The American people—thanks to Hillary Clinton—now have a more complex understanding of how, by design, universal healthcare puts into place the foundation of regulations that will allow government to control not only the lives of the people, but their mobility as well. Universal healthcare provides government with the platform that will surreptitiously allow them to, ever so slowly, steal the liberty of the People under the guise of taking care of them.
A large faction of American people still dislike Clinton because, as First Lady with no constitutional authority to engage in the legislative process, she formed a healthcare task force out of the public eye and created the most without change or comment. Her plan, created with the assistance of Bill Clinton’s chief healthcare architect, Ira Magaziner, did far more than create a healthcare bill. Obamacare is Hillarycare with a few minor tweaks. Both, by the way, contained provisions for a federal Health Board whose job it would be to limit the government’s liability by rationing healthcare to those with terminal or catastrophic chronic illnesses for which there is no cure. Actuarially, old age is one of those catastrophic chronic illnesses since old age always results in death. Hillarycare also included a biometric national ID card that was disguised as a healthcare card. That same card will be included in any healthcare system enacted by Congress—including the healthcare co-ops if that becomes Congress’ only option to get government’s foot in the door.
Mary Therese Helmueller an RN from Minneapolis authored an article in the Catholic magazine, Homiletic, in 1998. In the article she noted that while she was visiting in Mexico City in February of that year, her grandmother was admitted to a local hospital with a fracture above her left knee. According to the hospital records she personally examined upon her return, her grandmother was alert and oriented upon admission. But, the report added, she became unresponsive after 48 hours, went into a coma. She was transferred to a hospice two days later. Carefully tracing the events that led up to her grandmother’s coma, Helmueller discovered that her grandmother became unresponsive after each pain medication.
She was diagnosed as having a stroke and being in renal failure. Helmueller‘s grandmother died shortly after her arrival at the hospice. The hospital charts were normal. The CATscan was negative for stroke or obstruction. The EEG indicated no seizure activity. All the blood work was normal. She was not in renal failure. The only anomaly Helmueller found was the overmedication of her grandmother. She also noticed her grandmother was listed as a “No Code” patient.
Helmueller insists her grandmother had no terminal illnesses. Nevertheless, the hospice’s admitting records reveal that two doctors stated that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. The first doctor, the director of the hospice, never examined or evaluated her. Nor did he even read her chart. The second doctor was on vacation when she was admitted. He did not return until three days after her death. Yet, in their expert medical opinion, she was terminal when she arrived at the hospice.
The dangers of giving the government authority to meddle in a legalized system of euthanasia and assisted suicide,
(Hospices, for those who don’t know, are transitional care facilities. Those who are suffering either from terminal illnesses or progressive debilitating chronic illnesses are usually transferred to TC facilities which are generally referred to as “exit treatment” facilities—referring to an exit from life. Hospice patients usually arrive by ambulance and leave by hearse.)
No one better understood what was going on at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida than the pro-life disability rights groups like Not Dead Yet that showed up to stand, in solidarity, with Terri Schiavo and the Schindler family during Terri‘s deathwatch. Like thre rest of America, they have been watching the alarming growth of medical euthanasia over the past decade, and they find it troublesome that our courts are legalizing euthanasia by judicial fiat. While the catastrophic impaired—particularly when they are aged and infirmed—now have a court-protected right to die— with or without a Living Will, they no longer possess an unquestionable right to live. Not Dead Yet recently asked Congress to pass a law requiring federal courts to review all cases where the end-of-life wishes of the impaired person are not in writing and where family members disagree on end-of-life decisions.
Even if such a law were written, the courts can be expected to weigh in favor of those family members opting for euthanasia.
The federal government is increasingly faced with a catastrophic dilemma as America grays. Too many people living too long is now creating an unfathomable burden on the U.S. Treasury that the US government —and the taxpayers—cannot afford.
The American Court system is increasingly embracing the argument that beneficence prevents unnecessary suffering for the individual and saves the family—or the State—from bearing what could become a crushing financial obligation if the patient lingers too long. Beneficence—a selfless act designed to spare the loved ones of the patient from both physical and financial anguish—right-to-die advocates argue, justifies euthanasia. Even with the best palliative care there will always be patients for whom there will be no relief from suffering since there are no pain killers strong enough to dull the pain they endure daily. Right-to-die advocates maintain that since many of these people can’t even find temporary relief from the intractable pain that is an inescapable part of their lives, terminally ill or chronically ill patients should have an option that will allow them to escape the pain and misery that blankets their minds like a death shroud and makes them wonder, from day-to-day or hour-to-hour, what is the point of their continued existence.
While euthanasia may rightly be construed as an act of mercy for a handful of people in a handful of instances nationwide, the American people need to very carefully consider what they wish for when they demand the passage of “right-to-die” legislation since the Living Will does not give those signing them more control over their fate. It provides legal cover for its beneficiary—the medical care facility—who has been given the power to take your life.
