Lest we forget — “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” Journal of Medical Ethics

#Gosnell would be vindicated if these “ethicists” have their way

There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim:

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.

It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.

via After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? — Giubilini and Minerva — Journal of Medical Ethics.

Statistics and “Peer Review”

Typical of the reporting on the connection between abortion and breast cancer, a blogger at “RhealityCheck,” only reports half a sentence – the half that she likes.

I don’t know how long my comments will stay up, so here’s my part:

The author only quoted half a sentence. The article clearly states, “Induced abortion had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer, but we found a statistically significant increase in risk among women with a history of second-trimester abortion.”

and

And here’s the link to the article in question. Please note that even this research must adjust for the age at first pregnancy and for number of pregnancies.

My testimony begins at 1 hour, 12 minutes in on the video of the hearing. I actually focused on the protective effect of pregnancy, especially early pregnancy, according to the National Cancer Institute. This information is only given to women and girls who are already pregnant, after all.

Interestingly, we learned how little the Committee members understood about scientific research and resources. Follow the hours of testimony on HB 2945 and HB 2365 and Rep.Jessica Farrar’s obsession and apparent slow realization about the meaning and significance of “peer review” and “PubMed” and “Medline.“At one point, 1:26, Ms. Farrar, who admits that she “barely got through biology,” asks whether the research was “peer reviewed” by “the Medline or PubMed.”

As the day went on, it seems that Farrar was educated that peer review is conducted by the Journals themselves, and that PubMed and Medline are merely indexes of scientifc literature.

State Rep Farrar: “Choice” to abort babies with spina bifida after 20 weeks

6:05/8:18 Farrar:  “So, so, this diagnosis is missed, they
have a fetal anomaly, the spine’s outside the body or something, you say you would not have an exception for that situation.”

Watch the video at 6:05 (See below ++) of the April 10, 2013 Texas House State Affairs Committee meeting hearing on HB 2364, by Representative Jodi Laubenberg,  as State Representative Jessica Farrar challenges a practicing OB/Gyn about his belief that abortion should not be performed when babies are found to have non-lethal “anomalies” after 20 weeks post-fertilization (or 22 weeks since last period).

I wonder how of you have heard of the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell* in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania? Most people, whether pro-choice or pro-life, are horrified by the way Dr. Gosnell and his staff treated the babies they delivered both alive and dead.

We also squirm at the intentional killing of children who could otherwise live.

The limit of viability for the unborn, using current medical technology, is 20 to 23 weeks gestation.  There have been reports of survivors born before this time. Who will be surprised when the limit moves even farther back? What will history say about us?

In fact, here in Texas, we have made it clear with our Prenatal Protection Act of 2003, spurred on by the deaths of Lacy and Connor Peterson, that our definition of individual (or person) includes all humans from fertilization to natural death.

++ Download the free Real Player app, open the video and then pull the timeline cursor out to 6:05. More Committee and Session videos are available at the Texas Legislature Online site.

*(Gosnell is accused of killing the babies who survive, of committing abortions after the legal age limit, and of mutilating the bodies of the babies after they were dead. One gruesome account is here.)

Texas will pay for destructive human embryo cloning at Texas Universities

The Committee Substitute was passed this afternoon with 9 yes votes in the House State Affairs Committee. The Chairman of the Committee, Byron Cook voted “yes,” after assuring the Committee that the Bill (which is not available online or in the Committee) will not outlaw human cloning at Universities.

Voting “no” were four brave Republicans – I’ll list them all as soon as I can verify and make sure I don’t miss anyone. Unfortunately, some of our conservative members weren’t present. I will also name them when I can do so without missing anyone.

I worked with Representative Raymond’s office to come up with good definitions, but I don’t know how much of those definitions made it into the final Bill.

Luckily, in spite of the lies we’ve read over the years, no one has yet been able to clone a human embryo.

What is now encouraged is the purposeful creation of a human embryo by cloning. The embryo may never be implanted, but the Bill declares that the nascent human should be killed and broken up

You decide: Physician-Assisted Suicide — NEJM

You can comment, let the New England Journal of Medicine editors and the world know your thoughts.

Do you believe that Mr. Wallace should be able to receive life-terminating drugs from his physician? Which one of the following approaches to the broader issue do you find appropriate? Base your choice on the published literature, your own experience, and other sources of information.

To aid in your decision making, each of these approaches is defended in the following short essays by experts in the field. Given your knowledge of the patient and the points made by the experts, which option would you choose? Make your choice and offer your comments at NEJM.org.

via Physician-Assisted Suicide — NEJM.

My opinion is that poisoning Mr. Wallace, or writing the prescription so that he can attempt to intentionally commit suicide, is a direct infringement of Mr. Wallace’s inalienable right not to be killed.

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst

Talking about Texas’s history of conservative pro-life and pro-family laws.

