I Will Never Forget the Look of Horror on My Sister Terri Schiavo’s Face the Day She Died

By Bobby Schindler

terrischiavo2On March 18, 2005, my sister, Terri Schiavo, began her thirteen day agonizing death after the feeding tube – supplying her food and water – was removed. Terri was cognitively disabled and had difficulty swallowing and therefore needed a feeding tube. Terri was not on any “life support”, nor was she sick or dying. Nonetheless, she received her death sentence ordered by Circuit Court Judge, George W. Greer of Pinellas County Florida.

Greer’s order to remove Terri’s feeding tube was in response to her estranged husband and guardian, Michael Schiavo, requesting permission from the court to kill his disabled wife. This was after Schiavo began cohabitating with his fiancée and stood to inherit Terri’s medical trust fund, which at the time was close to $800,000.

However, more disturbing was that the judge ruled to kill Terri, despite her mother and father pleading with Schiavo, and the court, to allow them to take her home. In fact, a guardian ad litem urged Judge Greer to refuse the dehydration request. Instead, this legally-required protector of Terri was dismissed from the original case by Greer and no replacement was ever appointed.

March 31st marks a very sad day; and this year, it will be the ten year anniversary of Terri’s death. Rush Limbaugh described it this way, “the day our country hit rock bottom”.

Terri’s case divided the nation and it will be discussed in high schools and college medical ethics classrooms for years to come. It is the anniversary of the death of a young woman who simply had a disability and needed basic and ordinary care to live, and a family who wanted to love and care for her just as she was.

With it being the 10 year anniversary, calls from the media have increased. Most of the articles are excoriating Governor Jeb Bush for his defense of Terri when he was the Governor of Florida back in 2005. But I have noticed one question has been asked more than others – “What, if anything, has changed since Terri’s death?”

Yes, things have changed – they’ve gotten worse. Exactly how many persons are being killed like Terri every year is difficult to know, although I think the numbers would shock us. What we do know is that we have a very active and aggressive right to die movement.

There are many dynamics involved to successfully convince our general public that it’s “okay” to dehydrate and starve a human being to death. If I had to point to one of the major accomplishments, it is how the right to die forces have been able to reclassify feeding tubes as “medical treatment”. However, just as effective is how they’ve influenced the masses to buy into the notion that some persons are in fact, not persons. Consequently, these human “non-persons” have no “value” and can be killed.

This should be frightening to read. But it is true. Even more frightening is how this ideology has impacted and been accepted in our culture, in particular, our health care community.

This, along with changes in public policies, now puts life and death decisions in the hands of physicians, hospitals boards and ethics committees – basically strangers – in the place of family members.

After Terri died, my family’s experience, contesting this powerful right to die movement, led us to establish the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, which seeks to raise public awareness of the looming culture of death, and to educate the public about care potentialities. Most importantly, however, is to help families in situations similar to what we experienced – loved ones in danger of being killed, like Terri.

Indeed, the calls from families for help have increased, and increased significantly, as the years have passed.

Why is this? How has the right to die agenda been able to efficaciously shift our attitudes to the point that is has become everyday practice to starve and dehydrate a person to death. The issue may see complex, however it seems to me that the answer is very clear. It is because they lie.

terrischiavo7

I saw it in my sister’s case and I see it in the stories from the families who call us. And one of the most pathetic lies out there is that killing someone by denying them food and water is a “peaceful” and “painless” experience, and the patently absurd notion that it is a “death with dignity”.

It’s important to differentiate that Terri’s condition, and countless others like her, is quite different from a situation where it may be medically appropriate to withhold food and fluids because a person is actively dying and their bodies are shutting down, no longer able to assimilate their food and hydration.

Terri as seen on day of deathNonetheless, the never-ending propaganda about the peaceable nature of forced dehydration compelled me to make public this image of my sister created from my memory. This (right) is what Terri looked like just before she died. It was horrible to see.

And yet, Schiavo’s attorney falsely told the public during a press conference, just days before Terri’s death, that she looked “beautiful”. This is what they want you to believe, not the harsh truth about the madness of what we permit in the rooms of hospitals, nursing homes and hospices every single day across this country.

