Polish bishops blast directive ordering all EU states to allow abortion-causing drugs

European Commission’s directive mandating that the ellaOne morning-after pill be made available over the counter in all EU member states cannot be followed in Poland because it violates the Criminal Code, Poland’s bishops have warned.

The statement prepared by the Polish Episcopate’s Bioethics Panel of Experts points out that there are “several fundamental distortions” about both the function of the drug and the legality of the EU directive.

The directive authorizes the prescription-free sale of ellaOne, a pill containing the drug ulipristal acetate. The pill is marketed as an emergency contraceptive, but can also act as an abortifacient. It currently requires a doctor’s prescription in Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, and Greece.

The bishops’ statement explains that the drug has “a dual mechanism” in that it is “similar to the formulation used in medical abortion (mifepristone), which modifies the functions of the progesterone receptor … resulting in the expulsion of the human embryo from the mother and his death,” which is effectively an abortion rather than contraception.

“Secondly, of course, is a potential blocking of ovulation. Both mechanisms destroy the physiological processes that allow the proper maintenance of the pregnancy or its creation.”

“With regard to the legal aspect,” the bishops state, “it should be emphasized that the assertion of the existence of a Polish obligation [to follow this directive] is completely untrue.”

“It should also be noted that the use of the product, which results in the death of the embryo, can without doubt be considered illegal and punishable behavior in the light of the Polish Criminal Code, and unacceptable in the light of the principle of the protection of human dignity, a declaration of article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, from which act no exceptions are allowed.”

Read More here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/polish-bishops-blast-directive-ordering-all-eu-states-to-allow-abortion-cau

Right To Kill – Dr Vella Bardon

In the article ‘Who decides when a person should die?’ [The Sunday Times of Malta, 27th July], Ariadne Massa questions whether Malta is prepared to put compassion before doctrine.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This query implies that our doctrine is not compassionate – another sad example that anti-Catholic spin seems to have become the hallmark of the local media.

It would be relevant to point out what the Catholic Catechism actually says about Euthanasia. It states that putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons is morally unacceptable adding in no uncertain terms that it constitutes a ‘murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person’.

On the other hand, it also states that ‘discontinuing burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate…‘over-zealous treatment’ can be legitimate. The administration of drugs to alleviate suffering, even at the risk of shortening the days of the sick and dying is good medicine as long as it is not deliberately intended to accelerate the death of the patient.

The Church does not consider suffering a good in and of itself. Avoidable suffering is not a virtue and the Church has been a pioneer of palliative care which it considers ‘a special form of disinterested charity’. Mother Theresa is the perfect example of a person who valued the dignity of life and lavished love and care on the rejects of Indian society who were left to rot in the streets.

Advances in the treatment and management of the terminally ill and seriously handicapped have improved enormously and medical breakthroughs in treating what were once untreatable conditions are another very positive development. Experts in the field claim that only a small proportion of patients suffer of intractable pain and even then there are means to keep them comfortable.

Most religious leaders oppose euthanasia because it discredits the value and sacredness of life and undermines the common good. Discovering and studying the reasoning of the Catholic Church against euthanasia is in itself an exercise of deep thought and altruistic concern for the vulnerable of society.

Legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide allows one person to kill another. It’s more the question of the ‘right to kill’ as death is not a right but an inevitable reality. Euthanasia erodes the basic trust that life should be protected. It corrupts and discredits the medical profession whose very raison d’être is to save and promote life. Indeed, in coming years, medical professionals who believe in the Hippocratic Oath’s prohibition against killing could well be driven out of medicine.

Here in Malta, we suffer from the ‘goat syndrome’ and follow blindly, and without proper deliberation, negative trends that take place elsewhere. We fail to see the negative consequences of well-meaning but misguided legislation elsewhere. It is a case of the fool learning from his own mistakes when very often it is too late to correct them.

In 1937, G. K. Chesterton shot down the concept of euthanasia with his inimitable wit by saying: -“… in my own country, some are proposing what is called Euthanasia; at present only a proposal for killing those who are a nuisance to themselves; but soon to be applied progressively to those who are a nuisance to other people. As it applies by hypothesis to an almost moribund or partially paralyzed person, the decision will presumably rest with the other people.”