Texas Alliance for Life Leadership Luncheon

Joe Pojman, standing at the podium. Our President, Davida Stike is seated at the head table. Next up, our Lieutenant Governor, David Dewhurst.

Back to Basics on Texas Advance Directive Act

Laws relating to ethics debates are generally behind medical advances. This is good because it means that there *are* medical advances.

However, the debates often become emotional and heated, and the individuals who are affected face real dilemmas and emergencies. When law-making is controversial, it’s best to go back to the basics of ethics for guidance: the inalienable rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution.

 
All laws limit our rights, but good laws strike a balance between seemingly conflicting rights: they are meant to prevent one person from harming another. Most laws prohibit or punish harmful actions, they don’t *compel* a desired action against our will. Nor do they prohibit actions based on thoughts and opinion. In other words, laws prohibit harming or taking from another, but they usually don’t make you protect, nurture or give to another.

 
However,since the right to life trumps the right to liberty and property, there are very rare circumstances when it is appropriate for laws to compel individuals to act for the benefit of another. Parents are required to care for and protect their minor children. Doctors and lawyers must be licensed, obtain certain levels of education, and follow specific, positive actions when they wish to withdraw from a professional relationship with a patient or client. These laws should only go so far as to protect the life and safety of the vulnerable, for a limited time with the goal of allowing safe transfer of the obligation of the person with more power to someone else.

 
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee, under Chair Senator Jane Nelson, heard testimony on two Bills that would change TADA: SB 303 from Senator (Dr.) Bob Duell’s  and SB 675 by Senator Kelly Hancock.

 
The Texas Advance Directive Act of 1999 (TADA), in addition to describing “Advance Directives to Physicians” (a “Living Will),  was an attempt to outline the procedure for resolving the disagreement between a doctor and patients or their surrogates regarding end of life care.

When I first read the Act, I (naively) thought it was malpractice protection for doctors who did not want to withdraw or withhold care, such as the Houston Methodist Hospital doctors who invoked the act when they repaired Dr. Michael Debakey’s aortic aneurysm against his previously stated wishes – http://www.theheart.org/article/762619.do – in 2006.

 
Most of the time, however, TADA is invoked in cases when the attending physician disagrees with a request to actively administer medical treatment that he or she believes is medically inappropriate. The steps laid out in the law involve the doctor’s notification of the patient or the surrogate, rules for assisting with transfer of care to another doctor who believes the treatment request is appropriate, and convening an ethics committee at the hospital. If there is no other willing doctor can be found and the ethics committee agrees with the doctor, the treatment can be withheld or withdrawn. It does not allow patients to be killed by medicines.

 
Unfortunately, the Act has become known as the “Texas Futile Care Law,” and divides even the pro-life community. One side says doctors and hospitals have too much power and are killing people. While I’ve heard horror stories about doctors who have abused or broken the law, I maintain that there is no “Futile Care Law,” only a difference of opinion as to who should decide what is medically appropriate treatment. In the few cases that have come under the Act, patients and their advocates report trouble finding other doctors willing to provide the treatment the first doctor thought was inappropriate. In my opinion, that difficulty is due to physicians’ common education and shared experiences.

Although TADA lays out requirements for hospitals and hospital medical ethics committees, the fact is that it applies to the “attending physician” who could be forced to act against his conscience. Texas law is clear that only doctors may practice medicine by diagnosing and treating patients directly or “ordering” other medical personnel. These treatments are not one-time events and they aren’t without consequences. They are interventions that must be monitored by observation and tests, and adjustments need to be made so that the treatment is effective and not harmful. Medical judgment is how doctors utilize our education, experience, and consciences as we plan and anticipate the effect of each medical intervention.

Senator Duell’s Bill, SB 303, significantly improves TADA. Among other things, the Bill would add protection of the patient’s right to artificially administered hydration and nutrition, increased access to assistance, records, and time before and after the ethics committee meeting, and prohibits so-called “secret DNR’s.”

Senator Hancock’s Bill, SB 675, focuses on the intentions and motives of the doctor, requiring the medical committee to decide whether the disagreement is due to: “(1) the lesser value the physician, facility, or professional places on extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill patient compared to the value of extending the life of a patient who is younger, not disabled, or not terminally ill; or “(2) a disagreement between the physician, facility, or professional and the patient, or the person authorized to make a treatment decision for the patient under Section 166.039, over the greater weight the patient or person places on extending the patient ’s life above the risk of disability.”

Our laws normally prohibit actions and only very rarely compel people to act. Under the conditions laid out in SB 303, the doctor can be forced to act against his conscience and best medical judgment, but only for a limited, stated time. SB 303 improves the Texas Advance Directive Act by protecting the patient’s access to artificially administered hydration and nutrition. It also adds time to prepare for the ethics committee meeting and to transfer care a new doctor. It is an attempt to balance the patient’s wishes for medical intervention with the right of conscience of the doctor. In contrast, SB 675 would attempt to legislate intentions or thoughts, with none of the added protections of SB 303.