These are the hard facts my family and I will have to live with for the rest of my life: After almost two weeks without food or water, my sister’s lips were horribly cracked, to the point where they were blistering. Her skin became jaundice with areas that turned different shades of blue. Her skin became markedly dehydrated from the lack of water. Terri’s breathing became rapid and uncontrollable, as if she was outside sprinting. Her moaning, at times, was raucous, which indicated to us the insufferable pain she was experiencing. Terri’s face became skeletal, with blood pooling in her deeply sunken eyes and her teeth protruding forward. Even as I write this, I can never properly describe the nightmare of having to watch my sister have to die this way.

What will be forever seared in my memory is the look of utter horror on my sister’s face when my family visited her just after she died.

Those pushing this agenda will certainly deny this, they have to. But there was a reason the court ordered that no cameras or video be permitted in Terri’s room while she was being killed. They claimed privacy issues. My family knows otherwise. And they do too.

So when will this heartlessness end? When will the lies end? When will the American people decide this insanity has to stop?

I don’t know. But I do know this – the lies will never end.

Full Article & Source:
I Will Never Forget the Look of Horror on My Sister Terri Schiavo’s Face the Day She Died.

Non – Brain Death Organ Donation

Part One

Nancy Valko 4By Nancy Valko, RN, ALNC

Most people who sign organ donor cards assume that they will be carefully diagnosed as “brain dead” before their organs are donated. That was generally true years ago, but a new non-brain death organ donation procedure was developed in the 1990s even though the language on organ donor cards did not change.

The current non-brain death organ donation policy started with ethics journal articles in the 1990s. At that time, it was called “non-heart beating donation” and promoted as a way to increase the supply of organs for transplant beyond the usual “brain death” organ donations. This was made possible by linking organ donation to withdrawal of treatment decisions from people considered hopelessly ill or dying but who did not meet the criteria for “brain death.”

This change in policy came in the wake of court decisions upholding the right to refuse treatment for incapacitated patients like Nancy Cruzan, a brain-injured woman said to be in a so-called “vegetative state.”

Since Dr. George Isajiw and I presented the following paper (“Non-heart beating organ donation” and the “vegetative state”) in 2004, the term “non-heart beating organ donation” has been changed to “donation after cardiac death” (DCD) and now around 5% of organ donations are from nonbrain death organ donors.[i] The numbers are expected to increase with organ donation policies such as the following: In June 1996, the American Medical Association issued its opinion that non-brain death organ donation was ethical.[ii] Eventually, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (Joint Commission) required all hospitals to develop policies for DCD, effective January 2007, while the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) proposed new bylaw amendments requiring all transplant centers and Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) to develop DCD policies by January 1, 2007.[iii]

Moreover, hospitals currently are being asked to report all deaths, imminent deaths and potential organ donor situations to the local organ procurement organization. Years ago, when only brain death criteria could be used, doctors themselves talked to families about organ donation. Now, many hospitals have policies that only trained organ donation representatives talk to families about donation. Such policies are said to increase the number of families consenting to organ donation.

In Part Two, I will discuss other strategies to increase the number of organ donations.

[i] “The Challenge of Organ Donation After Cardiac Death,” Matt Wood, Science Life, 02/20/2014; http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/2014/02/20/the-challenge-of-organ-donation-after-cardiac-death

[ii] “Opinion 2.157 – Organ Donation After Cardiac Death,” AMA Code of Medical Ethics, issued 06/1996 and updated 06/2005; http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion2157.page

[iii] “Donation After Cardiac Death: Analysis and Recommendations from the New York State Task Force on Life &the Law,03/17/2007;http://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/task_force/donation_after_cardiac_death/docs/donation_after_cardiac_death.pdf

Nancy ValkoNancy Valko, RN, ALNC, has been a registered nurse for 45 years and is a spokesperson for the National Association of Prolife Nurses (www.nursesforlife.org). A long-time speaker and writer on medical ethics and other health issues, she has a website at: http://www.wf-f.org/bd-nvalko.html.She is also now a legal nurse consultant (www.valkogroupalnc.com ).

Source:
Newsletter for the Pro-Life Healthcare Alliance

 

This article is printed with permission.

I Lost My Daughter to Suicide: A Nurse’s Response to Brittany Maynard’s Campaign for Assisted Suicide

 by 
within Bioethics, Healthcare

Do assisted suicide supporters really expect doctors and nurses to be able to assist the suicide of one patient, then go on to care for a similar patient who wants to live, without this having an effect on their ethics or their empathy? Do they realize that this reduces the second patient’s will to live to a mere personal whim—one that society may ultimately see as selfish and too costly?

