November 8, 2014


 By Nancy Valko, RN ALNC (Advance Legal Nurse Consultant)
Spokesperson, National Association of Prolife Nurses (

I recently wrote an article “I Lost My Daughter to Suicide: A Nurse’s Response to Brittany Maynard’s Campaign for Assisted Suicide”[1] hoping that there was a small chance of convincing her or other vulnerable people that suicide (assisted or unassisted) is never the answer to any problem.

Now we know that Brittany did kill herself by assisted suicide on Nov. 1 with her family and new husband watching.

Was it worth trying to save Brittany and other suicidal people from suicide?  Will legalizing assisted suicide lead to a better and more compassionate society?


In 2009, after my beautiful, 30 year old daughter Marie died by suicide using a technique she learned from visiting suicide/assisted suicide websites and reading the book “Final Exit”, a fellow medical colleague remarked to me that he even questioned why we tried so hard to save suicide attempters when they “were just going to do it again anyway.”

I ignored the massive insensitivity of that remark and told him that studies have shown that only 10% (or less in some studies) of suicidal people ever go on to complete a suicide.”[2]

I also told him that I don’t regret one minute of the 16 years I spent trying to save my daughter Marie from substance abuse and despair. And although I was often frustrated, heartbroken and even angry at times during those years, I never stopped loving her unconditionally.

When Marie died, some people asked if I was relieved because Marie “was at peace and no longer suffering”. Of course not!  The worst possible outcome for Marie and the rest of her family and friends was suicide.  Although it was hard to watch Marie suffer with her demons, I would have spent the rest of my life trying to save her from suicide.

Personally and professionally as a nurse for 45 years, I have encountered many suicidal people. Some were terminally ill. But I found that even the few who were insistent about killing themselves revealed great fear and ambivalence. The will to live is so strong but these suicidal people were being overwhelmed with desperation, even when they were physically healthy.

I recall reading one woman’s story about how she attempted suicide multiple times but stopped when her brother said that he would stop her from suicide every time and any way he could. She said that his faith in the value of her life-even when she didn’t have it herself-convinced her to finally stop trying to kill herself. Obviously, “No” can be a life-saving word.

As Brittany Maynard admitted herself, she really didn’t want to die but, even though she still felt relatively well while planning her assisted suicide, she was afraid of possible future pain and debilitation.

The Oregon she moved to because of its’ law legalizing assisted suicide was the first state to pass such a law because it was sold to the public by groups like Compassion and Choices as a last resort to help terminally ill people end their lives because of intractable pain.

Ironically, the reality in Oregon now is that the three most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns cited by people using the law are not about pain but rather “loss of autonomy”, “decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable” and “loss of dignity”[3]. There are lots of older people who could make the same complaints about their lives.

Where was Brittany’s assisting doctor when she died and was she even told about the so-called “safeguards” in Oregon’s law such as referrals for psychological or psychiatric counseling before she died?  We will never know, especially because Oregon statistics and reporting on assisted suicide depend on secrecy and the assisting doctors’ willingness to self-report such cases.[4]


The media coverage has been intense ever since Brittany Maynard announced her impending assisted suicide. The mainstream media fed the feeding frenzy by portraying Brittany’s situation as a tragic love story only relieved by Brittany’s stepping forward to act as a spokesperson for Compassion and Choices’ campaign to legalize assisted suicide throughout the US.

Criticism of assisted suicide itself was subdued in media outlets that rarely even reported the AMA’s, ANA’s and other professional organizations’ positions against physician assisted suicide. Some outlets even followed Compassion and Choices’ preference for using “death with dignity” terminology rather than the usual term “physician assisted suicide”. Suicide prevention websites and crisis help lines were never mentioned as a resource for any viewers who might be contemplating suicide themselves.

According to the World Health Organization’s publication “Preventing Suicide-A Resource for Media Professionals”[5], the media should “Avoid language which sensationalizes or normalizes suicide, or presents it as a solution to problems” and “Provide information about where to seek help” among other recommendations. None of that was done in the weeks of reporting when Brittany Maynard was standing on a virtual window ledge while so many people shouted their support for her “right” to jump.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) does not keep statistics on assisted suicide but according to Oregon’s annual reports on assisted suicide, there have been 688 assisted suicides since assisted suicide was legalized there in 1997[6].