Edited 4/27/13 to fix the link to the article about Dr. Debakey and 4/30/13 for grammar and formatting – BBN.

Using Stem Cells To Identify Better (And Cheaper) Drugs – Forbes

Non-destructive induced Pluripotent Stem Cells used to test new drugs:

Rubin works mostly with iPSCs, derived from real patients. If his lab can develop drugs that they can identify in a screen as candidates that might be useful, they can test them across ranges of patients –many individual patients.

“And that can pretty much only be done, practically speaking, using an iPSC approach,” he said.

“So, as an example, we discovered a compound, something we were excited about for ALS. Kevin Eggan (also at HSCI) and I collaborated to test that compound on 60 different motor neurons in parallel, using a very interesting technology we developed in my lab from live cell imaging which was required.”

via Using Stem Cells To Identify Better (And Cheaper) Drugs – Forbes.

Senate panel OKs abortion bill requiring stricter standards – Houston Chronicle

One woman claimed that the standards shouldn’t be the same as an ambulatory surgical center because they do abortions on 9 year olds!

Minimal standards are considered too much by the abortion industry. They’ve fought every move to keep women and girls safe, and whip out those coat hangers every chance they get.

Women who have D&C’s after a miscarriage have them at a hospital or surgical center, not at in an office setting. But according to the abortionists, healthy mothers having abortions – or 9 year old girls – should be happy with a clinic setting.

AUSTIN – Abortion clinics would be required to meet stricter standards under a bill approved 5-2 by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee Tuesday after emotional testimony over whether the measure would protect women’s health or risk it by causing clinics to close.

“My intent in filing this bill is only to protect Texas women who undergo this procedure,” said Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, who authored the measure with two fellow doctors, Republican Sens. Donna Campbell of New Braunfels and Charles Schwertner of Georgetown.

Planned Parenthood called the measure, Senate Bill 537, a “back-door abortion ban.”

via Senate panel OKs abortion bill requiring stricter standards – Houston Chronicle.

Neuroscience, Special Forces, and Ethics at Yale | Psychology Today

What would you do?

Last month, a proposal to establish a U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Center for Excellence in Operational Neuroscience at Yale University died a not-so-quiet death. The broad goal of “operational neuroscience” is to use research on the human brain and nervous system to protect and give tactical advantage to U.S. warfighters in the field. Crucial questions remain unanswered about the proposed center’s mission and the unusual circumstances surrounding its demise. But just as importantly, this episode brings much needed attention to the morally fraught and murky terrain where partnerships between university researchers and national security agencies lie.

via Neuroscience, Special Forces, and Ethics at Yale | Psychology Today.

Hat Tip to James J. Hughes and the Institute for Emerging Ethics and Technology newsletter

Connecting the Dots on Healthcare – Hal Scherz – Page 2

Just one reason that Medicaid expansion is a bad idea. (There are more at the source.)

 

The GOP Governors who are expanding Medicaid at the behest of the federal government are helping to facilitate and accelerate this process, paving the way for full government run healthcare. Insurance companies will be unable to compete with the federal government, which is acting as both a player in the insurance market and also as the referee in the system, until private insurance companies cease to exist in healthcare.

via Connecting the Dots on Healthcare – Hal Scherz – Page 2.

Cloned “Clone and Kill” Bill

I testified in front of the Texas House State Affairs Committee on Tuesday. The video is here, House State Affairs 2/20/13 (Free RealPlayer program required.) Mr. Raymond comes up at about 3:30 minutes in, and my effort starts at 8 minutes in. It’s short and sweet.)

HB 142, authored by Representative Richard Raymond of Texas’ House District 42 in Laredo, looks a lot like his HB 1829 from 2007. These are “clone and kill bills, which nominally ban cloning, but actually redefine cloning, and would force the killing of any human embryo intentionally killed by nuclear transplantation. HB 142 ignores the history of the last 6 years, and uses inaccurate terminology.

Watch this space for alternative language that would actually ban human cloning.

Diabetes Complications:New LifeEthics.org post

New on LifeEthics.org, my blog on medical technology and ethics, a post on the use of adult stem cells for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy.

Yuck factor: one man’s love affair with abortion

Why not love abortion?

Some people – many people – do experience what Leon Kass called the “Yuck factor.” For example, who wouldn’t express an instinctive distaste for the promotion of intentional, interventional and elective abortion as something for men to celebrate and the Roe v. Wade decision as an object of love?

“If they had guts,” Gutfeld said, “they would have said a child saying ‘Hi, Mom, I would have respected your right to abort me.’ ” [on Fox’s The Five Disgusted By ‘Tasteless’ And ‘Insensitive’ Ad Celebrating Roe V. Wade’s 40th Anniversary, (as reported by Mediaite).]

.

