Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Euthanasia: Why should they have to suffer?

The word euthanasia is from the Greek ευθανασία, meaning "good death": ευ-, eu- (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death) refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner which relieves pain and suffering.

But euthanasia is far from a good death.  Christ came to earth for one purpose alone, and that was to suffer for the sake of man's salvation.  By doing this He gave us a model to imitate.  How foolish it is to seek to avoid suffering if the only recourse that may be had is death!  It's like saying "Dear Jesus, I know you suffered for me, but now that I am faced with suffering, I want no part of it.  Oh, by the way, please still let me into heaven because I don't want to suffer in hell either!"

There could hardly be something more contrary to the Gospel message than euthanasia, which is indeed a misnomer.  It is not a good death at all, but a sacrilegious and blasphemous death.  It is a mortal sin to commit suicide or ask to be killed - in fact it encompasses many mortal sins: disobedience, despair, greed (the selfishness that thinks "why should I have to suffer"), ingratitude to God for the sacrifice He made for us, not to mention despising it so far as to be loathe to imitate it.  Anyone who commits suicide of his own volition is devoid of love, either for God or from God.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20: "Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body."

1 Corinthians 3:16-17: "Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are."

Again, any action that calls down destruction from God is a mortal sin, and will condemn a soul to hell.  In fact, it is the sin against the Holy Ghost to commit suicide, that is, to die in the state of final impenitence.  When a man has died unrepentant of his mortal sins, even just one, he has rejected the offer of sanctity made to him by the Holy Ghost, hence Christ says that such a one is guilty of a sin for which there is no pardon, either in this world or the next.


No, a GOOD death is one where we lovingly offer our pain to God with thanksgiving, begging Him to accept it in expiation for our many sins, by which we have so many times risked losing the site of His Most Holy Face forever, knowing that it is God alone to whom the good pleasure belongs of appointing to us the number of our days:

Psalms 38:5: " I spoke with my tongue: O Lord, make me know my end. And what is the number of my days: that I may know what is wanting to me."

It is not for us to decide when we shall depart this world, lest we blasphemously seek to elevate ourselves to the office of God.


PLEASE BE AWARE!

There is an even greater audacity of some impudent persons and institutions which has reached a level that cries to heaven for vengeance.  I am talking about a trend that has long been developing among hospices, whereby they take in the elderly under the guise of caring for them in their "golden years", when in fact they intend nothing other than to destroy them.  These treacherous and vile men and women prey upon the old and infirm and spare no deceit in getting what they want - a rising death toll among the aged (and economically "burdensome"), which can only be the result of the influence of the Free Masons in power.

Below is an article I read that I feel contains information that all should be aware of:


Hospice Nurse Observes Illegal Euthanasia in Hospice

by Christina Brundage, RN - March 13, 2003 report


[Note: the following is an account of what I observed in a hospice case where I was a "friend" at the bedside and not the nurse caring for the patient.]

I will call this patient "Joe." Joe has been ill with progressive [terminal illness] for approximately 4 years. I used to take care of him on occasion. He became too rigid for me to help him walk and his wife, Ellen, has been hiring male CNAs to help since then.

Two weeks ago Ellen asked me to check Joe - he had a "sore" on his coccyx which she was told by the nurse or nurse practitioner was "sheet burn". I found Joe to have an inflamed area on his buttocks and a necrotic area, approximately 2" by 1", with blood oozing around the edges. A large area, about 6-8", around the necrotic area was mottled, reddened, with yellow exudate. Ellen had been told to use Silvadene on the area.

I talked to a nurse and told her what I observed and suggested a visit ASAP and a culture. The next day Ellen related that the nurse practitioner visited, said "it didn't look as bad" as I had said and told her to continue the Silvadene. She arranged for a visit to a wound care center the following week and ordered some antibiotics.

Early this week, Ellen called me and said the necrotic area was larger, the bleeding more, and the wound had a foul odor. She was concerned about a fever which she treated with Aleve with some success. We discussed various options - taking him to the this hospital or that one, etc. The following day Ellen called the nurse practitioner who suggested Joe be admitted to the Hospice unit the next day (3/12).

I visited Joe today in Room ___ of the Hospice Unit. Ellen was upset because she said the staff had told her she was "forbidden" to feed him or bring him any food or water because of the danger of aspiration. (The morning of admission he had had a scrambled egg and a full glass of Carnation Instant breakfast without difficulty and was walking with help). She was also upset because they were not giving him his antibiotics or anything for the fever. She was told that the decubitus was probably in the bone and was too far gone to treat.

