WingRight

Edify, Educate, Elect! Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. (Cotten)

Search

Texas

This tag is associated with 3 posts

To kill or not to kill – or even to call it killing?

Posted by bnuckols ⋅ February 10, 2020

It seems that an advocate of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (EAS), which is legal in Canada since 2016, complained to the “The Protection of Conscience Project” administrators about their use of the word, “killing,” rather than “Medically Assisted Death” (MAD) when writing about the law. The wording of the objection exposes the potential limitations even on thoughts, much less the act of refusal, of physicians who object to participating in EAS.

In response, Sean Murphy, an Administrator of the Project, discusses and defines the acts and prohibitions involved in EAS, threatened conscience protection in law as decided by Canadian legislators and courts, and policy statements of the Canadian Medical Association.

A recent case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada considered “whether or under what circumstances physicians and institutions should be allowed to refuse to provide or collaborate in homicide and suicide.” While the Canadian courts have not made it illegal to refuse, the author points out that the Canadian Medical Association now considers EAS medical treatment. Although refusal isn’t illegal, if it becomes “unethical,” the licenses of conscientious objectors may one day be at risk. (Mr. Murphy let me know that the CMA is trying to respect both views)*

Just as all inalienable rights are dependent on the protection of the right to life, all medical ethics principles (autonomy, beneficence, justice) are based on the foundation of nonmaleficience, “Cure when possible but, first, do no harm.” This is the First Principle of Medicine.

The editorial gives an useful “litmus test” for discerning between ethical and unethical acts carried out under the umbrella of medical therapy: it’s considered a “failure” if the patient doesn’t die as a result of EAS.

In contrast, the intent of withdrawal or withholding medical treatment is not necessarily to cause death, but to stop acts that are unwanted or medically inappropriate because they do not heal, cure, slow the progression of the disease or relieve pain and suffering, but actually exasperate suffering and may cause damage beyond that inflicted by the disease.

To use a current case in the news in the USA (which I recently covered here), Baby Tinslee Lewis’ doctors wish to withdraw life sustaining treatment that they believe is medically inappropriate. The doctors would not consider it a failure if, rather than die of her severe heart and lung damage, she continued to live.

Canada is already far down the slippery slope of mandating participation in induced (elective) abortion and “MAD” by designating each as “therapeutic and medical services.” The Project Conscience authors rightly predict the possible consequences:

“[I]f the state can force unwilling people to kill or help to arrange for the killing of other people, there would seem to be nothing that the state cannot demand of its citizens. This would promote the development of dangerous forms of authoritarian and even totalitarian government: ultimately more effective and deep-rooted, perhaps, within a democratic framework than they ever have been in dictatorial regimes.”

(*EDITED An earlier version stated that licences were at risk. Not yet.

BBN 11 February 2020 12:30 AM)

When is autopsy mandatory?

Posted by bnuckols ⋅ February 15, 2016

For those wondering about autopsies today, here’s the Texas statute.

Art. 49.04. DEATHS REQUIRING AN INQUEST. (a) A justice of the peace shall conduct an inquest into the death of a person who dies in the county served by the justice if:

(1) the person dies in prison under circumstances other than those described by Section 501.055(b), Government Code, or in jail;

(2) the person dies an unnatural death from a cause other than a legal execution;

(3) the body or a body part of a person is found, the cause or circumstances of death are unknown, and:

(A) the person is identified; or

(B) the person is unidentified;

(4) the circumstances of the death indicate that the death may have been caused by unlawful means;

(5) the person commits suicide or the circumstances of the death indicate that the death may have been caused by suicide;

(6) the person dies without having been attended by a physician;

(7) the person dies while attended by a physician who is unable to certify the cause of death and who requests the justice of the peace to conduct an inquest; or

(8) the person is a child younger than six years of age and an inquest is required by Chapter 264, Family Code.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section, a physician who attends the death of a person and who is unable to certify the cause of death shall report the death to the justice of the peace of the precinct where the death occurred and request that the justice conduct an inquest.

(c) If a person dies in a hospital or other institution and an attending physician is unable to certify the cause of death, the superintendent or general manager of the hospital or institution shall report the death to the justice of the peace of the precinct where the hospital or institution is located.

(d) A justice of the peace investigating a death described by Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall report the death to the missing children and missing persons information clearinghouse of the Department of Public Safety and the national crime information center not later than the 10th working day after the date the investigation began.

Posted from WordPress for Android. Typos will be corrected!

For Texas’ Atheists

Posted by bnuckols ⋅ July 16, 2011

Preamble to the Constitution of the great, sovereign State of Texas:

Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Just FYI.

And, BTW, according to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it’s “Freedom OF Religion,” or “the free exercise thereof,” not “Freedom From Religion.” thought you would want to know, since you’re suing Governor Rick Perry over the Response prayer gathering on August 6th, at Houston’s Reliant Stadium.

(Thanks to LukeL of FreeRepublic.com for the reminder about the Preamble.)