Believe it or not, this ad is not a spoof. It is a genuine effort by a well-funded pro-abortion campaign that includes Meryl Streep and Kevin Bacon. The “Public Service Announcement” featuring Mehcad Brooks, a TV actor, is intended to show a man’s love of and intention to “stand by” and “fight” for elective abortion on demand.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has removed this video from their site, but for the time being, it can be seen on YouTube, Midiaite and other sites, such as Inquisitr.com.The ad also disappeared from the Hollywood Reporter’s coverage of the story.

Rick Perry via USAToday editorial: ‘Another federal power grab’

Governor Rick Perry explains why Texas won’t create a State Obamacare health insurance exchange:

 

Setting aside the obvious fact that health insurance is readily available under current conditions — the problem has been price, not availability — these exchanges represent nothing more than another federal power grab in the guise of a supposedly free market.

States were given the option to set up and execute their own exchanges — at their own expense. The fine print, however, specified that the exchanges would have to follow all rules and guidelines imposed by the federal government, with little to no flexibility. The kicker: Many of these rules and regulations are unknown.

Again, this is par for the course as we continue down the road to fiscal disaster at the hands of ObamaCare.

In Texas, Medicaid spending already accounts for nearly 25% of our general revenue spending, and its costs are only expected to continue skyrocketing.

While the president has promised to subsidize states for Medicaid costs in the near term, in the long term, states are going to be on their own.

ObamaCare has already begun to affect many companies, too, with some publicly announcing plans for layoffs in order to make up for increased insurance-related costs.

via Rick Perry: ‘Another federal power grab’.

Medical Regulation, Texas Style

The Texas Institute for Health Care Quality and Efficiency Draft Report is posted for public comment.

You only have a day and a half to comment, since the next meeting of our Board of Directors is Thursday, November 15th. All comments should be sent by 1 PM on Wednesday, November 14th.

Report to the Texas Legislature on Activities to Improve Health Care Quality and Efficiency
Report Number: 2012-001

The following downloads are available:
Report 2012-001: 2012-001-Draft-Report.pdf
Appendix E: AppendixE.pdf
Appendix F: AppendixF.pdf

Instructions on submitting your comments are here.

Now, for a few comments on my observations as a Board member:

Believe it or not, the time frame from the passage of the legislation in SB 7 last June, 2011, to today and in anticipation of preparing for legislation beginning in January, 2013, is too tight. The Institute’s staff and coordinators did a good job of herding cats in the Board. In addition, the Board members worked hard to make all the meetings, to participate, and to contribute. We have met at least once a month, sometimes more than twice, since our appointment. The Board isn’t paid or even reimbursed for expenses by the State, and many gave up work in order to attend meetings far from their homes.

I haven’t commented on the draft until now, because the Board received our first full copy for review and comment on November 2, and comments were due by 5 PM, Election Day, November 6th. We’re all appointed by the Governor — it stands to reason that a few of us would be actively involved in the election and campaigns. I didn’t even open the email until Nov. 7.

I’m not happy with the length of the report, but I guess the nuances of our discussions over the last few months needed to be documented somewhere. Go to the page 34 in the pdf, numbered “26” in the Draft, for the actual recommendations made by vote in the Board meetings.

Finally, my main concern has been with the bureaucracy and regulation that the members of the Board have sometimes appeared to support. In the end, I believe that we have limited recommendations for regulation and “hassle factors” more than some would like. My hope is that the Legislature will decide to focus initially on implementing any new measures in our own State health plans and not interfere directly in private health care practice and systems, except where and when the State foots the bill.

Since President Obama won reelection, I believe that the ability of the 83rd Texas Legislature to adapt and react to Federal Regulations  – Obamacare – will be improved by the work of the Institute.

Texas victory on Women’s Health Program. BTW: It’s our money!

Next stop: getting our money back from the Feds!

Granted a legal victory Thursday by a federal appeals court, state officials said they will begin working quickly to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Women’s Health Program, which provides contraceptives and health care to low-income women.

The state also reversed course on funding for the health program, saying it would seek to have the federal government continue funding it, rather than switching to a state-funded program as planned.

“In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice,” Gov. Rick Perry said.

Thursday’s ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was expected because it reaffirmed an August opinion that said Texas could legally exclude Planned Parenthood — or any organization that provides abortions or promotes the procedure — from the program.

But in a new wrinkle, state officials said the court victory will prompt them to press the federal government to continue providing money for the program — a reversal of U.S. policy that could save tens of millions of dollars in state money but is unlikely to happen without a fight.

via Texas seeks to keep federal money for women’s health program | www.statesman.com.

A Survey of America’s Physicians: Practice Patterns and Perspectives

Think you can keep your doctor under ObamaCare? Look around at how many of your neighbors have lost their docs just this year, due to the new hassle factors, including mandates for electronic medical records, constant threats of cuts, and repeated delays in payment and changes in the rules.

For the last 10 to 20 years, the question has been whether your doc would keep seeing you after you turned 65 and became Medicare eligible.

