating the current arrangement is ethically sound. Repeated requests to the cardinal to release the opinion of the NCBC have been rebuffed.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear about those who give scandal by becoming their “neighbor’s tempter” (Sections 2284–2287). Leading others to do evil “takes on a particular gravity” for those in authority who cause it:

Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!” (Section 2287)

The fight for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the next generation of Catholics is in the hands of lay leaders. Every one of us must raise our voices in the public square.

Carol McKinley is a pro-life activist, a paralegal working in the affordable housing industry and the creator of the Lead Us Not into Temptation blog site. Her activism was inspired by a desire to preserve her three children’s faith from the influence of Planned Parenthood’s ever-growing sexual promiscuity and abortion agenda in both public and Catholic academia. She resides in the challenging city of Boston.

This guest commentary was originally published by www.StumpReport.com and is used with its kind permission.

By Phil Kammer

I have always believed that our Creator has made His laws and precepts clear for all of His creation. So this thought came to mind one day …
 
A young woman finds herself living the typical college life: excited about her life to come and fearful of things that can go wrong. In school, she unexpectedly finds the man of her dreams and, although much in love, is panicked and fearful when she finds herself with child. She consults one of the many “family planning” businesses, and its advice seems reasonable: Protect your college education; protect your future: Have an abortion.
 
The young woman pauses and again her “family planning” counselor says, “It’s in your best interest; it’s merely a fetus and of no consequence.” As she ponders such assurances from a counselor who seems so caring, a date is set. And then the “procedure” is performed.
 
Years have now passed, guilt has faded and love has blossomed. The woman now finds herself in the deepest of love with the man of her dreams. They have a beautiful wedding with everyone there, their careers couldn’t be better and their life is grand. A great surprise has come to the newly married couple: They have now conceived a child. The young married couple could never have guessed what joy there would be in planning for a first child. A room is chosen and furnished with love. An ultrasound suggests a blue room, and joy is the order of the day.

One day, the couple decides that a slow walk in the park would be nice. But a thief lurks there in the shadows, waiting to carry out a robbery. Under a shady elm tree, he strikes. At gunpoint, he shouts, “Give me your money!” They pause; he becomes angry. Her young husband is heroic at heart, but is thrown to the ground. His young bride, still standing, bears the brunt of the thief’s anger as a single, surreal “pop” sounds under the elm tree. The young bride stands there, desperately clutching her stomach …
 
I end this short story here because here is where humanity takes control of the abortion debate. In life, a person chooses to be honest or not. They choose to follow the natural law – or not.

Are you an honest person?

When the young woman was in college, she was told that what was growing inside of her was just a piece of flesh – a fetus of no consequence.
 
When she was struck by the thief’s bullet, did she cry out, “My fetus, my fetus!” or “My baby, my baby!”?
 
Our Creator has endowed us with certain undeniable attributes, chief of which is that the truth is written in every human heart.

The vast majority of women will immediately respond that this woman cried out, “My baby, my baby!” Due to political conditioning, some will hesitate to answer this question. However, the truth remains: Our God-given nature tells all of us that what grows within a woman, regardless of her economic, social or political condition, is simply a baby.
 
I have not told this tale to play a trick, but rather to shed light on the use of the word “fetus” and how callously it is used by abortion profiteers. Many have written in defense of abortion. Most of these writings are lengthy and complicated – as intended.

Remember: The truth is simple.

Phil Kammer is an independent freelance writer, public speaker, and avid proponent of the U.S. Constitution and life’s simple truths. He earned a degree in public policy from California State University and an M.B.A. from Pepperdine University. He is also the creator and owner of www.StumpReport.com, a conservative web site dedicated to simple truths in American politics.

Responses

Thank you Judie for posting Phil Kammer's column "My Baby". I have sent this to as many people I can think of & Mr. Kammer's message really gives one something to think about. I abhor abortion & am reassured only by knowing that God will stop this barbarism at his chosen time & that those whose lives were taken by abortion will have their say in the matter on the day of the Judgement. Thank you again & may God bless you always!
Yours In Christ,
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.
Langhorne, Pennsylvania
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr. | August 15, 2009

---

I agree. The truth is simple. The truth will set us free (from sin). Jesus is the Truth. In His Will is our Peace.