In the meantime, more than 38,000 suicides were reported in the US by the CDC in 2010, making suicide the 10th leading cause of death for Americans. The CDC also states that “Suicide costs society approximately $34.6 billion a year in combined medical and work loss costs” and “The average suicide costs $1,061,170”. According to the CDC, “More than 1 million people reported making a suicide attempt in the past year” with “More than 2 million adults reported thinking about suicide in the past year.”[7]

It seems obvious that the health crisis here is the staggeringly large and increasing suicide rate[8], not the lack of enough legalized assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide has now been legalized in 5 states. Three states (Oregon, Vermont and Washington) by legislation and in New Mexico and Montana by court rulings still under dispute. Compassion and Choices has repeatedly fought to legalize assisted suicide in the other 46 states but has lost in public referendums and state legislatures.

Will Brittany Maynard’s tragic story be Compassion and Choices’ self-described “tipping point” in their decades-long quest to convince the public to demand that health care professionals supply lethal overdoses to people who think their lives are (or will be) too terrible and undignified?

As a society, we may think we deserve to decide when our own lives are not worth living and that we then have a right to be dispatched by a medical person. We may think that we deserve a life unencumbered by our own or anyone else’s disability or terminal illness.

But if we do embrace such attitudes, I fear will we soon learn that the damage done to ourselves, our vulnerable fellow human beings and our society is incalculable.


[1] “I Lost My Daughter to Suicide: A Nurse’s Response to Brittany Maynard’s Campaign for Assisted Suicide”. The Public Discourse. Oct 24, 2014. Online at:   Click link here

[2] “Suicide and suicidal behavior”. Medline Plus. Online at:  Click link here

[3] “Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act-2013”.Oregon Public Health. Online at:  Click link here

[4] “Death with Dignity Act”. Oregon Public Health Division. Online at:  Click link here

[5] “Preventing Suicide-A Resource for Media Professionals”. World Health Organization.  Click link here

[6] “Death with Dignity Act”. Latest annual report. Oregon Public Health Division. Online at:  Click link here

[7]“Suicide: Consequences-Suicide and Suicide Attempts Take an Enormous Toll on Society”. CDC. Online at:  Click link here

[8] “Facts and Figures”. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. Online at:  Click link here

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


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 and

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


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

Faceless Hospital Board Relents: Jahi McMath Can Continue Her Fight for Life

Jahi McMathOminous case is only the latest example of government and hospital boards taking private medical decisions away from families

PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 6, 2014 / – The parents of Jahi McMath won a key victory in the right to care for their daughter, Jahi McMath. Jahi entered Children’s Hospital in Oakland in early December to have her tonsils removed, and after complications from that surgery, was quickly declared “brain dead” by the hospital only a short time later, despite what her family was reporting as signs of responsiveness. Since that time, Jahi’s parents have waged a protracted legal fight with the hospital to force them to provide even the most basic care for their daughter.

Over the weekend, the hospital finally released Jahi to her parents, who have transferred her to a facility while they wait and watch for signs of improvement in her condition.

“This is a temporary victory in the ongoing fight to protect the right of parents and families to make private medical decisions for their loved ones,” said Bobby Schindler, Executive Director of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, and brother of the late Terri Schiavo.

“Sadly, these cases are becoming more common in our current medical environment, where government bureaucrats and faceless hospital boards, in the form of ethics committees, strip away the rights of parents and families to make their own decisions regarding medical treatment.”

Once Jahi arrives safely at her new destination, her condition will be assessed in greater detail, and medical specialists will begin taking steps to hopefully improve her condition.

“Jahi’s fight has only just begun,” said Schindler. “And there are many other families across the country who face similar battles. That’s why it’s so important that people fight back when an ethics committee tries to take away their medical rights. Given our current medical environment, with more and more emphasis on government, we all have reason to worry.”

The Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network is a 501(c)(3) non-profit group dedicated to helping the medically vulnerable who are facing life-threatening situations. For more information, visit:

Remembering the Kids on the First Day of 2014

It’s a New Year!  A new beginning!  It’s also a time to reflect on the kids that need us to remember their plight and to fight in their behalf when the system forgets the human components called faith, hope and a sprinkle or two of compassion!

On a bright and positive note…

Connecticut Children’s Medical Center encourages it’s kids to be fighters! It encourages them not to give up in spite of the odds. Look at the spirit of these special children…

Then we have the opposite situation in California.