Over the next couple of years, the question will be whether your doc will still practice. If he or she does, the question will be whether he will be allowed by law to continue to see you and how the local hospitals divide up all the ObamaCare “exchange” patients. If you’re very lucky, your doc, who will be forced to chose one and only one of the “Accountable Care Organizations,” will choose the same one you’re assigned to.

The Physician Foundation surveyed over 13,000 doctors about their plans for practicing as the regulations and requirements for ObamaCare kick in. The result of the survey, the largest in U.S. history, reveal that over the next 4 years, more than 50% of docs are planning to cut back their hours or services, change to a concierge, cash only, practice or quit the practice of medicine altogether.

The report is here, and this is the Executive Summary:
Executive Summary: American patients are likely to experience significant and increasing challenges in accessing care if current physician practice patterns trends continue, according to a comprehensive new survey of practicing physicians. One of the largest physician surveys ever undertaken in the U.S., the research was commissioned by The Physicians Foundation.

Physicians are working fewer hours, seeing fewer patients and limiting access to their practices in light of significant changes to the medical practice environment, according to the research, titled “A Survey of America’s Physicians: Practice Patterns and Perspectives.” The research estimates that if these patterns continue, 44,250 full-time-equivalent (FTE) physicians will be lost from the workforce in the next four years. The survey also found that over the next one to three years, more than 50 percent of physicians will cut back on patients seen, work part-time, switch to concierge medicine, retire, or take other steps likely to reduce patient access. In addition, should 100,000 physicians transition from practice-owner to employed status over the next four years (such as working in a hospital setting), the survey indicates that this will lead to 91 million fewer patient encounters.

via A Survey of America’s Physicians: Practice Patterns and Perspectives.

Sally C. Pipes, Founder of the Benjamin Rush Society, at Docs4PatientCare @D4PC

Health care policy expert, Sally C. Pipes, spoke to our @D4PC meeting this morning about the Benjamin Rush Society. The Society is an organization that she founded in order to inform and enable medical students and residents to defend the traditional medical ethic that the doctor should work for the patient, not a  third party, and “certainly not one that wields the coercive force of law.”

While the topic of the talk was the Benjamin Rush Society, Ms. Pipes also discussed her own experience as a former citizen of Canada and about her mother’s death from colon cancer after being refused a colonoscopy under the Canadian health care system. The reason given was that “Seniors” weren’t given colonoscopies and that those under 65 years old had a several months long waiting period, even if bleeding. When Ms. Pipes’ mother began bleeding from the colon, she spent 3 days in the Emergency Department and passed away 2 weeks later with metastatic colon cancer.

There were also comments from members in the audience about the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, which has even longer wait times for services, including heart surgery.

Ms. Pipes is married to Charles Kesler, whose book, I AM the Change, Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism, will be released on September 11. Mr. Kesler spoke to out group yesterday.

Another reason to vote Romney

Robin Alta Charo, the lawyer/ethicist-for-hire, one time Clinton advisor turned Obama transition advisor then FDA consultant, has been appointed to 2 new positions at the National Institutes of Health.

In her new role, Charo will advise on ethical and regulatory issues raised by translational research, such as privacy and civil rights concerns raised by research using human tissues residing in large biobanks or public health implications of deploying genetics and personalized medicine to target drug development toward narrower segments of the population. She will also participate in overseeing the peer review process for research proposals submitted to NCATS.

Ms. Charo, the inventor of the “Endarkenment,” supports sex-selection abortion, believes cloning will finally prove there’s no God, and frequently writes op-eds for the New England Journal of Medicine, specializing in her opposition to conscience rights. She likens Medicine to a “public utility, obligated to provide service to all who seek it. Claiming an unfettered right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good constitutes an abuse of the public trust — all the worse if it is not in fact a personal act of conscience but, rather, an attempt at cultural conquest.”

Texas Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Kills 5 Kids, Sickens 1,000 @texmed

Please consider getting your Whooping Cough vaccine.

By the time you start coughing, we can’t change your course – you will probably cough for the next month or more. The new pertussis vaccine in the “D-TaP” or “T-DaP” is “acellular,” not the old one that so many worried about in the past. http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4212.pdf

From the Texas Medical Association’s “Me and My Doctor:”

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 201

Docs 4 Patient Care @D4PC Annual Meeting

“By Doctors . . . For Patients.”  It’s about the patient, who is the only boss the doctor should have, other than his or her own conscience and integrity.

I’m attending my first annual meeting of Docs4PatientCare this weekend, in Crystal City, Virginia, just over the river from Washington, DC.  I stumbled upon D4PC following links from American Doctors for Truth last March.

Doctors 4 Patient Care stands in stark contrast to – and as a viable alternative to – the American Medical Association. The AMA has become a partner with the US government through the publication and sale of mandatory  “code books,” and increasingly with its advocacy for government funded healthcare coverage, especially by its endorsement of “ObamaCare,” even before the law (much less the ever-evolving regulations) was written.