I watched you on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo. Thank you for defending life. You were kind and respectful. You spoke the Truth and in a no-nonsense, clearly non-negotiable, and factual way.

As the above story illustrates, the truth is simple; a lie requires a bunch of baloney. Unfortuantely, only those who love the truth, will hear the Truth.

Thank you for all that you do in the defense of life. May God bless you and keep you safe.

Julie
Julianna Konkol | August 16, 2009

---

This is very beautiful, and yet so true. We only call it a "fetus" when its "unwanted" we never call it a fetus or an embryo when we are glad we're pregnant! Thats sad!
elisabeth | August 16, 2009

---

This article was published in the August 9-22, 2009 issue of the National Catholic Register and is presented as a guest commentary, with the Register’s kind permission.

By Robin Rohr

As the pro-life movement fights to keep abortion out of the health-care reform bill, an undercover attack on the elderly may be taking place unnoticed.

At issue is a provision that calls for end-of-life counseling of senior citizens every five years. That counseling can include topics such as how to decline nutrition and hydration, antibiotics and basic care treatments for specific conditions such as flu or pneumonia, and how to choose palliative and hospice care for the terminally ill.

“I’ve read about a third of HR 3200 and the counseling parts are designed to encourage euthanasia,” claimed Dr. Katherine Schlaerth, an associate professor of family medicine at Loma Linda University School of Medicine. “Seniors will be counseled every five years, and more often if they get sicker.”

Schlaerth, who emphasized that she does not speak for Loma Linda University, said that a frail, elderly, ill and depressed patient or that patient’s family “may easily agree to withhold antibiotics or fluid without realizing the full implication.”

“Patients who have a worsening of their chronic condition, but who may not even be pre-terminal, are included in this strong-arm counseling, and their respect for authority figures could pave the way for agreement with cessation of care not in their interest at all,” Schlaerth said. “Health-care providers, meanwhile, may be forced to give counseling directly opposed to their religious or moral beliefs.”

Key lawmakers are in agreement with Schlaerth. “Section 1233 encourages health-care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration’ and other end-of-life treatments and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressure to sign an end-of-life directive they would not otherwise sign,” said the House Republican leader, John Boehner, R-Ohio, and the Republican Policy Committee chairman, Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich., in a July 23 statement. “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Death as Cost Savings
At first glance, the counseling of elders for care options seems like an innocuous requirement. But Schlaerth says the purpose of the counseling has darker roots.

“The real reason for these draconian provisions directed against elders who are not terminal, I believe, is to save on Social Security payments as well as Medicare payments,” Schlaerth said. “The math is obvious. If you kill the disabled and give ‘quality preventive care’ to the well, your health-care statistics will look excellent.”

Bill May, chairman of Catholics for the Common Good, also views the mandatory counseling sessions as an outrageous cover to introduce assisted suicide.

“We need to pay attention to issues related to shortening the lives and hastening death for the elderly, infirm and disabled – another way of getting rid of undesirable, non-useful and costly people,” he said. “This bill creates a platform for assisted suicide for the elderly, infirm and disabled at times they are most vulnerable, depressed and open to suggestions of ending their lives early. Compassion & Choices, the former Hemlock Society, wants to get into the end-of-life counseling business, and it looks like the health-care bill will open the door for them to become government contractors as purveyors of the culture of death.”

The legislative language of the bill regarding counseling is vague and open to interpretation. “I’m a lawyer, and I find this language incomprehensible,” stated Wesley J. Smith, associate director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. “I believe it is done maliciously. What is clear is that seniors will receive counseling – read ‘re-education’– every five years or whenever their health status changes. The point is to reduce cost. While the language doesn’t require it, these mandatory sessions will often be directed towards not wanting care, in much the same way that genetic counseling of a mother carrying a Down [syndrome] fetus often is directed toward abortion.”

Smith said patients could be referred to organizations like the assisted suicide advocacy group Compassion & Choices to help sort out their choices. “In practice, if not in law, ‘counseling’ will usually be a one-way street,” he said.