In an interview of 2012, Lord Alton points out that in Holland, where euthanasia has been legalised since 2002, 4,000 deaths were recorded every year. 2,700 of which were in the early stages of dementia of which 1,000 were done without the consent of the patient. In 2008, Baroness Warnock had the gall to state that: – “If you are demented, you are wasting people’s lives, your family’s lives and you’re wasting the resources of the NHS.”

It is therefore not surprising, that all the major national disability groups in UK are rigorously opposed to proposals to change the law. They most of all demonstrate that this is not about values that only appeal to people of faith but about universal ones, most essentially the equal dignity and value of all people.

The Church defends human rights, human life in all its stages and human dignity. It believes in the sacredness of human life as it recognizes that every person is made in the image of God. For this reason it is against abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.

As Pope Francis recently said (Evangelii Gaudium, number 214): “It is not progressive to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

‘Do you want us to let you die?’ – by Hilary White

“Do you want us to let you die?” It’s not exactly the sort of question one expects to hear when talking to a health professional when you’re living in a care home.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]But that’s exactly what happens all the time, according to an article published by the Daily Mail this week, which says that it is becoming routine for nurses to ask elderly patients whether they “would agree” to a Do Not Resuscitate order.

The first thing I thought when I read it was, “Oh yes, they’ve been doing this sort of thing for ages. Why is it only becoming news now?” I still remember the day my dear friend John Muggeridg brought home a form they’d given him in the care facility where his wife, Anne Roche Muggeridge lived.

John and I had sat down to have our tea one day, and visibly upset, he showed me this form. It gave a long list of possible health care crises that Anne might suffer and asked John to mark down in each case what he wanted the facility’s response to be, on a scale of one to five. One of these asked whether he wanted her to receive antibiotic treatment in case of pneumonia, that killer of the elderly and fragile.

The kicker was when John told me that they had done this repeatedly, asking him to come into meeting after meeting to tell them whether he was “ready” to downgrade her care instructions. John, though sick with cancer himself, visited Anne every day, gently feeding her meals and praying the Rosary with her. He shook the form a bit as he said in his cultured Cambridge accent, “I want them to save her life! Every time it’s in danger!”

“It has become a common experience for people requiring medical care to be harassed if they decide they actually want medical care, and to be supported and encouraged if they decide they do not want further medical care.” John and Anne were important and influential figures in the Catholic pro-life scene in Canada through the 1980s, and it might strike a person as ironic that towards the end of her life, Anne, the author of two important books, was briefly threatened by that same Culture of Death she and John had fought so long. It was quite clear that the administration at this care home was trying to wear him down with these repeated requests for confirmation. I was so angry, and couldn’t help thinking, “Don’t these people know who this is?”

We called Alex Schadenberg, the head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and he arranged to attend the next meeting, and together they “explained” that there would be no downgrading, and that Anne’s life was valuable, precious, even if she could no longer recognize anyone or speak, because it was Anne.

John said it was a kindly looking hospital administrator, a social worker and a nurse at the meetings. They would talk in the warmest possible tones, but the message was cold and hard. Let them die because they’re a burden.
The Mail reports now that in the UK mobile district nurses are being sent out from GP offices under instructions from the National Health Service, asking older people to fill out forms indicating whether a DNR is what they want. The NHS is claiming, with wide-eyed innocence, that these questionnaires are merely a means to “improve care of the elderly and keep them out of hospital,” but the Mail noted, “It is not clear why DNR is on the forms.”

They quoted Roy Lilley, a health policy analyst and former NHS trust chairman, whose mother was visited by a nurse with the form,” who “described the policy as callous.”

Lilly said, “Elderly, frail but otherwise healthy people are being asked, by complete strangers, to sign a form agreeing they shouldn’t be resuscitated. It is outrageous. People will be frightened to death thinking the district nurses know something they don’t and will feel obliged to sign the form so as not to be thought a nuisance.”

The Mail says Mr. Lilley is warning patients and their families not to sign the forms, saying that by doing so they are “signing their lives away.” He related the story of a meeting with a nurse at his mother’s care home who asked her “within a few minutes” “Where would you like to die,” and, “If you ever need cardiopulmonary resuscitation do you agree to do not resuscitate.”