So far this morning, we’ve heard from the founder of D4PC Dr. Hal Scherz, an advocate for reaching medical students through the Benjamin Rush Society, Beth Haynes, an expert on Media Strategy and Training, Ernest DelBuono, Sr., and two speakers on reforming medical liability (tort reform), Dr. Jeff Segal of “Medical Justice,” and Rick Jackson of “Patients for Fair Compensation.” 

I’ll post more through the weekend. In the meantime, read a some of the D4PC literature, “Like” Docs4PatientCare on Facebook and/or follow @D4PC on Twitter. Watch a few of the D4PC videos on YouTube.  Consider supporting the efforts of the group and/or to donating money. There’s even an alliance membership for non-physicians.

“Aid in Dying” promoted in the Journal “Chest”

It’s difficult to write about a respected medical journal which promotes “Aid in Dying” without resorting to emotional words such as “horrifying,” “shocking,” or “murder,” but I’ll try. However, I will not call the practice “physician aided death” or “aid in dying.”  It is, at best “physician assisted suicide,” and at worst, “euthanasia,” or the use of medical technology and procedures to actively end the life – to intentionally kill – a patient. This is not “medicine” as I understand it.

Chest is the journal of the American College of Chest Physicians. These are the Internal Medicine subspecialists who focus on lung disease, cardiac care, and sleep medicine. They are likely to be the doctors who care for the most vulnerable patients, especially in the Intensive Care Unit at your hospital.

Under the heading “Medical Ethics,” in the July, 2012 issue is an article titled, “Aid in Dying: Guidance for an Emerging End-of-Life Practice,” authored by Kathryn L. Tucker, J.D. The article is available online as a web page, here, and as in pdf., here.

Beginning with a principle that virtually all of us can agree with,the right to refuse intentional medical intervention, the article quickly moves to the very controversial opinion that the first principle ensures the “right” to request “treatment” that is intended to end the life of the patient – to kill:

•A patient with decision-making capacity has the legal right to refuse or request the withdrawal of any medical treatment or intervention, regardless of whether he or she is terminally ill and regardless of whether the treatment prolongs life and its withdrawal results in death.

•A patient with decision-making capacity has the legal right to request and receive as much pain medication as necessary for relief, even if it advances the time of death.

•Principles of autonomy that underlie respecting patient rights to refuse or direct withdrawal of life-prolonging interventions or to request pain medication even if it advances time of death support the choice for aid in dying. Aid in dying is increasingly accepted in law and medicine in the United States.

•Provision of aid in dying does not constitute assisting a suicide or euthanasia. Aid in dying is a practice with growing support in the public and medical and health policy communities and is likely to become more widely requested in the future.

•A clinician cannot be compelled to provide treatment that conflicts with his or her personal values. In these circumstances, the clinician cannot abandon the patient but should refer the patient to a colleague who is willing to provide the service.

Four prima facie principles have been used to characterize most ethical concerns in medicine: respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Respect for patient autonomy refers to the duty to respect patients and their rights of self-determination; beneficence refers to the duty to promote patient interests; nonmaleficence refers to the duty to prevent harm to patients; and justice refers, in part, to the duty to treat patients and distribute health-care resources fairly.11 When applied to the care of an individual patient, however, these principles may conflict with one another. For example, a patient’s values, preferences, and goals may be at odds with a clinician’s perception of how best to help and not harm the patient. Clinical ethics identify, analyze, and provide guidance on how to resolve these conflicts.

While I believe that there may come a time when it is ethical to stop trying to keep a patient alive – when treatment is only making the dying process longer – I will never assist in an act that can only end in the death of my patient. The way I explain this is that I will assist in removing a ventilator under certain circumstances, but I won’t then put a pillow over the patient’s face to make sure she can’t breathe on her own afterwards. The intent of medicine is to diagnose and treat disease, not to end the life of patients suffering from disease.

Texas Womens Health Program update

Texas Alliance for Life has sent out a notice of a hearing Monday, August 8th, on the TWHP. (Sorry for the formatting, I’m traveling, so limited access to the Internet.)

* * * URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT 8/3/12 * * *

Please Contact the Texas Department of State Health Services to Register Your Opposition to Tax Funding for Planned Parenthood!

Deadline on MONDAY

Please immediately contact the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and register your opposition to tax funding for Planned Parenthood in a new state health program.

DSHS is creating a new state-funded program, called the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP), to provide preventative health care for low-income women. The services will including some STD screening and treatments, screening for breast and cervical cancer, and contraceptives. The new state program will replace the Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which is expected to come to an end in October. The new TWHP will provide the same or more services as the Medicaid program it replaces.
See a sample message and contact information below. Comments must be received by Monday, August 6.