Compassion & Choices is an organization that describes itself as working to improve care and expand choice at the end of life. “Wesley J. Smith says the bill is ‘incomprehensible,’ which may explain why he repeatedly misstates what the bill does,” said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion & Choices. “It’s a myth that C&C or any organization [would] be the counselor. The bill specifically says M.D. or nurse practitioner.”

Section 1233 does state the consultation will be performed by a medical provider; however, included in the topics to be discussed is direction to provide “suggested people to talk to” and “a list of national and state-specific resources.”

Rationed Care
Concerns about Obama’s health-care reform adversely affecting older Americans are not new. Earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “Stimulus Bill”) appropriated $1.1 billion for research into “comparative effectiveness,” which compares clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medical treatments, procedures and strategies. One aspect of this comparison is a concept called “Quality Adjusted Life Years,” where the value assigned to life varies with the health state of the person. This method is controversial because it means that some people will not receive treatment if the calculated cost is not warranted by the benefit to their quality of life.

Burke Balch, director of the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, explained that a person’s Quality of Adjusted Life Years determines if a procedure is allowed. “Of significant concern is the phrase ‘comparative effectiveness,’” he said. “This becomes [how] you end up discriminating against a disability. The language in the health-care bills being considered by the House and reported out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee can be used for wide-open interpretation of cost-effectiveness leading to denial of treatment based on quality of life. The funding for the promises made in these bills cannot be sustained, and that will create the atmosphere for rationing.”

May agrees and says that health-care rationing takes place in Oregon, one of two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal. People fighting life-threatening illnesses there regularly receive letters saying that the state insurance plan would not cover their medication but would pay for a lethal prescription to end their lives, he said.

Boehner and McCotter also warn that with Oregon and Washington having legalized assisted suicide, “Section 1233 could create a slippery slope for a more permissive environment for euthanasia, mercy killing and physician-assisted suicide because it does not clearly exclude counseling about the supposed benefits of killing oneself.”

Robin Rohr is a National Catholic Register correspondent and writes from Willits, California.

Responses

Its sad that its always about money! Now life is less important then a couple bucks. No one should be able to tell someone when to die, just because they are ill! Its disgusting
elisabeth | August 14, 2009

---

I am not an expert on health care rationing and end-of-life questions. But I know how to find experts, and the leadership of LifeTree, a pro-life Christian educational ministry, certainly qualifies. Executive director Elizabeth Wickham, Ph.D. and her associate, Ione Whitlock, have dedicated their lives to these matters. LifeTree’s Medical Decisions at the End of Life brochure provides the following answers to frequently asked questions:

What is palliative care?

Traditional palliative care is symptom management at life’s end. Symptoms such as nausea, shortness of breath, and pain can usually be mitigated or "palliated." Unfortunately, some palliative care groups are now training physicians to introduce palliative care (comfort care rather than cure) very early in the diagnosis of a chronic condition or terminal illness. This trend blurs the distinction between ordinary pain control and end-of-life care (palliative care). Moreover, terminal sedation and withholding hydration (see below) are often part of the mix.

When should food and water be withheld?

Death by starvation and dehydration is painful and inhumane. Withholding food and hydration is imposed death, unless the food/water cannot be assimilated, as when death is imminent—when the patient is actively dying, and death is expected within 24–48 hours.

Nancy Valko, RN, notes: “When people are truly [actively] dying and the body's organs begin to shut down, we often see people lose their appetite and desire to drink much. This is a process that can protect a person from suffering from fluid overload at the end and the dying person remains comfortable. But this is very different from a deliberate decision to ‘fast’ to death.”

What is terminal sedation?

Not to be confused with control of physical pain, the goal of terminal sedation (TS, also known as “palliative sedation” or “total sedation”) is “to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness) in order to relieve the burden of intractable suffering.” TS is controversial, and has been called a legal alternative to assisted suicide. Too often TS is used when a patient is not actively dying, and is combined with removal of food and fluids. Withholding food and water can only lead to death. To offer total irreversible sedation to a patient might convey the idea that he or she is a burden, or that his or her life is probably not worth living.