Right now, twenty-nine-year-old Brittany Maynard is standing on a virtual window ledge, while the crowd below shouts its support for her “right” to jump. She says November 1 will probably be the day she kills herself.

Brittany is a beautiful young newlywed. Tragically, Brittany has a brain tumor that is expected to end her life in the near future. She and her family have moved to Oregon so she can legally take a doctor-prescribed lethal overdose, to avoid the suffering she expects as she approaches death.

Maynard has also joined with “Compassion and Choices” to promote their campaign to legalize physician-assisted suicide throughout the United States. In the last few weeks, C&C’s video telling her story has gone viral and been picked up by news organizations all over the world, including People magazine.

Groups supporting physician-assisted suicide now call the promotion of Ms. Maynard’s story “a tipping point” in their decades-long push to gain public support for changing laws.

A Different Point of View

I am a registered nurse with forty-five years of experience caring for many suicidal people, both personally and professionally. I also lost a beautiful, physically healthy thirty-year-old daughter five years ago to suicide. After a sixteen-year battle with substance abuse, my daughter committed suicide after visiting suicide websites and reading Final Exit by Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society (the former name of Compassion and Choices). The medical examiner called my daughter’s suicide “textbook Final Exit.” It was not an easy death for her, or for those of us who loved her.

While I am sure Ms. Maynard is sincere and well-meaning, campaigns like hers can have a devastating impact on vulnerable people like my daughter, and be misused to promote a one-sided debate on legalizing assisted suicide.

Unlike most suicides, assisted suicide involves two parties. It’s worth looking at the impact of this agenda on both of them.

Groups promoting assisted suicide routinely dismiss suicide victims like my daughter as collateral damage, while some even provide how-to instructions that can be accessed by any depressed person. The central focus of the legal agenda is the frail elderly. Consistently, the median age of people taking their lives under Oregon’s assisted suicide law has been seventy-one. Less than 1 percent are under thirty-five years old. And there is a generation gap on this issue. As the Newark Star-Ledger has reported: “A recent poll showed that people over 65 oppose assisted suicide by a 12-point margin while those under 35 support it by 18 points.”

Brittany Maynard’s position is consistent with that of others in her age group. Yet the elderly—the people overwhelmingly affected by these laws—say “No.” They know how hard it can be to convince younger generations that they still have lives worth living and worth respecting. Others who strongly disagree with C&C are the people with disabilities who belong to groups such as Not Dead Yet. Those with disabilities face a great deal of bias from able-bodied people who seem to think people with their conditions are “better off dead.”

Ironies abound in this debate. For example, when a convicted murderer tries to discourage efforts by lawyers to stop his or her execution, this is often considered as a sign of stress or mental disorder, while a sick person’s wish to die is considered an understandable and even courageous decision. How do we reconcile the two views that a lethal overdose is the ultimate punishment for a convicted murderer and, at the same time, the ultimate blessing for an innocent terminally ill or disabled person?

Healing or Harming: What about Those Who “Assist”?

Then there are the medical professionals being called on to “assist.” Few people would seriously consider legalizing friend- or family-assisted suicide. The inherent dangers of this type of private killing are much too obvious. So the goal is to lend this act professional respectability by promoting physician-assisted suicide—or, more accurately, medically assisted suicide, since nurses also are necessarily involved when the assisted suicide occurs in a health facility or home-health situation. Many people are not aware that groups such as C&C oppose conscience rights for medical professionals like me, as well as for hospitals that believe that helping to terminate a life is unethical.

Medical groups such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Nurses Association oppose legalization of physician-assisted suicide. The AMA has said that allowing physicians to participate “would cause more harm than good,” observing that “physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.”

When I worked as a hospice nurse years ago, our guiding principle was that we neither prolong nor hasten dying. I felt great satisfaction helping my patients and their families live as fully and meaningfully as possible until natural death. We nurses not only made sure that our patients were physically comfortable—we also helped with spiritual, emotional, and practical concerns.

Unfortunately, with the help of the media, assisted-suicide groups have had some success trying to convince both medical personnel and the public that natural death is agony and that medically assisted suicide should be a civil right. Yet this drive for totally controlling death profoundly changes the medical system, even for people who may recover or who may live with disabilities—and for patients who would never consider suicide.