The Obama Administration is killing the Medicaid Women’s Health Program in Texas because Governor Perry and the Legislature refuse to fund Planned Parenthood. Senate Bill 7, passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Perry last year with Texas Alliance for Life’s strong endorsement, explicitly excludes organizations that provide or promote elective abortion, like Planned Parenthood. Without Senate Bill 7, there would be no statutory basis for excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Women’s Health Program and from the Texas Women’s Health Program.

SAMPLE MESSAGE: Please call, email, or mail a message in your own words by Monday, August 6.Phone — 800.322.1305 (during business hours):

Email — click here to email to CHSS@dshs.state.tx.us.
“Dear Ms. Garcia,
“This is a comment regarding the proposed rules for the Texas Women’s Health Program published in the Texas Register on July 6, 2012.
“Please assure that Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide or promote elective abortion are not eligible for public funding under the Texas Women’s Health Program. Planned Parenthood runs 14 abortion facilities in Texas, and they promote elective abortion at every one of its sites in Texas even where they do not perform abortion. I do not want my tax dollars to go to organizations that perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning”
“—–Your name and address

Mail: Imelda M. Garcia, Department of State Health Services, Division of Family and Community Health Services, Community Health Services Section, Mail Code 1923, P.O. Box 149347, Austin, Texas 78714-9347,

Deadline: Monday, August 6, 2012.
Please let us know you’ve made your contact. Simply send comments to info@texasallianceforlife.org.

BACKGROUND

For more information, visit Governor Rick Perry’s website, Fighting for Women’s Health: http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/womens_health/.

Here’s a (YouTube) video of Texas Alliance for Life’s executive director, Joe Pojman, Ph.D.: Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director. This video interviews Texas Alliance for Life’s board member, Dr. Beverly Nuckols: Beverly Nuckols MD, FAAFP, Family Physician 

Texas Alliance for Life (TAL) is a non-sectarian, non-partisan, pro-life organization of people committed to protecting innocent human lives from conception through natural death through peaceful, legal means. TAL is a statewide organization based in the Texas capital.

www.TexasAllianceforLife.org    512.477.1244

twitter.com @TXAlliance4Life     facebook.com/TexasAllianceforLife

Medicine vs. “Health”

Medicine is the diagnosis and treatment of disease and injury, while the World Health Organization defines “health” as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

Doctors practice medicine, but is “health” even possible?

New England Journal of Medicine: “The Health Care Jobs Fallacy”

Attempts to justify increasing intrusion of the Federal government into health insurance and health cost distract from the purpose of the practice of medicine, which is to treat patients.

Remember when doctors talked about “medical care” of individuals, not “health care” for populations?Remember when medicine was an “art,” not an “industry?” People aren’t machines with interchangeable parts and neither medicine nor “health care” are amenable to assembly line production, except in very rare instances.

The bottom line is that employment in the health care sector should be neither a policy goal nor a metric of success. The key policy goals should be to achieve better health outcomes and increase overall economic productivity, so that we can all live healthier and wealthier lives. Our ability to ensure access to expensive but beneficial treatment is hampered whenever health care policy is evaluated on the basis of jobs. Treating the health care system like a (wildly inefficient) jobs program conflicts directly with the goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to care at an affordable price.

via The Health Care Jobs Fallacy — NEJM.

Traditional families supported by two new studies.

The original study by Mark Regnerus, PhD, can be found, here.

Of course, most of the articles reviewing the latest studies complain that the phenomenon is too new and still carries stigma that cause the problems.  They say if we’ll experiment with our kids just a bit longer, and with more legal protection (i.e., “marriage” and laws to punish people who won’t gush over the forced changes), the kids will turn out better. (“Haven’t we heard this about socialism: it’s just never had a chance to be done right.”)

The legitimate criticism for the Regnerus study is that the statistics are weakened because there is no distinction between children raised by same-sex parents who had long-term relationships and parents with a series of multiple partners or long periods without while the children of heterosexual parents are divided into traditional families and variations including single parent, etc. The database didn’t include that information. However, the problems for the children of homosexual parents are statistically significant.

Grammar edited 8/13/12 BBN

Dr. Jack Wilke on “Romney’s Conversion”

Dr. Jack Willke is an unimpeachable pro-life activist. He has taught many of us both why and how to protect life over the years. I was reassured to read his account of the pro-life conversion of Mitt Romney on LifeSite News and that Dr. Willke (and Dr. Hurlbut) are secure in believing that it’s genuine

The first part of the article outlines the work Dr. Willke did with George H. W. Bush when Bush was named as Vice Presidential running mate with Ronald Reagan. The last part is about Governor Romney’s conversion:

As this is written, Barack Obama has proven to be the most pro-abortion president of modern times and he is now seeking a second term. Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Presidential slot in November. Naturally, some have questioned his pro-life credentials and convictions so let’s examine the details of Governor Romney’s conversion.

When he was first elected Governor of Massachusetts, it was generally presumed that his position was “prochoice.” However, about half way into his first term as governor in 2005, Romney announced that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research and proceeded to veto a bill making the “Morning After,” plan B contraceptive pills available. In the same year, he declared that he was pro-life.