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — The family of a 13-year-old California girl declared brain dead after tonsil surgery is encountering difficulty in obtaining two surgeries that she needs to undergo before she can be safely transferred to a long-term care facility.

A lawyer for Children’s Hospital Oakland said Tuesday that it is unwilling to allow an outside doctor to fit Jahi McMath with the breathing and feeding tubes that the family has requested.

The hospital will not permit the procedures to be performed on its premises because Jahi is legally dead in the view of doctors who have examined her, lawyer Douglas Straus wrote in a letter to the girl’s family. ~Calif. family struggles to get surgeries for teenBy LISA LEFF and TERRY COLLINS – 01/01/14

So why are they unwilling? Why do they care? Is there some reason they are afraid to let someone prepare Jahi to be moved?

Connecticut Children’s Medical Center or Children’s Hospital Oakland? — Which hospital staff would you want caring for your child?

Jahi McMath Supporters Pressing for Release from Children’s Hospital Oakland

 Supporters of Jahi McMath continue to work for her transfer out of Children’s Hospital Oakland. The 13-year old patient who suffered massive complications after a surgery that led to a “brain death diagnosis” continues to show signs of life.


PHILADELPHIA, Pa., December 31, 2013 / — Under the direction of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, numerous organizations and individuals have been working on behalf of Jahi McMath and her family in relative silence for the sake of the sensitivity of her case.

At this point, Terri’s Network, Life Legal Defense, Angela Clemente & Associates, The Wrongful Death & Injury Institute, New Beginnings and others defending Jahi’s life, see that it is now appropriate to step forth publicly and represent the many supporters who have been working tirelessly to obtain Jahi’s release from Children’s Hospital Oakland and transfer her to a safe place.

Jahi McMath has been labeled a “deceased” person. Yet she retains all the functional attributes of a living person, despite her brain injury. This includes a beating heart, circulation and respiration, the ability to metabolize nutrition and more. Jahi is a living human being.

Together with our team of experts, Terri’s Network believes Jahi’s case is representative of a very deep problem within the US healthcare system – particularly those issues surrounding the deaths of patients within the confines of hospital corporations, which have a vested financial interest in discontinuing life.

“Families and individuals must make themselves aware of what so-called ‘brain death’ is and what it is not,” said Bobby Schindler, executive director with Terri’s Network. “Additionally, families and individuals must educate themselves regarding their rights as patients, the advance documentation that must be completed prior to any medical procedure as well as how to ensure best any patient’s rights.

“Every person needs to understand that medical accidents happen every day. Families and individuals must be more aware of the issue of accountability and patient rights.”

We continue to work toward Jahi’s transfer.


The Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network was established by the family members of Terri Schiavo to protect the rights of people with cognitive disabilities. It has communicated with and supported more than 1,000 families, and has been involved in hundreds of cases since Terri’s Death. To learn more about the work of the Life & Hope Network, please visit



Judge extends life support for Jahi McMath until Jan. 7

The family of the 13-year-old Oakland, Calif. girl who was declared brain-dead after a tonsillectomy was desperately trying to move her to a New York facility until a judge extended her life support at the Children’s Hospital in Oakland Monday.Jahi McMath s Mom

A judge reportedly extended life support for a brain-dead 13-year-old girl in Oakland who is battling for her life until 5 p.m. on Jan. 7.

The family of Jahi McMath was frantically trying to work with a New York hospital to transfer the girl — who underwent a routine tonsillectomy at the Children’s Hospital of Oakland on Dec. 9 to treat sleep apnea — who suffered complications from the surgery, which caused her to bleed heavily and go into cardiac arrest.

The family’s attorney Chris Dolan said he is waiting to hear from the facility, which he did not identify because he did not want media attention to influence its decision.

Continue reading the article:


The Dictators of Non-Compassion: Gary Harvey Case and the Unexpected Twist

Moving forward in the Gary Harvey case to still another holiday…

The Dictators of Non-Compassion: Gary Harvey Case and the Unexpected Twist

Sara & Gary Harvey

Sara & Gary Harvey

How long has it been since Gary Harvey fell down those basement stairs? Some days it seems as though it was only yesterday, but it wasn’t. It was January 21, 2006. It has been nearly seven years and little has changed, since the county took over and began their reign of merciless dictatorship.

