« List of Contacts to SAVE MISS MAE! | Main | So, WHERE are the DOCTORS? »


April 8, 2005

The Hospice Industry's Dark Agenda: Are Hospices Enabling Euthanasia?

Topics: Commentary

BlofsForTerri, it's readers, and all other bloggers that support the value of human life, have a very difficult task ahead in educating the public and politicians about the history and tactics of the euthanasia movement in America. What we all experienced with Terri Schiavo, are now experiencing with Mae Magouirk, and will continue to face with countless others in the months ahead, is but a warm-up to what we will be facing in the years ahead if we don't stop the death cult "dead in it's tracks," now.

Those who think hospice is the safe alternative to open euthanasia have been outfoxed. The euthanasia society has run circles around the well-meaning but naive right-to-lifers. So whether euthanasia is legalized openly or 'back-doored' through hospice, euthanasia is here, and it has been here for a long time. The National Right to Life Committee has known about the hospice killings for years, yet has refused to expose these killings.

Is the right-to-life groups' stance on hospice consistent with its professed opposition to euthanasia? Only if it admits that the realities in hospice are mixed, and citizens of our nation need to remain vigilant in determining whether their loved one is receiving end of life care, or is receiving care that leads to the end of life at will, i.e., euthanasia. - from MichNews article

According to Ron Panzer in an email to Matt Abbott of MichNews, "right to life" organizations have been out-maneuvered by the so-called "right to die" organizations. To understand just how this occured, we need only to look at the history of the "right to die" organizations for the chilling answer. What you will find is that much of the public, most politicians, and many in the medical community, have been and continue to be snookered by euthanasia advocates.

A big thanks to MichNews for getting the word out on the dangers of the euthanasia movement in America.

- Ron Panzer(Hospice Patients Alliance) via MichNews
Before the Third Reich, before World War II, the eugenics and euthanasia advocates were quite active in the U.S. The Euthanasia Society of America, formed in 1938 in New York, having failed in getting passage of laws legalizing euthanasia, changed its tactics. Realizing that the sanctity of life ethic was alive and well in the U.S., they sought a way to chip away at the bedrock blocking their way. Commissioning research to learn what phrases their dark agenda could be palatably sold to the American public, they came up with terms such as 'choice in dying,' 'dying well,' 'the right to die' and 'patient choice.'

In the 1960s they changed their name to Choice in Dying, choosing to focus on incrementally advancing the euthanasia agenda. Living wills, advanced directives, and do not resuscitate orders were successfully sold to the U.S. and accepted by the mainstream health care industry policymakers.

Simultaneous with the introduction of the living will and the advanced directives initiative, hospice care arrived on the scene, suggesting that we avoid aggressive acute hospital care when such interventions may be burdensome and intrusive for patients who are truly dying. Providing compassionate care to the terminally ill, relieving their suffering while allowing a natural death in its own timing ... who could object?

What the public didn't know is that the first hospice in our nation, the Connecticut Hospice, was founded by a major representative of the euthanasia movement, Florence Wald, MSN, who stated that assisted suicide should be available for just about any reason at all:

'I'll tell you the way I see it, and I know that I differ from Cicely Saunders, who is very much against assisted suicide. I disagree with her view on the basis that there are cases in which either the pain or the debilitation the patient is experiencing is more than can be borne, whether it be economically, physically, emotionally, or socially. For this reason, I feel a range of options should be available to the patient, and this should include assisted suicide.' (JAMA. 281; 1683-1685, May 12, 1999, Hospice Care in the United States: A Conversation with Florence S. Wald, M. J. Friedrich)

While many in hospice assert that they will neither hasten death nor prolong death, hospice staff around the country may misuse common end of life interventions to hasten death. Terminal sedation, a common intervention to relieve severe agitation at the end of life, can be misapplied to place patients into a medically-induced coma from which they are not allowed to recover. They die of dehydration while sleeping, thereby allowing for a 'pretty' and 'peaceful,' but unnatural death, i.e., murder.

Right to life organizations have traditionally viewed hospice as the rightful alternative to euthanasia and have ardently supported hospice services, and so they should, IF hospices remain loyal to the original hospice mission of the London-based Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement. But the euthanasia advocates have always known that hospice could be used as the back door to legalization of euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide.

And that is what has been occurring throughout the U.S. We have families reporting their loved one was killed off outright within hospices, through inappropriate use of medications when there was no clinical need, resulting in the death of an otherwise non-dying patient.

... The euthanasia advocates have taken over the national policymaking circles of the entire hospice industry. Doubt it? Well, remember the Euthanasia Society of America? (As mentioned above)it changed its name to 'Choice in Dying', which sounds great, but was clearly an early indication that the choice they really wanted to promote was the choice to have physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.