At that point, the charge nurse, ________, R.N., came into the room. I asked her why he was "forbidden" water or food and she said it was their policy, also not treating symptoms or problems such as infection, bed sores, etc. She said she was just following routine practice to deny food, water and antibiotics (even though the patient was able to eat, drink and needed antibiotics). She said he was not in pain. I asked why he wasn't given Tylenol for his fever as he was very hot and flushed - she got a digital thermometer and tried several times to take his temperature in the ear. She said the battery wasn't working right. Finally it worked and she said his temperature was 98.7 even though I could feel his skin to be quite warm and hot. As an experienced nurse, I knew that his temperature had to be higher, but did not argue.

She said Joe was getting 20 mg. of liquid Morphine q 8 hrs! When I told her I was an RN with a Hospice background and that I never gave anyone not in pain 20 mg. Morphine, she said that was what was ordered but he wasn't getting it all the time. She then said 3-4 times clearly, standing next to the patient's head (he had his eyes open and appeared to be hearing), that he would die in about 3 days and that they didn't need to treat the infection because he was going to die soon.

Ellen was crying and upset because she realized they were practicing euthanasia. I reported the incident right away to Hospice Patients Alliance and plan to take further action.    Christina Brundage, RN

The next day: The same charge nurse came in and when Ellen asked if he couldn't have some water, the charge nurse said "You don't seem to be comfortable about his dying." She used the word dying three times right in front of him. She said she would have someone else come and talk to her because "you're not getting it." She repeated this phrase twice. We told her Joe is speaking and she said "He isn't saying anything purposeful." Yet, he had just asked me, "where is Ellen?" his wife. The hospice "routine" of depriving him of food and water, and antibiotics and giving him unneeded morphine continues. It is obvious what they are doing to him. Soon, he will be unable to speak or do anything. They will have snuffed out his life way before his natural time of dying!


Two days later: Joe is now comatose with rapid breathing, extremities cold, minimal urine output. Ellen said she was told he had pneumonia, though as an experienced registered nurse and hospice case manager, I saw no indication of congestion while observing his breathing during the entire time I was present. While I was talking with Ellen out in the hall, we overheard a nurse on the phone and Joe's last name was mentioned. Ellen asked the nurse what she was discussing. The nurse said she was getting an order for morphine for Joe. Ellen said, "But he's not in pain." The nurse agreed, thought for a minute, and said, "But that bedsore must be very painful." She said the order from the doctor was for 2-6 mg. "prn" (as needed) and that it would be given intravenously. Ellen again questioned the need for it, and the nurse said that it would only be given if he was in pain. Joe died that night.




Note from Ron Panzer: what is interesting about this case report is the casual attitude of the hospice nurse ... how routine it is for her to "forbid" any food or water from a patient who was eating and drinking the very morning that he entered hospice and who now, suddenly was "forbidden" to eat or drink. Next, the failure to treat the infection in the beginning, the refusal to treat the infection when asked to treat it, and the consequent overwhelming (formerly treatable) infection created in the patient. Next of concern: the high dosage of morphine given to the patient when the patient did not have severe pain. For those who may not know, an adult with a broken bone may get 5 to 10 mg. of morphine for pain. 20 mg is commonly given for patients with severe pain, and dosages much higher may safely be given when the patient has quite severe pain, however, it is a high dosage for a patient who is not in pain and who has never had narcotics like morphine before.

Next to notice: the cold, callous manner the hospice nurse spoke to the wife (in the patient's presence, as if the patient were not even there hearing) that he would be dead in three days. The routine, cool and absolutely certain way the hospice nurse presents the "news" to the wife that her husband will die in three days provides evidence that this hospice nurse has "done it before" many times. It comes as no surprise to her that the patient would die in three days, because through overdosing the patient, removal of food and fluid and failure to treat infection, she is certain of the outcome.

The original hospice mission and practice would be to provide food and water as long as the patient could swallow and absorb the food and water, so long as it would not cause harm to the patient. There is no regulation or law that says it is legal to withhold water and food from a hospice patient who is capable of eating and drinking as well as absorbing it! There is no law that says it is legal to withhold antibiotics from a patient who has a treatable infection (given early enough one could have at least tried to treat the infection]. And it is not within the standards of care to administer morphine when there is no clinical need for it! This is a very typical scenario in many hospices, but it is not hospice care which meets the standards of care in the industry!

 Exodus 32:34:
"And I in the day of revenge will visit this sin also of theirs."