The Ethical Impact

Society has long insisted that healthcare professionals adhere to the highest standards of ethics, as a protection for society. Without that clear moral compass, it has been said, the physician is the most dangerous man in society. The vulnerability of a sick person, and the inability of society to monitor every healthcare decision or action, are powerful motivators to enforce such standards. For thousands of years doctors (and nurses) have embraced the Hippocratic standard that “I will give no deadly medicine to any one, nor suggest any such counsel.” Erasing the bright line doctors and nurses have drawn for themselves—which separates killing from caring—is a decision fraught with peril, especially for those who are most vulnerable.

As a nurse, I am willing to do anything for my patients—but I will not kill them nor help them kill themselves. In my work with the terminally ill, I have been struck by how rarely such people say anything like, “I want to end my life.” I have seen the few who do express such thoughts become visibly relieved when their concerns and fears are addressed, instead of finding support for the suicide option. I have yet to see such a patient go on to commit suicide.

This should not be surprising. Many of us have had at least fleeting thoughts of suicide in a time of crisis. Imagine how we would feel if we confided this to a close friend or a relative, who replied, “You’re right. I can’t see any other way out either.” Would we consider this reply as compassionate, or desperately discouraging? The terminally ill or disabled person is no less vulnerable than the rest of us in this respect. And to think that an entire society, through its laws, can give such a response—to you, and to anyone with a similar health condition—may be the ultimate form of suffering.

Do assisted suicide supporters really expect us doctors and nurses to be able to assist the suicide of one patient, then go on to care for a similar patient who wants to live, without this having an effect on our ethics or our empathy? Do they realize that this reduces the second patient’s will-to-live request to a mere personal whim—perhaps, ultimately, one that society will see as selfish and too costly? How does this serve optimal health care, let alone the integrity of doctors and nurses who have to face the fact that we helped other human beings kill themselves?

Stories like Brittany Maynard’s can feed into a society that is fascinated by tragic love stories, but does not understand how such stories are used as propaganda to promote a dangerous political agenda that can affect us all—and our loved ones.

Personally, I will continue to care for people contemplating suicide or who have made an attempt regardless of their age, condition, or socio-economic status. I reject discrimination when it comes to suicide prevention and care. I hope our nation will do so as well.

Nancy Valko, RN, ALNC, is a longtime writer and speaker on medical ethics issues who recently retired from critical care nursing to devote more time to consulting and volunteer work. She is also a spokesperson for the National Association of Pro Life Nurses.

Full Article & Source:
I Lost My Daughter to Suicide: A Nurse’s Response to Brittany Maynard’s Campaign for Assisted Suicide

Reprinted with permission of the author.

Forbidden: The Fool’s Challenge

harrassmentAll you people claiming to advocate for the elderly and disabled, just who do you think you are to challenge judicial decisions, facilities, attorneys, conservators, guardians and fiduciaries?  They are, after all, proven, by their positions, to be above reproach.  How dare you challenge their intent, actions and/or character!

Judges, attorneys, CEO’s and others in charge have proven by the stations they have risen to, to be of perfection… the elite of the world… the all-knowing… and the all honest.  Never do they take advantage of their positions for personal financial gain nor to have a personal agenda in play.  Never do they do anything beneath their position.  To suggest otherwise is to be singled out to be disgraced and to possibly be labelled a threat or even mentally unbalanced.

I’m not sure what has happened to common sense and healthy thought process, but some kind of virus has been on the attack, it would seem.  Facts seem to be subjective or totally irrelevant.  It’s almost as though we are living in the “mad house” out here in the everyday world.  Too many things, arguments and decisions are outright crazy.

We have various Courts that worry about individuals taking advantage of the elderly or disabled, while signing off on outrageous fees for attorneys, appointed guardians and so forth.  What is the difference between the latter and the former?  Oh, is it because the latter is condoned by the courts and protected by some carelessly written law or skillful misinterpretation?  That somehow makes one right and the other wrong?

Worse than the money drain by the courts and appointed anointed-ones is the power to isolate the victims.  (Yes, victims.  What else would you call the people, who suddenly are imprisoned and forced to be and have done unto them what they would not, and do not, want done unto them and theirs?)

How can someone that robs another of companionship, enjoyment, freedom, money, property and simply an existence called living, be considered humane?  Animals are treated better than many of the elderly and disabled thrown into the system, because they could be thrown into the system — even if by a wrongful technicality in the law or by a court that is complicit due to bias or simply doesn’t look beyond the surface or listen to the bothersome advocates or nobodies that dare speak against the supposed “perfect” attorneys, professional guardians and such?  They never lie or steal or do unethical things, now do they?

