Another Very Open Letter to the Apathetic Congress

Dear Apathetic Congress:

I’ve had it. Not only have I had it – there’s an over-flow of company crowded into this corner of opinion.

How can you sit there and fail to take action to remove Mueller from his apparent “free to do whatever he wants” position?

Mueller is making a mockery of the rule of law and so are you by your inaction.

In real life, where the rules count more, Mueller would not be allowed to proceed with all these OBVIOUS “in your face” conflicts of interest. And, no doubt, someone would have filed numerous ethic violation complaints on him, Comey & Rosenstein right at the onset. Yet, in your world of political calculation – you turn a blind eye to his inappropriateness and pretend not to hear us. How politician of you!

Maybe in the past, you were able to blow off the silent majority because they didn’t rock the boat too awfully bad, but times have changed. The silent majority is silent no more, as many have told you over the past year or so. They meant it. I mean it. It’s time you realize it.

You, by your inaction, are making a mockery of the rule of law. You are showing us that we have no reason to trust the system ruled over by the Federal government. You are showing us we have no reason to trust you.

The short of the story is…

Mueller should never have been appointed to anything, but he was.

Upon realization that Mueller does have a conflict – he should have been immediately removed.

You have thus far failed to do anything about correcting this error. That is not acceptable. It will never be acceptable.

Should you continue to ignore our rightful complaint about this wrong and wrongful behavior – you will have broken your oath of office and therefore – have no further right to be a member of Congress. Instead, you will be an accessory to any violation and law broken as a result of your failure to take appropriate action.

It’s up to you to do the right thing.

Will you?

Copyright © 2017 Carrie K. Hutchens

CONTACT 13: Another guardian charged with abuse

jason_hansonby  Darcy Spears

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) – Another private guardian was charged with abuse of a vulnerable person on Thursday.

The young victim in the case was the first to come forward and talk with Contact 13 about corruption in the guardianship system.

Jason Hanson’s guardianship case was supposed to end when he became an adult. But Contact 13 discovered the court kept it open for seven years after his 18th birthday. And during that time, several so-called professionals came in and out of his life while the money set aside for his care dwindled away.

Darcy:Did you get lost in the system or do you think it’s more sinister than that?
Jason:I don’t know if I got lost in the system or if it was more underhanded than that. But the system definitely needs to change.” 

(Click to Continue)

Article & Source:
CONTACT 13: Another guardian charged with abuse

Voters Guide – Election 2016

Don’t be drawn into the spin!
Seek the facts!
Consider carefully!
November 8th determines our future as a country!

voters-guide

Democratic Rep. Bill Patmon on Planned Parenthood Body Parts Videos

Rep. Bill Patmon notices the little secret of Planned Parenthood.

It isn’t the friend & savior of the Black community!

On the contrary!

~*~

Source:
Democratic Rep. Bill Patmon on Planned Parenthood Body Parts Videos

See Also:
African-American Ohio Dem: ‘Black Lives Matter Protesters…Should be in Front of Planned Parenthood’

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.