Oh, Gary & Sara Harvey have gotten seven years older and he is no longer in the nursing home, but a ward connected to St. Joseph Hospital. Only his location has changed, as the desperate and uncalled for battle goes on with the power hungry feeding upon, demeaning, and controlling this husband and wife.

On December 10, 2010, I wrote:

Amazing! I can actually recycle my article as if it was current and remaining accurate. How often does that happen?

Here it is the holiday season of 2010 and Sara Harvey gets a letter from Bryan Maggs, Chemung County Attorney, stating that her visitations with Gary are suspended immediately. Isn’€™t that the same gift they offered last year? I’€™m so impressed with the repeat gift and the timing –” NOT! ( Wife’€™s Visitation in Jeopardy: The Recycling of Gary Harvey’€™s Holiday Restrictions)

Would anyone be surprised to learn that Sara didn’t get to visit Gary on Christmas Day 2012?

It isn’t often that one can continue to recycle articles and pretty much be assured that there is going to be some excuse… some mistake… some problem raising it’s ugly little head and taking away anything that could be considered special for Gary and Sara, especially during this special holiday season. It isn’t often, unless the articles happen to involve Gary and Sara Harvey, Chemung County and St. Joseph Hospital.

Anyone see a pattern?

Continue reading:  The Dictators of Non-Compassion: Gary Harvey Case and the Unexpected Twist

Wife’s Visitation in Jeopardy: The Recycling of Gary Harvey’s Holiday Restrictions

By on December 10th, 2010

Last year, I wrote the following article.

By Carrie K. Hutchens on November 7th, 2009

Gary Harvey is the brain injured man from New York, who seems to have his own private “death panel” determined to kill him off and to make his and his wife’s life as miserable as possible, until the sentence is carried out.  One might think it could get no worse than it has been.  One should never think such thoughts, lest one (or more) be shown that — for however bad — things can actually get worse!

Though it wasn’t Sara sitting on the so-called ethics committee that determined Gary should be starved and dehydrated to death — the Guardian and County (who actually were involved in the attempted death of an innocent person) — have suggested she is a danger to her husband.

Huh?  Did I miss something there?

Hasn’t a DNR been placed on Gary?  If something does go wrong — that’s it, isn’t it?  Those in charge have made it clear they have no intention of lifting a finger to save his life, but yet, it is Gary’s wife, Sara, that is considered the danger to him?

The Twilight Zone has competition!

Let’s see…

It is the Guardian, County, and So-Called Ethics Committee that decided Gary should die, but Sara needs to be supervised when visiting him?  So, what do they think she is going to do to Gary that they need to protect him from?

Certainly can’t be death!

Certainly can’t be torturing him to death by starvation and dehydration!

So just what are the supervised visits suppose to be accomplishing?  What protection are they allegedly providing?  What are they supposedly preventing?

I’m with you — I don’t know either!

I did get word though, that the bills for these questionable supervised visits are being charged to Gary and he is either out of money or running out of money to pay for them.  What does this mean?  No more visits with his wife?  And this is in Gary’s best interest how?

I don’t know who these people are that think they are looking out for Gary Harvey’s best interests, but I certainly wouldn’t want them in charge of looking out for my best interests under any circumstances.

Isolation is a form of torture.  It causes failure to thrive.  So now, when those in control of Gary didn’t get him starved and dehydrated to death, and have not been able to implement the DNR — they are going to deny him his wife’s visits?  Who are they trying to punish?  Gary for being disabled or Sara for fighting to bring her husband home?

One can only wonder!

Amazing!  I can actually recycle my article as  if it was current and remaining accurate.  How often does that happen?

Here it is the holiday season of 2010 and Sara Harvey gets a letter from Bryan Maggs, Chemung County Attorney, stating that her visitations with Gary are suspended immediately.  Isn’t that the same gift they offered last year?  I’m so impressed with the repeat gift and the timing — NOT!

Shame on these people!

If there was a problem, beyond Sara filing various motions with the court, where are the records of the official meetings where the hospital, county, guardian and all the heavy-weight personnel discussed any issues that might bring her to no visitation at Christmas time once again?

The court system is a strategy thing.  Attorneys do this and attorneys do that… and it is all a major game.  But Sara is not allowed to play back, even when the county and guardian and hospital feel free to do whatever and force her into a courtroom to challenge their inappropriate behavior?