In recent news, we have heard…

“WASHINGTON — Three central Ohio nursing homes were among 33 in 11 states cited for improper care and billing practices yesterday as part of a $38 million settlement among a major nursing-home company, the U.S. Department of Justice and the state of Ohio.

“The announcement in Washington and Columbus resolved an investigation by the federal government, Ohio and seven other states into charges that Extendicare of Canada provided services at those 33 homes that were “materially substandard” or “worthless” because the company did not provide care to residents that meets federal standards, according to the settlement agreement.”  (Federal investigation finds three local nursing homes lacking )

Now wait a minute.  I thought “all” facilities provided only the best of care and that complainers were just making things up or exaggerating.  They weren’t?

More recent news…

“The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended Akron attorney Rami M. Awadallah from practicing law after ruling that he fraudulently and deceptively represented several of his clients — including some in Lorain County — during court proceedings.”  (Ohio Supreme Court suspends area attorney)

What’s that?  An attorney “fraudulently and deceptively represented several of his clients”?  But… but… but… I thought that was impossible?  I thought “all” attorneys “always” spoke nothing but the truth and “always” acted in the best interest of the client or ward.  He didn’t?  What’s up with this?

More in the news…

“Paul S. Kormanik, a Columbus attorney considered up until two months ago to be legal guardian to more incompetent people than anyone else in the nation, was indicted today on theft charges by a Franklin County grand jury.

Prosecutor Ron O’Brien and Attorney General Mike DeWine will announce the charges this afternoon after the grand jury determined there was sufficient evidence that Kormanik stole about $41,000 from two of his wards.”  (Lawyer indicted for theft from those he was supposed to protect)

An attorney — a legal guardian — was indicted for what?  Stealing?  Stealing from people he was the guardian for?  Oh my!  Bubble buster!

While we are talking about a system lacking perfection and often tilted towards the powerful, though not necessarily the righteous or side with the cleanest of hands, let’s return, for a moment, to discussion involving isolation of the wards.  What judge or guardian or facility could possibly think isolation of a non-violent, non-contagious person is a good thing?

Decades ago, researchers found there is such a thing as “failure to thrive”.  It actually exists.  There is no question.   Why then, would anyone place another person in isolation and risk that person dying due to “failure to thrive”?  Why?  How can it be justified?  It can’t!  Therefore, I believe, anyone involved in isolating a non-violent, non-contagious person, should have to answer why they should not be charged with kidnapping and abuse or even murder, should the person die as a result.

I can think of numerous cases where people have been thrown into isolation and the ironies surrounding it all is out there in a suburb of the Twilight Zone.  Yes, so amazing is it all that I’m surprised a “duh” isn’t permanently imprinted upon both the perps and the out-of-touch — can’t get it — zombie followers that go around drooling false talking points, as though it is gospel, while alleging the truth-tellers are the liars.

 When a ward is put into isolation, who is the threat?  The one that ordered the isolation or the one challenging it?

When a petition is presented to starve & dehydrate a ward, who is the threat?  The person who did the petitioning or the one that fights for life, visitation, rehabilitation and stimulation?

The answers should be quite easy to figure out, but instead, it looks as though too much power and trust has been placed where not deserved.  It would seem, according to recent news, that we can’t always assume the courts and appointed anointed-ones are of perfection and holier than thou after all.  Maybe sometimes they are up to no good and their word isn’t worth what comes out of a donkey’s rump.  And, maybe sometimes people are wrong, but without any ill-intent.  Maybe they just lost sight and are blinded by self-preservation and inability to admit error.  But how do we know?  How do we know, if we don’t inquire and investigate behind the curtain, especially a curtain pulled tightly, as if to keep any from peeking in?

Advocates are necessary in a world that seems to have lost its way.  A world with too many who have come to believe good is evil and evil is good.  People that see the lie as truth and the truth as lie.  People who often admire the wrong-doer and find fault with the victim and the victim’s advocates.  People who aren’t even aware any longer that they might be wrong, because they are somehow “entitled”.  Aren’t they supposed to get more and be treated better than those they treat so poorly?

No?  Who says?  Who dares to challenge the new rule of they who control the lives and assets of vulnerable ones ordered to be incompetent, even though they — the vulnerable — might not be as incompetent or alone as decreed by a court?

Who dares to give challenge?

The advocates, whether they be professional advocates or family or friends or even concerned citizens made aware of someone’s plight — that’s who dares give challenge!