9 comments:

  1. Just saw this article today, David.

    This is probably known to you, but there was a medical doctor who had written quite a long time ago of the reality that the concept 'brain death' was invented so that organs useful for transplantation could be removed from living persons.

    Some ladies I knew who very much involved with alternative medicine and had worked for alternative practitioners, confirmed that only such organs were in fact of value for that purpose.

    They also gave accounts of their own mother's death, in a situation similar to the one described above by the RN, which coincided with her characterization of hospice care.

    I had a friend, when I lived in NYC, a black lady who had been married to a white (Jewish) man. She apparently had left the hospital (I believe it was Mt. Sinai) where her husband was under treatment, to go home for a while. (He was, according to my understanding, seriously ill and may not have had much longer to live.) She returned to find that, without his authorization nor hers, organs had been removed from his 'dead' body.

    Another acquaintance I had in NY was interested in getting into social work. She related a situation where she was the only person visiting a hospitalized elderly lady, whose illness was in a holding pattern -- the lady was not going to get better and go home, but she was definitely not at all close to death. The (Jewish?) doctor treating the old lady was so angry that she was using up so many medical resources, that he basically asked my acquaintance for her permission to pull the plug on the old woman.

    I had come to my own, uneducated, conclusion a long time ago, that when they say some patient is 'in a vegetative state', what they mean is they think the time is ripe for him to go.

    (To attempt to remain unbiased, I have to say that I have heard good things about hospice care, from a lady who had terminal cancer.)

    Best,
    Janet C.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment Janet.

    Palliative care is complete nonsense. It aims at the alleviation of symptoms, without tackling the underlying cause. In this case, in my opinion, to be "unbiased" would be to grant the devil some breathing room.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dave,

    This is going off on somewhat of a tangent -- but overall it is germane to the traditionalist Catholic mindset.

    I believe it is the mantra of alternative practitioners, 'We don't treat symptoms', a prideful sneer at establishment medicine.

    But consider, in how many human diseases and disorders, it is impossible to 'get at the root cause', because the causes are unknown, or because they are inherent in an individual's DNA. E.g., diabetes, which runs in families and in some cases cannot be controlled through 'natural' means such as proper diet. Would you want to take insulin away from such people,
    because all it does is control their symptoms?

    Question: Would you say 'palliative care' belongs to allopathic or to homeopathic medicine? In both systems, isn't the cause of the condition being treated, approached by way of its symptoms?

    (I am aware that homeopathy is only one subcategory of alternative medicine.)

    Regards,
    Janet

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is no such thing as a "traditionalist Catholic". There are Catholics and non-Catholics. Schismatics and heretics, no matter how much they clamour on about the Mass, are still not Catholic, having severed themselves from the Church by manifest acts of heresy and schism.

    No I would not take away insulin. I would take away the sin, and then there would be no reason for any suffering.

    But thank you for the reply, because you made me realize that it is allopathy (modern medicine) that I meant to deride and condemn, not palliative care, which is also a part of any good a holistic treatment. I simply mixed up my terms. Thank you.

    "Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human
    bodies." -- A. Saul, Contributing Editor, Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dave,

    "No I would not take away insulin. I would take away the sin, and then there would be no reason for any suffering."

    How do you take away the sin that inheres in human nature by generation since the sin of our first parents?

    Regards,
    Janet

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ever heard of Baptism? Penance? Contrition?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You seem to think somehow that original sin never leaves a person, or that the taint left by it in those who receive Baptism is still "sin". It is not.

    St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 1: "This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin."

    So the concupiscence remains, which came from original sin, but is not accounted as sin in those who have been baptized. It is only a weakening of the will, which is nevertheless still free to deny consent to the inordinate movements of passion.

    Only once consent is given to sin does it return, but not until then - which means that one can be without sin after Baptism, if he is faithful to grace.

    Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 11: "For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able"

    Genesis 17:1: "I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be perfect."

    Deuteronomy 18:13: "Thou shalt be perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God"

    St. Matthew 5:48: "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."

    2nd Corinthians 12:9: "My grace is sufficient for thee"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dave,

    Be so kind as to clarify the relation between sin and biological illness - such as diabetes.

    Thank you.

    Janet

    ReplyDelete
  9. If there were no original sin (i.e. the sin of Adam) there would never have been any chastisement from God. Illness is a chastisement. But read Job and learn that some chastisements occur, not on account of one's own personal sins. In such cases the person would gain great merits by bearing with illness patiently, and would thus be able to apply those merits to the sins of other, through intercessory prayer.

    ReplyDelete