The cultural power in Britain of “mustn’t grumble,” particularly among that generation of English people who were raised in the old manner and depended upon it to survive the War, cannot be underestimated. My mother, a war baby, was raised in that way, and raised me with the same attitude. Older people in Britain have it written into their base programming from infancy that “making a fuss” or calling attention to oneself is simply unthinkable. There is certainly a kind of English person who would, literally, rather die that make a fuss.

But this story from the UK is only the tiniest scratch of the great iceberg that passive euthanasia has become in elder care and long-term care facilities. Alex Schadenberg told me that this kind of unsubtle pressure is becoming common around the western world.

It is particularly common in places that have come to depend exclusively upon government-funded public medical care where the goal is to spend as little money as possible. There has been a lot written about the threat of “triaging” of older people whom the strict utilitarian principles of bioethics regard as economically worthless burdens.

“Sadly, the societal attitude towards the elderly and people needing care is worsening while the government is attempting to control medical costs by examining new ways to encourage people to refuse basic care,” Schadenberg told me.

“It has become a common experience for people requiring medical care to be harassed if they decide they actually want medical care, and to be supported and encouraged if they decide they do not want further medical care.”

I have often wondered how many men and women had been sat down in those offices where John Muggridge and Alex Schadenberg sat, and ever so gently pressured to change the instructions and “let them go”. How many were confused and persuaded by this friendly talk of “end of life care” and did not have the years of experience in the pro-life movement, or the rock solid moral principles the Muggeridges had held and defended like a bastion for so long. How many would not know who to call for advice and help?

See source article, taken from LifeSiteNews.com Blogger Hilary White’s: ‘Do you want us to let you die?’: The bleak new reality in care homes for the elderly’.

[/vc_column_text][tmq_hr][/vc_column][/vc_row]

A Euphemism For Killing A Person

The term ‘assisted dying’ pretends to be a ‘compassionate and caring’ way to end life but is in fact a euphemism for killing a person at what may be the most vulnerable point of their adult lives.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Assisted suicide can in no way be construed as medical ‘care’ but is, in fact, a failure not only of medical care but also of societal obligations to care for the vulnerable. Most countries legalising assisted suicide require the person to be diagnosed as ‘dying within six months’. There is, however, no scientific way of predicting death within six months and even in terminal cancer patients one in five persons lives much longer than this.

In truth, therefore, the person asking for assisted suicide is not ‘dying’ but has a fear that their death will be painful and ‘undignified’.

Dame Cicely Saunders has shown how good palliative care completely allays these fears without taking away a patient’s autonomy right up to the end. Although assisted suicide is put forward as a way to increase a person’s control and autonomy, in Belgium it has only increased doctors’ powers over patients’ lives while giving rise to a deep distrust in the medical profession.

One of the worst things about assisted suicide is that it increases pressure on the vulnerable elderly to use it to end their lives so as not to be a financial or social burden on their relatives or others.

Baroness Sheila Hollins has said that the depressed are particularly at risk, and it is self-deceptive to think that robust controls could work to limit abuses. This is clear from Belgium where 20 per cent of cases of assisted death were not even reported as required by law, and cases of assisted suicide ‘without explicit consent’ have been multiplying.

Written by Prof. Patrick Pullicino, St Julian’s[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_cta_button2 h2=”Help Us Help Life” style=”rounded” txt_align=”left” title=”Make Your Donations” btn_style=”rounded” color=”juicy_pink” size=”md” position=”right” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fstaging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co%2Findex.php%2Fabout-us%2Fhelp-us-help-life%2F|title:Donate|” h4=”Why Support Life Network?”]

We need your support in order to be able to spread the news on the value of life. Your donation will help us to educate people of all ages, organise pro-life seminars and buy books & materials to facilitate educate. Like every life is infinitely priceless, so is every donation. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

Life Network

[/vc_cta_button2][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Where Treatment Is Death

The Liverpool Care Pathway has finally made the headlines in Malta. However, the instances of helpless patients being denied the basic necessities needed to sustain life have been increasingly in the news in the UK since 2000.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) for the dying patient is one of the key programmes within the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Portfolio and was recognized as a model of best practice in the NHS Beacon Programme (2001). It was subsequently recommended in the End of Life Care Strategy DH2008, the aim being to improve care of the dying in the last hours or days of life for the terminally ill.