If Gary were at home, and someone reported that his care was inappropriate, Sara would have to answer this challenge.  Why would the county, guardian and hospital think they should be beyond the same challenge?  It is, after all,  allegedly their actual job to be an “expert provider” and to provide excellent care in all ways.

If Gary were at home and Sara was starving & dehydrating him to death, the authorities would pull him from the home, put him in “protective custody” and most likely charge her with all kinds of things, including attempted murder.  Why haven’t the county and guardian and hospital been likewise challenged and charged?  Why hasn’t the court pulled them back in to answer why they tried to kill off someone not terminally ill?

If Gary was home with Sara, she could be challenged for this and for that and for anything someone wished to challenge her with, but she wouldn’t be able to simply write a letter and terminate visitation by all these people that thought she was not providing well.  Why then, can all these people so simply terminate her visits with Gary when they have been challenged?

It’s wrong!

It would be wrong no matter what, but it is really wrong that these people decide to terminate visitation during the holiday season.  It says a great deal about them.  It proves, by their actions, that compassion is not something in their list of priorities, yet they claim to have Gary’s best interest in mind?

How often can one recycle an article?

How often can one recycle an article where all one has to do is change the date?

It should make it quite apparent that something is totally wrong in the Harvey case, for one, and the system needs to get things right, rather than allow all this craziness and bullying to wrong the victim and the family that strives to fight to get it all back right.

It should.

Will It?

I don’t know, but is the holiday season a time to take away the moments a wife and husband have together, especially when holidays together are possibly limited by health issues?

I don’t know, but what can Sara Harvey possibly do to Gary Harvey that warrants supervised visits – that outweighs the county’s attempt to kill him off?

Nevertheless, here it is the holidays again… and Sara’s visits with Gary have been terminated once again!

Merry Christmas!

This article was originally published at Dakota Voice.  It can once again be recycled — holiday visits are off!  This year the doctor said either Sara goes or he goes!  Supposedly the guardians and attorneys can’t find a new doctor to replace him, so they booted Sara from visiting her own husband!  Welcome to the New World of cruelty & the power of government!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

How Stupid Are We: Pretty Darn Stupid According to Big Government Supporters

stupidIt’s amazing how stupid “big government supporters” think everyone else is.  We are too stupid to make our own decisions about the size of soda we buy, so the government will help us.  They will deny us the 32 oz. option.  Now, that is really going to help all on its own.  Oh, never mind.  That ban is only the beginning.  With the government in control of insurance, they’ll soon be able to tell us what we can’t eat and what we must eat.  Probably tell us how many times a day to go to the bathroom, too.  And, never fear, we will probably receive instructions on the proper way to wipe the bottoms we have somehow been taking care of for years without their help.

Drink water?  What a unique idea.  I’m sure that most of us never once thought about grabbing a glass of water when thirsty.  And how about those water fountains? They aren’t just for decoration?  Well, what do you know about that.  Learn something new every day.

I have a control freak relative that will walk into the kitchen, see someone is doing the dishes and tell that person she (or he) needs to do the dishes.  It is as though the event is not real… not happening… unless “control freak” gives the order for it to be done.  Does my relative sound like anyone you know?  You know… like someone who thinks they know more about our health, health needs and coverage than we — the people who happen to be living our lives — do?

My “control freak” relative got involved where there was no need and really messed things up.  After the blunder, “control freak” walked away and left everyone else to suffer the major consequences involved.  Looks like our government is planning a likewise move.  They screw everything up for us — like cost us perfectly good insurance coverage — then, as it all falls apart, they go, “ooops” and walk away with their coverage still intact.

Many of the elite in government haven’t the slightest clue what it is like to be in our less-elite shoes, so their edg-i-ka-sion is limited to that book larning that was written by others who probably didn’t have the slightest clue either.  So, who are they to suddenly walk into our lives and tell us what to do and when to do it and how to do it, as though we hadn’t been living a life prior to their decision to decide for us?

We may not know everything about everything, but we do certainly know what we need to survive.  We know what is “affordable” in our situations, no matter what amount they decide upon.  Better yet, they talk about all these people that didn’t have insurance because of pre-existing conditions and life-time limits.  So, why didn’t they deal with those problems?  Why didn’t they find a way to get those people covered?

I’m trying not to laugh or cry.  Rather than deal with the “specific” issue at hand, the “control freaks” in government decided that they needed to tell everyone they have to have insurance — including the ones who already had insurance and didn’t need to be told to get it.  (But it wasn’t really REAL until “control freaks” told them they had to.)  And to top it all off… as the government took over to make sure everyone was covered… they caused people who already had coverage to lose it and become uncovered.   Yep!… that’s some progress and a success story to be proud of — NOT!