Choice in Dying completed its mission, the nationwide acceptance of incremental changes in our attitude toward life, substituting a 'quality of life' ethic for the 'sanctity of life' ethic. Having done its job, it looked forward to the next step: the direct control of the hospice industry. Choice in Dying merged with the hospice industry coalition, Partnership for Caring, whose goal was the changing of state and federal laws to favor utilization of hospice. Partnership for Caring merged with Last Acts, one of the largest hospice coalitions in the world, funded by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, to become Last Acts Partnership. Many who have served as Last Acts Partnership's directors also serve on the National Hospice & Palliative Care Organization board.

For example, Mary Labyak, C.E.O. of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, served as secretary at the Partnership for Caring and is a prominent leader in the hospice industry, having served on the boards of Last Acts and the National Hospice & Palliative Care Organization. It is Labyak's hospice, Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which has actively participated in accepting a non-terminal patient, Terri Schiavo, into the hospice, for the express purpose of euthanizing the 'unworthy of life' victim, Terri Schiavo.

Those who think hospice is the safe alternative to open euthanasia have been outfoxed. The euthanasia society has run circles around the well-meaning but naive right to lifers. So whether euthanasia is legalized openly or 'back-doored' through hospice, euthanasia is here, and it has been here for a long time. The National Right to Life Committee has known about the hospice killings for years, yet has refused to expose these killings.

Is the right-to-life groups' stance on hospice consistent with its professed opposition to euthanasia? Only if it admits that the realities in hospice are mixed, and citizens of our nation need to remain vigilant in determining whether their loved one is receiving end of life care, or is receiving care that leads to the end of life at will, i.e., euthanasia.

Source:
MichNews by Matt C. Abbott

Related: Marlowe's Shade

Cross posted: Hyscience

Posted by richard at April 8, 2005 9:06 PM


Articles Related to Commentary:

Comments

I know this is majorly off topic, but when can I be listed as a supporter. I submitted my link and also gave money to your cause.

Posted by: Jayson at April 8, 2005 10:34 PM

A few years ago, a close relative of mine had brain cancer. Just under one year after she was diagnosed (we knew she was terminal, but expected and hoped she would live a little longer than she did), she went through a four hour seizure inside the hospital. (In my opinion, this is the fault of the hospital for not having any of her seizure medication available in their pharmacy AND refusing to use the seizure medication that was brought with her when she was taken to the hospital.) That seizure caused irrepairable damage and a few days later, she had to go to the hospice unit within the hospital.

Despite her brain and the fact that she had had chemo and radiation, the rest of her body was basically healthy. She was not old. My mother was her closest relative in the area and her power of attorney. After about two weeks, the hospice asked my mother to stop feeding her. Basically, they wanted the room to be freed for another patient. My mother refused. My relative was fed for as long as she continued to accept food. At a certain point, she no longer accepted food and slipped into a deep coma. The nurses expected she would continue to live for quite a while because her body was basically healthy. She died about three weeks after entering the coma. She died on Divine Mercy Sunday.

What troubles me is the fact that this hospice actually asked that food be withheld at a time when the patient was willing to eat and drink. In cases where there might not have been any relatives or friends to stand up for the patient, it is possible that the hospice starved the patients if they continued to live beyond a certain timeframe.

After the death of this relative, my mother began receiving all sorts of disgusting mail from "right to die" type organizations. Personally, if I was ever in a situation where I needed to be in a hospice environment, I'd prefer to be at HOME with the nurses coming in.

Posted by: cw at April 9, 2005 12:54 AM

Just to add, I can't recall what happened as far as hydration with my relative. (She may have been receiving IVs once she stopped accepting food orally, or ice chips may have been placed in her mouth. She was not dehydrated when she died. Unfortunately, I neglected to visit that much once she went into the coma, but she had visitors daily.)

If this same situation came up now, after having seen the atrocity (my opinion) of Terri Schiavo's situation, not to mention our dear Holy Father's writings about feeding tubes, I don't think we would have taken the same course. Even if she no longer accepted food by mouth, we probably would have tried to find some way to allow nutrition. I doubt hospice would have allowed a feeding tube, but we would have tried to do something. As the Holy Father, Pope John Paul the Great stated, feeding tubes are not extraordinary care.

Posted by: cw at April 9, 2005 1:13 AM

I do believe that the Hospice industry enables euthanasia. They have outfoxed us to believe it is a caring place to relieve pain in the "dying process". I don't ever want to be put in a hospice!!

My mother died in a Florida Hospice while my parents were wintering in FL. It makes me sick to think about this. I was unable to make it down there to see here before she died.

Check out the lastest article at Empire.
You Be The Judge: Was Terri Schindler- Schiavo A Strangulation Victim?
http://www.theempirejournal.com/409051_you_be_the_judge_was_terr.htm

Also, don't forget to petition for judge Greers impeachment.
http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html

Posted by: kay at April 9, 2005 7:44 AM