Should I be an organ donor?

Pope John Paul II’s 2001 address to the International Congress of the Transplantation Society insists there be moral certainty that death has occurred before the transplantation of any unpaired vital organ. Unfortunately, in medicine today determination of death (brain death and non-heart-beating death) set standards which are much less stringent than the Holy Father's guidelines. Examples of organs/tissues safe to donate after true death are corneas, heart valves (but not the entire heart), bones, skin, ligaments, and tendons.

How, and why, have medical ethics changed?

Several factors have contributed to changes over the years:

1) Bioethics: Hospitals and medical schools have appointed bioethicists as ethics experts. Bioethics, as currently practiced, focuses on quality of life. Bioethics expert Dianne Irving, Ph.D., explains that whereas “traditional medical ethics focuses on the physician's duty to the individual patient, whose life and welfare are always sacrosanct,” the “focus of bioethics is fundamentally utilitarian, centered, like other utilitarian disciplines, around maximizing total human happiness.” Too often, bioethics shifts the emphasis from improving quality of life, to assessing quality of life — weighing the benefits and burdens of life itself.

2) An entrenched right-to-die belief system:… From Supreme Court cases, to state living will laws, to physician education, the mission was to popularize the concept of forgoing life-sustaining measures. Partnership [for Caring—a right-to-die group] disbanded, but many of its members are now in policy-setting positions in hospice and palliative care organizations at the national level. Visit www.lifetree.org/timeline for more information.

In the rush toward a new, federally controlled health care system, there is a distinct possibility that in their hysteria, its supporters will leave many of these questions either dangling in thin air or completely ignored. It is my considered opinion that health care “reform” advocates will answer very few such questions factually, with evidence to support their claims.

Finally, many ask whether or not health care “reform” could lead to rationing of health care. This is not a crazy question. To find answers, I did some research.

Did you know that Ezekiel Emanuel, M.D., the brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, has written on the question of health care rationing? In fact, he has a long history of being deeply involved in end-of-life care discussions, and his statements do not provide comfort.

Wesley J. Smith, who studies bioethical questions, has examined Dr. Emanuel’s views. He believes that in his January 31 Lancet article, Dr. Emanuel did not “explicitly” advocate rationing “now  based on age.” However, Smith pointed out,

The same can’t be said of an article he wrote in the Hastings Center Report, in which he explicitly advocates rationing based on what appears to be a quality of life measurement. From the piece: 

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic.

Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

A lot of people are frightened that someone who thinks like Emanuel is at the center of an administration seeking to remake the entire health care system. Having read these two articles, I think there is very real cause for concern.

Terri Schiavo’s brother, Bobby Schindler, who has been deeply involved in defending the vulnerable so that nothing like the horrors she died from will happen to others, likewise has words of warning about health care rationing: 

Much has been written warning us about the dangers of Obamacare, but mostly in terms of what it would mean for the elderly and perhaps the chronically ill. Unfortunately, I have not seen any reports of what will happen to those like Terri—the cognitively disabled. However, from what I am reading and what is being proposed for health care reform, I think it is safe to say that those like Terri don’t stand a chance. Especially, if the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) is formed that will put bioethicists in charge of who can and cannot receive treatment.

We are in grave danger any time health care decisions are taken out of the hands of individual patients and their families and placed into the hands of government bureaucrats whose decisions are based on cutting costs rather than valuing the dignity and equal worth of every human life.

Finally, I defer to Zane F. Pollard, M.D., a pediatric ophthalmologist for Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (a nonprofit organization), who wrote the following regarding “Obamacare”: 

I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta, Georgia that accepts Medicaid. For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on the approved Medicaid list.

Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10 days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye.
 
Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the Medicaid approved list. Get the point -- rationing of care.

Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.

Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in Atlanta supported 100% by private funds which supplies all of these contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous…

The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.