The Living Will does not promote well-being—except perhaps for the “well-being” of the coffers of the government. Medicare, which foots the bill for medical care for the aged, is facing the same types of shortfalls as Social Security—a rapidly shrinking tax base as more and more members of grey America becomes eligible for benefits. The question lurking in the back of the mind of government is: at what point can Uncle Sam no longer afford to care for chronically ill patients? At what point does voluntary euthanasia, requested through a Living Will, become mandatory euthanasia?
If we accept the logic that it is morally defensible to demand that we be allowed to die to alleviate our own needless suffering from a chronic or terminal illness or injury that will ultimately result in our dying, then how can we reject the notion that government is not morally justified in establishing a mandatory criteria for doctors to follow in cases where patients are construed to be terminal? Or, where elderly patients are admitted with chronic medical problems that simply drain the system without any hope of the patient’s health improving?
The moral argument is a two-headed dragon. You can’t argue for the right of people to be allowed to end their own lives by rejecting extraneous measures to keep them alive and, in the same breath, reject the right of government to arbitrarily decide to end lives judged to be not worth living, or which are too much of a drain on the healthcare system to pay for the care needed to assure your survival..
Hollywood actor-director Mel Gibson, who had been in constant contact with the Schindler family through most of their 13-day ordeal, told Sean Hannity on Fox News that what was happening in Pinellas Park, Florida was a modern-day crucifixion with a pro-death agenda driving it. “It’s just completely wrong to deprive this poor woman of food and water,” he said. “It’s a prolonged and cruel execution. What happened to just being a human being, you know? It’s nothing more than State-sanctioned murder. All the big guys—they all have their hands tied up by some tinhorn judge down there. Come on. When they want to whip a judge, they got no problem doing it. Look what they did to [Judge] Roy Moore. So they can do it if they want. They just didn’t want to. It’s a precedent that they set.
We may be able to save a few Social Security dollars later on down the track simply by pulling the plug on the infirmed, or the disabled, or the aged. It’s the inevitability of gradualism. There is an agenda, and people say, ‘Well, they can’t all be in it together,’ but there’s no other way to explain this behavior.”
Tom Delay warned the State and federal judges that Congress ”…will look at an arrogant and out-of-control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president.” Delay added that he “…never thought [he’d] see the day when a US judge stopped feeding a living American so that they took 14 days to die.”
After the Schiavo incident was televised almost nonstop for 13 days on satellite TV, the Euthanasia Society distributed over 60 thousand living wills. The only one I know of that amended a Living Will to protect her from premature euthanasia was Michael Schiavo’s common law wife, Jodi Centonze—who suffers from nacrolepsy. Centonze amended her own Living Will to include a precaution about euthanizing her during a deathlike nacroleptic trance that resembles an irreversible coma. “I love Michael,” Centonze told the media, “and if/when we are married, I want a clear and lucid stipulation between a ‘vegetative state’ and ‘really, really tired.'” Centonze has made every effort to get her narcolepsy “on the record” so that, in the event she dropped into a narcoleptic sleep her husband would not be able to “litigate” her slumber. Knowing Schiavo’s penchant for discarding infirmed spouses, I guess she doesn’t want to be the next Fox News euthanasia special.
When the Netherlands enacted an euthanasia law on November 28, 2000, Pope John Paul condemned the law which violated the Geneva Accord of 1948. A Vatican spokesman said, “Again we find ourselves face to face with a state law that violates natural law and individual conscience…[that is] a grave problem of professional ethics for the doctors who must put it into practice.” Under the Dutch law, patients are able to make a written request for euthanasia, giving their doctors the right to use their own discretion when patients become too physically or mentally ill to make rational decisions on their own. Last year in the Netherlands there were over 2,500 physician assisted suicides. How many of them, I wonder, actually wanted to go through with it at the time their doctor arbitrarily acted upon their request?
In one case a man—a Catholic—who had been estranged from his family for quite some time developed terminal cancer. His doctor estimated he would die within a year or so. Knowing the pain he was going to face down the road, he signed a consent form. Shortly thereafter, he reconciled with his family. As the family reunification progressed, he began experiencing some new pain that was not alleviated by his current pain medication. His wife called the nurse who, in turn, relayed the wife’s message to the doctor.** Instead of asking the patient to go to his office, the doctor went to his home. The physician gave his patient an injection. The patient gasped and died. The wife screamed that she had not asked the doctor to kill her husband—who had not yet reconciled with God. Neither she nor her husband realized that the release he signed trumped his current desires. He gave his doctor the right to determine when he should die and the doctor exercised that option when his patient’s condition worsened.
Those who favor assisted suicide or euthanasia do so in the mistaken belief that being transited will assure them of a dignified and comfortable death.
There is no such thing. Death is never dignified. Nor is death a comfortable experience. What they are really saying is that most people fear suffering a painful death far more than they fear dying.
However, those who favor assisted death have not prudently weighed the pitfalls inherent with giving either a physician or a government board unprecedented power over their life or the lives of their loved ones. They assume because they live in a democracy that is governed by the rule of law, that government—which plays God with our lives anyway—will, for some strange and unfathomable reason, not abuse the power of life and death. Even without a national law authorizing the use of euthanasia to “protect the well-being” of the terminally-ill, there is already a killing field in every hospital in America. It’s called the “Transitional Care Unit.” That’s where “No Code” patients are taken to await death.