The government mingled where it had no business mingling and now people, who had made the good decisions for themselves and family, are in one heck of a mess.  Many have lost hours and jobs.  Many have or will be losing coverage.  Many are facing exceedingly high premiums, co-pay and deductibles.  But the government knows best, or so it thinks.

How stupid do they think we are?  Pretty darn stupid.  And just remember this conversation when they tell you that you HAVE TO eat your veggies, how to wipe and how to have sex with your spouse.  Yeah, I know you didn’t know how to do that properly either.  But… never fear… they’ll get you up to speed as soon as they get the glitches fixed in the O-care site.  In the meantime, don’t hold your bladder or your breath.

Death Panels: To Be Deemed the Most Non-Existent Reality of 2010?

Gary HarveyOver and over and over again, we hear how fear mongers and wing-nuts are falsely claiming there are “death panels” where death panels do not exist. Keith Olbermann goes so far as to claim that rather than death panels, there are “life panels.” He just doesn’t seem to get it that not everyone’s experience is like the one he had with his father’s passing, where his father’s wishes were upheld. Olbermann just doesn’t seem to get it that some people, instead, get to find out just how real the “death panel” concept is and has been for some time now.

I’m sorry for Olbermann’s loss on the one hand, but quite offended on the other. How dare he suggest his situation is proof there are no death panels and we are all just paranoid, if we say they do exist? (My interpretation of the Politico article, “Olbermann’s father dies” .) Not everyone is privileged to have a son in such a vocal position, or to have everything work out as the person and family wishes it to. There are actually some who find the so-called non-existent “death panels” stepping right into the middle of a fight for life situation and deeming it is time for them or their loved one to be dead.

Let’s talk Andrea Clark down there in Texas a few years ago.

The so-called ethic’s committee decided she was a futile care case and it was time to put her down. Didn’t seem to matter that wasn’t her wish or her family’s wish or that she was fully aware of what was transpiring.

This was the action of a “life panel”?

What about Ted Stith, Sr., from New York?

Ted goes on vacation down there in Florida, has a stroke and, immediately after he does, it is suggested that he be starved and dehydrated to death? Didn’t seem to matter that a friend is reported to have said he was aware, was reaching for water and was trying to communicate. On second thought, I guess it did matter. According to reports, she was banned from his room and the possibility of giving him food or water, even if it was his rightful request to be made, and so he was denied the mere necessities for survival.

This is what Olbermann considers the “life panel” process?

We also have Terri Schiavo, who was put to death by court order. A case where she, a brained damaged but otherwise healthy individual, was starved and dehydrated to death based upon heavily conflicted testimony. Perhaps the conflict itself should have been taken more seriously, as would have been, if the people fighting for her life had been considered of importance to the right audience.

Olbermann considers starving and dehydrating a healthy person to death to be what “life panels” do?

More recent in the news is the Gary Harvey case.

The so-called ethics committee decided Gary Harvey should be starved and dehydrated to death as well and put it before the court. He was, after all, at death’s door, wasn’t he? The order to put Gary Harvey to death was suddenly pulled after the media picked up on the story. Gary Harvey, who was supposedly at death’s door and needing to be starved and dehydrated to death last summer, is still alive. Looks like someone got something wrong about Gary being unable to survive and ready to die, and needing to be put down, especially by such a hideous method as starving and dehydrating him to death.

The fight for Gary’s life, by his wife, while a system suggests it’s time to kill him off, is Olbermann’s opinion of a “life panel” in motion?

Just how would Olbermann have felt, if he went up against a committee that decided they knew better and was going to disregard his father’s wishes?

Just how would Olbermann have felt, if his dad could have been saved, but the “system” decided otherwise?

No doubt, it would have been quite different if Olbermann was fighting for his father’s life, per his father’s wishes, and he came up against a system that does have so-called ethics committees (death panels), or the court system that makes mistakes and doesn’t necessarily listen to the truth and rule accordingly, or an insurance company that was refusing to pay for rightful care, or even a nurse that didn’t see the fight still in his dad.

Bet it would be different then!