Yes, true advocates are necessary as long as the madness and wrongness reigns.  May the war be quickly won and the vulnerable-victims placed in the hands of those who dare to truly and unselfishly care!

It’s time to challenge!  It’s time to win!  It’s time to give lives back to those who have been violated by a system gone wrong!

The Market for Brain Death

From

Life  Issues Institute, Inc

A silent and deadly epidemic is moving across America. No one is broadcasting it. No one is writing about it. Almost no one is even talking about it. But every day in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices across the country, more and more of our medically vulnerable loved ones are being euthanized.

Indeed, some physicians have admitted to this behavior. A 1998 article from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that hastening death is occurring and is not rare. In a survey of 355 oncologists, “(15.8%) reported participating in euthanasia or physician assisted suicide,” and “38 of 53 (72%) oncologists described clearly defined cases of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.1

Surgery-border Life Issues 092614These decisions are being made by paid medical professionals. And loved ones, to their horror, are finding they’re not even part of the discussion. The patients’ crimes? They’re charged with having insufficient quality of life, being too expensive to keep alive, and being beyond the reach of medical science and therefore beyond hope.

Such judgments may lie behind what seems to be an increase in the “brain death” diagnosis. The difficulty of making a pinpoint diagnosis in such complex neurological matters—and the lucrative financial incentives to harvest organs—will ultimately propel this issue into the forefront of public consciousness and discourse.

Not surprisingly, the current procurement market for human tissues and organs in the United States is booming, driven by insufficient supply and heavy demand. According to The Milliman Report (see page 4), if all 11 tissues and organs could be harvested from a single patient declared brain-dead, however unlikely, the going rate for procurement would exceed half a million dollars. If all costs related to those 11 transplants are counted—preparation, physicians’ services, post-op care and the like—the money involved exceeds $5.5 million.2

It’s crucial to shed a bright light on this menacing darkness, but we need your help. Here are four ways you can assist:

First, we need to hear from healthcare workers and professionals. If you’ve witnessed this happening in your work environment, please come forward and share your observations with us. Perhaps you or someone you know has inside knowledge of the organ donation process as it relates to a situation of euthanasia.

sad-woman-glasses Life Issues 092614Second, we need your personal stories. We’re also looking for family members willing to share healthcare experiences involving a loved one that are similar to what we’ve conveyed in this letter.

Please trust that if you request your identity be held in confidence, that confidentiality will not be violated.

Third, we need people willing to be interviewed on camera. We have a golden opportunity to educate more Americans to euthanasia in our midst. A special episode of the Emmy© award-winning pro-life television series Facing Life Head-On with Brad Mattes plans to feature real-life accounts of people sharing specifics of this American travesty. The program reaches tens of millions of American households, so imagine the number of people whose eyes could be opened. America will be told what is happening to the elderly, the chronically sick and the cognitively disabled. If necessary, we can keep the identity of our TV guests confidential.

Finally, we need your prayers. This is, first and foremost, a battle against powers and principalities. We cannot hope to win on our own. Only the power of prayer will permit us to expose this hideous and inhumane attack on precious human life.

If you prefer not to be on television, we still need you. Our ultimate goal is to build a network of people who can speak publicly about these issues to educate others regarding this horrific, unnoticed practice. This may entail speaking to pro-life groups or others sympathetic to protecting innocent human life; addressing a state legislative committee regarding pending legislation; or speaking to a hospital ethics committee as they struggle with a challenging situation or policy. Our goal is to develop a network of experienced experts who can speak directly to the issues at hand.

This is literally a life-and-death matter. And we who are blessed to have life and a voice must intervene to help those who are in danger of having life taken from them. We hope to hear from you soon.

Reach us by e-mail or visit the Euthanasia page on the Life Issues Institute website.

For more information about this troubling issue, visit www.lifeissues.org and www.lifeandhope.com.

Sincerely for the vulnerable among us,
Bradley Mattes                   Bobby Schindler
Executive Director            Executive Director
Life Issues Institute          Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network

1 http://www.hospicep atients.org/questionable-death.html
2 http://publications.milliman.com/research/health-rr/pdfs/2011-us-organ-tissue.pdf

9/26/14

Life Issues Institute is dedicated to changing hearts and minds of millions of people through education. For over 23 years, organizations and individuals around the world have depended upon Life Issues Institute to provide the latest information and effective tools to protect innocent human life from womb to tomb.

Receive information like this – in your Inbox.
Subscribe to Life Issues email updates here.
– See more at:  Life Issues