They may be terminally-ill, chronically-ill or simply too old and too much of a drain on Medicare for anyone to care. The most serious health hazard for many seniors when they are hospitalized today is simply their age. When you are old enough, age by itself is a terminal illness. Anything that can cause your death within six months of diagnosis at any age may be termed a “terminal illness.” Diabetes. High blood pressure. Heart disease. According to the yardstick applied by Judge Greer, if you have any of those chronic medical problems, you could be classified as having a terminal illness and denied medical treatment or even food and water.
For some unexplained logic, medical caregivers honestly believe that their use of euthanasia—the intentional oversedation of patients or overdosing them with morphine or other painkillers—is the most common and humane method used to spare the family. The death certificates likely read “death by natural causes” or perhaps “death from complications of…” whatever chronic illness the patient suffers.
Today every hospital and healthcare facility is required to ask patients if they have a Living Will. Healthcare agencies risk losing federal funding if they do not ask. When an aged patient does not have a living will, hospitals are required to attempt to get them to sign a “do not resuscitate” form—so their “exit care wishes” will be respected. A sales pitch—given to the elderly—in the form of a horror story about a parent’s endtime medical bills destroying the finances of their children accompanies the form the patient has been asked to sign. The children of the elderly patient are generally told that Medicare and Medicaid will not pay for any extraordinary efforts to keep their terminal or chronically-ill parents alive. If extraordinary lifesaving procedures are requested, family members are told they, not Medicare, will be forced to bear the cost. The Living Will has been “packaged” as part of every hospital or hospice patient’s “bill of rights.” In realty, it’s a death warrant—your’s. Most people believe a Living Will places them in charge of their life—and their death. It does not. It removes choice from their hands and places it in the hands of bureaucrats whose job it is to cut costs—regardless of the cost.
For example, a 70-year old man who had previously signed a Living Will suddenly found himself admitted as an inpatient through the emergency room of his local hospital. He was suffering from respiratory distress. He was placed on a ventilator. As he struggled to breathe, he learned that his family was discussing removing him from the ventilator since, they were told, Medicare would not pay for the treatment and the most humane thing they could do for him was to let him go.
Unable to speak but very cognizant, the man scribbled notes to the nurses, saying “Don’t take me off this machine—I changed my mind! I want to live!” The family, however, agreed with the doctor who felt it was stupid to waste their inheritance on hospital bills for a man whose condition was terminal. He was removed from the ventilator. Because he signed a Living Will, he was viewed as incapable of making a rational decision to recant the legal document he had previously signed in a more “lucid” moment. His wishes, as stated in the Living Will, prevailed. A man who was not terminal became terminal. He died.
In 1990, the American Medical Association adopted the position that physicians, with informed consent, could withhold or withdraw treatment from patients who were close to death. That “position” was pushed by the managed healthcare systems that were footing the bill for what that industry called “wasted treatments” on people who could not be rehabilitated.
Urged to do so by the HMO lobby, the Democratically-controlled Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act that forced hospitals to tell patients [a] they had a right to either demand or reject treatments, and [b] it required all medical care facilities to ask if the patient had a Living Will—and to urge those without them to sign one. In 1993
Bill and Hillary Clinton went on the Living Will offensive, encouraging States to legalize them and working class people to sign them on the pretext that it was the only way people could protect their rights. By 1994 every State and the District of Columbia have Living Will provisions that allow physicians extreme latitude in dealing with terminal or chronic patients.
What American witnessed taking place in Pinellas Park, Florida between March 18 and March 30, 2005 only appeared to be a battle between Michael Schiavo and the Schindler family. They were simply pawns on the chess board of life. What actually transpired was America’s first naked look at the pure ugliness of State-dictated, court enforced euthanasia. But, strangely, America watched that spectacle through rose-colored glasses. They did not see what they should have seen. They should have realized that the courts denied Terri Schiavo equal protection under the law. Someone should have noticed that Circuit Court Judge George S. Greer sentenced an innocent woman to death. Someone should have noticed, and asked, why Greer denied Terri Schiavo sustenance consumed by swallowing. Instead, the American public—which has been brainwashed into believing that a Living Will is good thing—saw Terri Schiavo as less than human and somehow, less deserving to live
Yesterday the victim of forced euthanasia was Terri Schiavo. Who will it be tomorrow? Perhaps it will be…you. Have you signed a Living Will? You did? Yes, tomorrow, it will be you
by Jon Christian Ryter.
Today it does not matter if you have a Living Will or not. Hospital officials in every city in the nation urge thefamily members to “no code” elderly relatives who are being admitted into the nation’s medical care facilities—even if they are diagnosed witnon-terminal chronic illnesses. “No code”denies any form of medical intervention to the patient in the event of an emergency situation like cardiac arrest or some other form of respiratory failure. It is the essential first step in euthanizing a terminal patient. Increasingly, it is used to quietly dispatch chronically-ill patients whose quality of life cannot improve and who have become a financial drain on the Medicare system and on their families.