Governor Romney tells us that he changed his mind in November 2004. At that time, he was obviously searching and had questions. He met with Douglas A. Melton, PhD, a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on November 9. In that interview the Governor said this researcher told him, “Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue because we kill the embryos after fourteen days.” This had a major impact on Romney and his chief of staff, as they saw it recognizing that such embryonic stem cell research in fact was killing what they were convinced were human lives already in existence. Later, through a spokesperson, Dr. Melton disputed that he used the word “kill.”

But Governor Romney, wanting to know more, consulted with one of the best people available in February 2005. This expert was William B. Hurlbut, a physician and professor at Stanford University Medical Center Neuroscience Institute. Dr. Hurlbut is a dedicated pro-lifer.

The two of them met for several hours, discussing the issue in great detail. They went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and repercussions of the various research and experimentation that has been going on aimed at exploring the first weeks after fertilization. At that point, Romney was under intense pressure to change a state law that, at the time, still protected human embryos from lethal stem cell research. Some of the pressure came from Harvard, his own alma mater. After this in-depth consultation, Romney stated that he was pro-life.

Asked about their meeting by columnist Kathleen Parker, Dr. Hurlbut said, “Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind. First, he clearly recognized the significance of the i s s u e, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future. Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”

Similar to my time with President H. W. Bush, Dr. Hurlbut presented Governor Romney with sound scientific and medical information. The Governor responded by changing his position to support the protection of innocent human life from the point of fertilization. He declared himself pro-life and has repeatedly done so since that time.

For over twenty years, Life Issues Institute has been solely dedicated to prolife education. It has been my primary contribution to the pro-life movement since the 1960s. Our strength comes from the central fact that we are daily changing the hearts and minds of Americans on abortion. And our efforts have greatly be en assisted by science. The tool of ultrasound has resulted in an entire generation having their first baby picture taken within the womb, and it’s greatly impacted people’s opinion on abortion. Every pro-life individual and organization should rejoice when anyone—political or otherwise—responds to the unmistakable fact that human life begins at fertilization and that it should be protected.

Life Issues Institute and I are confident that Governor Romney’s conversion is real, heartfelt and authentic. Since the Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization, we cannot endorse a political candidate. As such, this article should not be construed as an endorsement of Governor Romney’s candidacy but rather a testament to the fact that we believe Mitt Romney is truly pro-life.

Conservatives respect experience and history

Contrary to what many seem to believe, the Founding Fathers didn’t spring full grown from the Liberty Bell on July 4, 1776. They had served in their various Colonial legislatures for years before the Declaration and held other offices, both elected and appointed. George Washington served in the Virginia House of Burgesses for 15 years before his two terms with the Continental Congress. Jefferson served 7 years alongside Washington in the Burgesses, two terms as Virginia’s Governor, two terms on the Continental Congress, body and then became the “establishment”  Secretary of State, Vice President, and President for two terms in the nascent United States.

However, the anti-establishment cry to “throw them all out” –  that men and women who have served the public for years should be replaced with untried political neophytes for no other reason than that they have served for years and are now considered “establishment”  – has become an emotional, knee-jerk reaction that has nothing to do with any other quality or qualification of the candidates.

For example, my email is full of pleas to help Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who faces a recall election this week, alternating with demands to defeat Lt. Governor David Dewhurst of Texas in his race for US Senator. The complaint against Dewhurst is that he is “establishment” and a “professional politician.”  There are no similar complaints against Governor Walker who has been in political office of one sort or another most of his adult life. In contrast, Dewhurst served in the Air Force, worked for the CIA, and built a very successful business before running for office in his 50’s.  In addition, he’s no more “establishment” than Governor Walker, having led the Texas Senate to passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, Voter ID, de-funding Planned Parenthood, Jessica’s Law, defending our State and Nation’s border and cutting relative and actual dollars from the State budget.

When all the newly political activists got tired of yelling at their TV’s and jumped up off their couches and recliners to join our Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party over the last 4 years, who welcomed them and gave them somewhere to start? It was the more seasoned of us in the Republican Party, since, at least until recently, virtually every Conservative was a Republican.  If you look at the Tea Party, you will see the Conservative foundation, the remnant that have opposed “centrists”  and “moderates” for years. We are the ones who have known all along what the Dems re-learn each election cycle, but some of our own never seem to: Americans are conservative, to the right of center.

In politics, as in the rest of life, “new” is not always “improved.” New candidates are not better than the incumbent just because they’re new any more than the old guys earn their promotions by merely sticking around.  By the same token, long time Conservative leaders may or may not be more able to judge policy and candidates than newer or younger members of our group. But a record of experience and training is – or should be –  considered an advantage, not a “dissed”-advantage.

Or, as my husband says, “Age and cunning trump youth and enthusiasm.” Every time.