“There are strict guidelines for the proper use of LCP but these are hardly followed” – Miriam Sciberras

However, a lot of questions need to be asked regarding its increasingly widespread application for those with incurable diseases (including dementia) or those defined as “probably dying”. There are strict guidelines for the proper use of LCP but these are hardly followed. In 2009, it was reported that LCP was being gradually adopted nationwide and that more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England were using this system.

The main problem with LCP is that the consent of the patient is not even required. In fact, in the UK, since the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, doctors are allowed to withhold all “treatment”, including food and water, from patients who are judged to be incapable of making decisions for themselves. Under this law, doctors, and not the family and not the patient, have the last say in whether a patient is judged mentally capable. Once this judgment has been made, withdrawal of fluids can be ordered on grounds that it is in the patient’s “best interests” to die.

It is pertinent to point out that, in England and Wales, food and water administered by a doctor count as “medical treatment”. This is leading to patients, mostly the elderly, being left in the dire predicament of losing their lives prematurely.

Anti-euthanasia groups and various competent physicians have been speaking out against the increasing misuse of this protocol. In 2008, Adrian Treloar, a psycho-geriatrician and senior lecturer at the Greenwich Hospital and Guys’, King’s and St Thomas’s hospitals in London, had warned that the national health service has an unofficial system in place to authorize the killing of vulnerable disabled patients with an unwritten policy of “involuntary euthanasia” by deep sedation and dehydration.

Another physician, Philip Harrison, whose elderly father was put under continuous deep sedation without being consulted in August 2009, wrote this: “I’ve seen euthanasia once but I’ve never seen anybody being put to death without consent. It was as near to a form of murder that I had come across”.

Medical sociology professor Clive Seale also confirmed that, from his research, the use of continuous deep sedation across the UK is far from “uncommon”.

Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at St Georges, University of London, maintains that the LCP encourages some doctors to give up on patients too quickly and place them on the death pathway when they might otherwise have survived. According to Prof. Millard, “Diagnosing imminent death is one of the most difficult decisions a serious physician has to make”.
Prof. Millard was one of a group of six, including Anthony Cole, Peter Hargreaves, David Hill, Elizabeth Negus and Dowager Lady Salisbury (chairman, Choose Life), who claimed that some patients were being wrongly judged as close to death. To this end, they signed a letter together in September 2009 against the prevalent misuse of LCP. The following is an extract from their letter: “Forecasting death is an inexact science. If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death.

“As a result, a nationwide wave of discontent is building up as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients. Syringe drivers are being used to give continuous terminal sedation without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. It is disturbing that, in the year 2007-2008, 16.5 per cent of deaths came about after terminal sedation.”

This was recently confirmed by Patrick Pullicino, the Maltese consultant neurologist at East Kent Hospitals. Prof. Pullicino made the headlines claiming that the UK’s NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year. He maintains that, in this way, hospitals are using end-of-life care to help elderly patients die because they are difficult to look after and take up valuable beds.

Despite such a number of highly esteemed medical specialists among numerous others that have been raising the alarm regarding the LCP, there have been no definite declarations from the health authorities to put people’s mind at rest. This is making the elderly patients and their families in Britain fear going to hospital in their old age.

The elderly, especially 80-year-olds, with chronic conditions like Parkinson’s, dementia or respiratory disorders are among the unfortunate candidates put on LCP, dismissed as dying when they could still live for some more time. Patients with diminished mental and physical capacities are also very vulnerable candidates.

The elderly are at a very vulnerable stage of life and need our compassion, respect, care and support. At this time, the state cannot shrink from its duty to care for these people nor should it see them as burdens. With the declining birth rate in most countries, there will be increasing pressures on an already overburdened socialised health care system to make hospital beds available at the expense of premature termination of lives.

Written by Dr Miriam Sciberras.

See Original Article On TimesofMalta.com here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_cta_button2 h2=”Help Us Help Life” style=”rounded” txt_align=”left” title=”Make Your Donations” btn_style=”rounded” color=”juicy_pink” size=”md” position=”right” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fstaging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co%2Findex.php%2Fabout-us%2Fhelp-us-help-life%2F|title:Donate|” h4=”Why Support Life Network?”]

We need your support in order to be able to spread the news on the value of life. Your donation will help us to educate people of all ages, organise pro-life seminars and buy books & materials to facilitate educate. Like every life is infinitely priceless, so is every donation. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

Life Network

[/vc_cta_button2][/vc_column][/vc_row]