Responses

Your breakdown of the medical conditions and how they will be treated is well done. Pro-life leaders should read and re-read it and be ready to teach it to family, friends, church members, pastors, etc. The "man on the street" ignores some issues because he does not understand them, and he doesn't want to appear uninformed. It's up to us to inform him.
HELEN CINDRICH | August 12, 2009

---

There is a man whose money has facilitated a wide variety of projects in this country and abroad. His name is George Soros, and his ventures run the gamut from politics to helping the poor. Among them, there is his extraordinary work in the area of palliative care (pain relief), death and dying. 

In view of the rant currently being propagated by the Pallimed blog, which is a commentary on news and items of interest to hospice and palliative medicine, there is a need to dig deeper and explore the underlying philosophy among those who are outraged that people like me are saying something negative about their agenda.

When those in the business of providing pain relief to patients charge forward with negative descriptive adjectives, meant to demean the work of people like myself and the LifeTree experts, you can pretty much conclude that we are on to something. If not, the supporters of Obamacare would be using logic rather than pointing fingers and attempting to relegate us to the right-wing fringe.

It’s a free country, but the facts are essentially unchanging regardless of the hysteria. In the real world where people live and die, a recent e-mail from a hospice nurse reminds us that all is not well in health care:

How grateful I am to have run across your website! This may be an answer to a desperate prayer! I am a nurse who has practiced for 17 years. I am horrified about hospice, and how they routinely and blatantly murder patients on a regular basis, and somehow convince the patients and their families that their actions are "merciful" and reduce suffering when in actuality they are increasing the suffering of these patients and refusing any life-sustaining and true comfort measures. I feel so powerless to convince people about the truth of hospice, since many have used and been fooled by them and their propaganda.  …[I]t is going to be hard to convince people about the truth of hospice, since they have worked very hard to create "trust" in people who clearly don't know the truth. People need to know the truth; they need to know about how hospice KILLS and does not comfort.

I realize that her comments are anecdotal, and that not every hospice is cost-cutting by killing, but she’s not the only one from whom I’ve heard. Situations like this one and the one I described in a previous commentary, “Imposing death in a government-run hospice,” are not the sort of reports people want to hear, but the truth always stands alone. 

And that brings me back to Mr. Soros. One of the facts I learned from LifeTree experts is that Soros is fundamentally necessary to this entire brainwashing cabal who want us to believe that pain relief can mean whatever they want it to mean, as long as the patient is “comfortable” and perhaps even comatose due to overdosing. 

As LifeTree makes perfectly clear on their website:

The Obama administration wants "palliative care" (e.g., pain control) because it is a cost-saving alternative to curative treatment. "Palliative care" is presented as both symptom management and curative. That is misleading, and deliberately so. "Palliative care" is symptom management. "Palliative care" has been defined and cultivated by the same people who are pushing universal coverage. Soros-funded doctors have spent the past decade establishing "palliative care" as a new medical sub-specialty. "Palliative care" is a cost-savings device.

LifeTree is by no means a lone voice. Marie Jon, a news analyst and religion writer recently opined

If Obamacare is passed, the same insidious protocols — "Advance Care Planning" — will be set into place to cut the cost of his massive government healthcare program. Our senior citizens will receive mandated appointments for counseling that will determine if they receive minimal medical treatment or are told to go home and die. They will be offered assistance and instructions on how to take their own lives.

Marie sites the actual legislation and quotes from it in the same way we and others have been doing. 

John Griffing penned a sobering evaluation of the current Obamacare bill:

… if HR 3200 becomes law, "due process" regarding someone's life will become a question for bureaucrats.  When all is said and done, the ultimate result of the proposed bill is to transfer to government the unprecedented power of determining who lives and who dies. 

Once a government adopts this utilitarian stance toward human life, anything becomes possible. Suspend for a moment your jaded response to Hitler references, and note that in Germany, Order T4 required physicians to kill 70,273 people[i] "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination"[ii] or those "unworthy of life."[iii] 5,000 of these victims were children. The elderly, the mentally infirmed, the deformed, and the racially impure, were put to death by teams of "medical experts."  Thousands were sterilized. By 1939, 360,000 people had been sterilized to prevent the reproduction of the socially "unfit." 

Although the methods have grown more subtle and the language more libertarian, our attitudes are not so very different in America today. We casually discuss whether people with certain afflictions merit the costs necessary to keep them alive. Quality of life trumps sanctity of life in most quarters. Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicide methodology, once unthinkable, is now an acceptable topic for polite conversation.