Maybe Keith Olbermann ought to get out of the studio and talk with the people who have lost family members to his wondrous “life panel” concept that is actually what is becoming the non-existent reality of the 21st century.

Whether it be by denial of coverage, denial of care or courts deciding to kill people off, because of conflicted testimony…

Death panels do exist — and under the NewWorldCare proposal, they will become far more common!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.


Originally published:  Death Panels: To Be Deemed the Most Non-Existent Reality of 2010?  By on March 17th, 2010 – Dakota Voice

Oh, how deliciously ironic…

negotiate4Obama tells congressional leaders he won’t negotiate on shutdown, debt“???… oh, how deliciously ironic.  If Obama won’t negotiate on any of those things — or anything — what is he willing to negotiate on?

Things have gotten out of hand.  (Actually, they got out of hand long ago.)  There was no reason that the Democrats and the President of the United States of America could then (or now) truthfully feel their plan for health care reform was so perfect — so very perfect — so very, very perfect — because they are “all-knowing” — that a little devil’s-advocacy and balance wasn’t in order, rather than a defiant blow-off of everything and anything not-their-way.

No reason, but it happened.

Now we have tons of people losing their jobs, or at least their full-time hours, and definitely their certainty of what tomorrow brings.  No longer does the need of the worker matter — the only things that matter are the whims of Obamacare and the dear Democrats & Pals that claim to so care for the people’s well-being.

And, rather than try to explain what they were thinking and why they thought (and continue to think) they were right and meant/mean well — they start in with the name-calling (calm rhetoric) and low blows towards any who do not agree with them, not to mention those special terms …

 In recent weeks, however, Obama and his aides and Democratic allies have accused the Republican legislators of being anarchists, suicide-bombers, hostage-takers, arsonists, political terrorists, fanatics, blackmailers, and ideological crusaders.

 “What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest,” Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s top media adviser, said in a CNN interview this week.  ~Obama: I use ‘calm’ rhetoric, unlike ‘hostage takers’  (The Daily Caller — 7:16 PM 10/02/2013)

The irony of the Obama Administration — their willingness to call names (calm rhetoric), refuse to budge and then dare to project their words and behavior on others.  So, are we to be impressed and feel more secure in Obamacare and this administration now that we know they are pretty darn good at retaliating, hitting below the belt and name-calling (calm rhetoric)?  Sure makes me want to rush out and buy me an Obamacare plan — how about you?


Pulling the Plug

plugIt is mind blogging how some people are so ready to suggest the plug should be pulled on others. What if the pluggee doesn’t want the plug pulled? Pull it anyway?

There you go. One more down. Who else can we get rid of?

The thought brings to mind a picture of an eager face with a vile grin and some drool running down the chin for good measure. “Oh look, that little old lady in Aisle 4 doesn’t have quality of life. I wouldn’t want to live that way, walking with a limp. Let’s get her. Boy, this legal murder is empowering. Look at me! I have power over life and death. Why didn’t we start doing this before now? Oh, good another one back by the frozen foods. Such a good day for plug pulling.”

Think it can’t ever happen?

Who would have thought we would ever be where we are today? Who would have thought we would be so ready to say that helpless people “aren’t in there”, and thus believe it is simply okay to starve and dehydrate them to death? Who would have thought, but that is where society has arrived at. Society is killing off the weakest without thought to those who have fallen victim to illness, injury, disability or age. It is outrageous at how cold and cruel our society has become.

It is easy to say someone has no hope, when no therapy or attempt has been made to help the person get better. It’s causing the problem and then having the problem be our supportive argument as to why not to take any positive actions.

For those who might not get what I just said, it would be like a husband taking the one and only family car and then blaming the wife for not driving to the grocery store for something he wanted while he was gone with the one and only car that prevented her from being able to drive to the store to get what he wanted while he was gone with the one and only car.

Or, how about a teacher not giving an assignment, but then blaming the class for not completing the assignment not given?

Likewise, people can’t always get better without the tools and treatment being made available to them.

They can’t wheel themselves down the hallway, if they don’t have a wheel chair to wheel.

They can’t do physical therapy if none is offered, nor anyone to tell them how.

They can’t take the necessary medications to cure their illness, if no medication is made available.

They can’t eat or drink if no food or water is provided.

They can’t look out the window if there is no window to look out of.

Simply put, people can’t get better if they aren’t allowed to get better, because all things that will (or might) make them better is denied them.