George Soros is the money behind much of the creative planning that has gone into the Obamacare proposals addressing care at retirement age and beyond. If one examines the history of the Open Society Institute, Soros’ first and foremost think tank, it would not be news to learn that Soros wanted to create change in the way Americans speak about a number of things including death.  
In 1996, Soros launched Project on Death in America. The aim of the project was a simple one: “Change the culture of dying.” Writing on the success of the project, Gary LaMarche, vice-president of the Open Society Institute, explained that from the beginning, Project on Death in America was focused on change, on the involvement of politics in health care and the Soros vision of what dying should be like.  
Between 2001 and 2003, Soros funded a study group with specific attention paid to palliative care. In his reflections on the project and death in America, Soros tells the reader:

My mother’s death was more recent. She had joined the Hemlock Society and had at hand the means of doing away with herself. I asked her if she needed my help; I offered it, although I wasn’t particularly keen to do it. But I would have helped her because I felt that I owed it to her. At the point of decision, however, she did not want to take her own life, and I’m glad she didn’t.

Soros’ commitment to a benevolently utilitarian program involving pain relief and palliative care is evident in the work of the Project on Death in America. It is not unfair to suggest that the apparent ambivalence Soros has toward assisted suicide further suggests a less than humanitarian, Christ-like perspective that could well be what is permeating the Obamacare proposals. It is no secret, after all, that Obama and Soros have a great deal in common. Soros became an Obama fan early on and his ability to pour huge sums into a project he likes is nearly legend.

Michelle Malkin, a commentator whose work is always carefully documented, has revealed precisely how deep Soros’ financial support for Obamacare goes. The numbers may overwhelm you, as they did me, but we have to understand the man is a billionaire and he likes what Obama is proposing. Wing nut?  You decide…

So why do I care? I have a concern for those in our culture who have been and could be ever more marginalized, even to death, by programs, projects and laws that create an illusion of good while advancing an agenda of evil. 

Former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan’s “Time to go, Grandpa,” reminds us: 

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here … the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one's cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one's parents to endure such agony?

When all the name-calling is set aside, the tortuous debates have ended, and America is left with what I hope is a failed attempt to nationalize health care over the bodies of the vulnerable, one wonders who will be found to be accurate in their assessments and who will not. Only time will tell.

In the interim, the web of deceit has been finely woven and the spiders are working overtime to snap up the unsuspecting.

Responses

Judie, You were terrific on EWTN.
Thank you for holding to your principles. You were right on target
and understand what the Health Care Bill will do to the American Public.
God Bless you for standing up for
what is right and not being taken in
by the lies of the present administration. Maureen Daley

P.S. Sister Carol has been taken in.
She needs our prayers. She is comprimising her principles. God help her.
Maureen Daley | August 14, 2009

---

It is horrible what this administration is trying to impose on the American Citizens with the lack of end of life care both to the patient and the mandate to we physicians of what we can and can not do. We did take the Hippocratic Oath to "Do No Harm". If we will have to give up our integrity to not give the qualitiy of care that we were taught to give, this will cause a massive retirement of physicians. This in and of itself will cause further rationing of care and lead to worsening of the problem of people not getting care. Are people not seeing the moral implications that this government-run healthcare will place on the physicians?
Marie Gronley, M.D. | September 12, 2009

---

Recently, there have been a lot of deliberations, speeches and commentaries concerning so-called health care reform, including my own. But perhaps it is time to step back from this discussion and examine what a health care plan would look like if one took into consideration what the Lord might do. We have some pretty reliable indicators of that in the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. We know that the starting point for all aspects of any health care package has to be respect for the dignity of the human person.
 
Recognizing this essential principle, we can glean wisdom from these writings. For example, in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II taught,

If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment "You shall not kill" has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person. And all the more so in the case of weak and defenseless human beings, who find their ultimate defense against the arrogance and caprice of others only in the absolute binding force of God's commandment.…

Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defense of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief but incisive passage.

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (Section 57)

This infallible teaching, written in 1995, should be the basis for every pro-life organizational statement, letter to politicians and action alert to rank-and-file Catholics throughout this nation. There can be no justice without recognition of the basic truth enunciated above.

Section 57 of The Gospel of Life continues:

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity.

"Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action." (Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, 1980)

As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being "there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the 'poorest of the poor' on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal" (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor [The Splendor of Truth], encyclical letter, 1993).

This is why we at American Life League have insisted that any health care reform proposal must absolutely exclude abortion, contraception, human embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. A just health care proposal will honor the human person first and foremost—without regard to his age, health or condition of dependency. Such a plan would not place cost first and human dignity second.

In his most recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI explains how we should care for the poor, the indigent and those on the fringes of society, whom we are called to serve unselfishly:

Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbor; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). (Section 2)

In other words, without a union between Christ’s devotion to man and the secular framework for just health care, there can be no real reform that serves the needs of everyone, especially those most at risk in the current cultural and political climate.

Expanding on this concept, Pope Benedict teaches,

The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbors, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practice this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis [state or society]. This is the institutional path—we might also call it the political path—of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have. (Section 7)

Finally, as if communicating directly with the U.S. lawmakers who are addressing health care reform at this very moment, Pope Benedict points out,

The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that "a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized” (Evangelium Vitae). (Section 15) 

As Pope John Paul II told the world in Evangelium Vitae, “There can be no true democracy without a recognition of every person's dignity and without respect for his or her rights” (Section 101).

For the past several weeks, we have not heard or seen any evidence that the various health care “reform” proposals address, in any way, the fundamental principles set forth by these popes. It is undeniably true that many would say that such requirements are akin to imposing Catholic teaching on a nation that is proud of its diversity and ability to remain divorced from any particular creed. However, I would respond that even if one is not of a particular religious tradition, one should wish to be just and civil in one’s dealings with others, whether discussing a preborn child at his earliest moment, an elderly person facing death or a severely disabled citizen who requires care and treatment.

Health care "reform" proposals that contain provisions for rationing of care, as well as coverage for abortion or human embryonic stem cell therapy, represent a callous disregard for the dignity of the human person and are therefore unjust to their core. Such reprehensible recommendations must cease.

What is needed for authentic health care reform is justice founded in truth, from which the charity ingrained in our American tradition will flow. Nothing less will suffice.

Responses

Dear Judie,

CHRIST CENTERED-HEALTH CARE REFORM: Great article! I wish everyone would read this and keep it in their hearts.

You are a breath of fresh air in these very difficult times.

Thank you so much!

Patty Palmquist

p.s. By God's grace, I found you recently. Since then, I have been sending out your articles to my entire email list on the health care reform. May God give them eyes to see and ears to hear.
Patty Palmquist | August 10, 2009

---

Judy,
I agree with you on these most fundamental issues - human life is most sacred. However, looking beyod that, this so-called health care reform is not justified even if all the life issues are treated properly in it. The control of one's health care leads to the control of the person. If the government runs it you will be a subject rather than a free citizen.
David W. Rusch | August 11, 2009

---

Dear Judie,
Is what I have read about the St. Vincent de Paul Society and abortion true? I find their denials very interesting.
Kay Thompson | August 11, 2009

---

And, if anyone were to reject these principles solely because they are set forth by popes, they can decide if the alternatives - exemplified by the Third Reich and the U.S.S.R. are preferable.

Abraham Lincoln was not a Catholic, nor a member of any other organized religion, but that did not stop him from holding justice and morality to be the foundation of good governance.
David Volk | August 11, 2009

---

Patty

Thank you and God bless you.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | August 14, 2009

---

Dear Kay

St. Vincent de Paul Society is now saying that they do not support Obama Care, but at the same time they are not setting forth the Catholic principles that should be acknowledged in any health care reform bill, namely

no abortion
no contraception
no sterilization
by human embryonic stem cell therapies
no assisted suicide
no euthanasia

The Obama Care proposals are cost cutting proposals, and people will suffer terribly and die, I am afraid. The messages that the St. Vincent De Paul Society is sending are confusing, to say the least.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | August 14, 2009

---