But none of this appears to matter in this day and age, when the so-called “Enlightened” seem to feel they are the anointed and have the power of a god to make life and death decisions in spite of what the person or family might want.

Listening to the arguments of many is a waste of time. They justify with issues that are irrelevant to the case at hand. I liken their arguments to:

Spot — the dog — pooped in the yard, so Spot’s owners aren’t going to feed the cat bird food.

So, one asks this person what any of that has to do with anything or even with each other, and the person might come back with the righteous question — “What? Are you trying to say that Spot didn’t poop in the yard?”

Or, maybe the response will be, “What? Are you supporting feeding the cat bird food?”

Sometimes I wonder if the irrational is to drive the rational over the edge or wear them down where they give up the fight against this madness. I don’t know, but I do know that I get tired of it and would like to put the irrational in a padded room with all their irrational statements played back to them throughout the day and night and see their reaction to their own words… their own arguments… their own enjoyment at playing these games with others.

I guess I should ask for forgiveness for wishing such on even them, but it doesn’t take away the truth that something really does need to be done to shake up this world and get it (and us) back on track. This craziness has simply gotten all too boring and quite too dangerous for all too many people.

Those who think they are gods and anointed to make choices between life and death for those who aren’t asking for their services, should be demoted to Spot’s poop scoopers and making sure the cat isn’t fed the bird food, while those who respect life — should be the ones moved into the position considered “Enlighten” and given the courtesy of a listen.

Once “non-responsive” is not necessarily forever “unresponsive”.

Unable to speak or move is not necessarily a sign that a person is gone and that the brain is dead.

Those who believe the garbage being spit out in this day and age to suggest otherwise of what I just said, should read the story of Kate Allatt, Mother-of-three left ‘locked in’ by a stroke last year WALKS down the aisle to renew her wedding vows . By Daily Mail Reporter Created 10:15 AM on 25th May 2011. It might just be an eye opener and give a person wonder of what if they were in a situation as she. Would they, too, like the opportunity to return to their life? Or, would they rather Spot eat the bird food and the cat poop in the yard while the bird makes the decision just before he goes to work to consider giving the rat still another loan to pay for his teeth so he can chew up the constitution and any good works that might have once shown us to be compassionate human beings trying to make this world a better place for all?

Pulling the plug on any, should be a something taken very serious and it has nothing to do with what Spot did in the yard today or yesterday or any day before!

It has to do with the issues at hand!

It has to do with a human life we are talking about and deciding about!

What if we are wrong?

Ask Kate Allatt and her family about the consequences of wrong and what might have been if continued!

Ask her if she rather have been unplugged or allowed to walk down the aisle to renew her wedding vows. Her answer might astonish our “enlightened”, but it certainly doesn’t astonish me or the rest of us “unenlightened”.

We know.

We just hope the realization spreads.



Pulling the Plug originally published on Dakota Voice – August 26th, 2011

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.


Claim: Jesse Ramirez Case Unlike Terri Schiavo’s

Originally posted Wednesday, July 4, 2007 on Dakota Voice

I was reading ABC News’, “Pulling the Plug: Ethicists Debate Ramirez Case“,  by Dan Childs, ABC News Medical Unit (June 28, 2007) and found it interesting how the defense is still up. No case is ever like Terri Schiavo’s. There is always an alleged difference, with similarities downplayed or outright denied. Might that be because people are starting to realize that an innocent woman was wrongly starved and dehydrated to death, like Jesse Ramirez almost was?

We do have it right in our face that the law does not have true safeguards in place. Had the Ramirez family not stepped in, Jesse Ramirez would most likely not be with us today, let alone sitting up in his bed and interacting with people. It doesn’t even matter if Rebecca Ramirez was basing her decision upon incomplete information the doctors provided. It shouldn’t be that easy to make a mistake. After all, this type of mistake is beyond serious — not an Oops! It is forever and someone is dead!

There are several issues at hand.

Childs writes, “The injuries Ramirez sustained in his accident were traumatic in nature, meaning that the shock of impact likely ripped apart some of the fragile connections in his brain, leading to his coma. “These injuries, on occasion, can heal to a certain extent, allowing the patient to recover functionality. This is far different from the damage caused by anoxia, in which a lack of oxygen to the brain causes irreparable brain damage. Those who suffer this type of damage, including Schiavo, have a much slimmer chance of ever regaining consciousness. ”

Even if it is true that Terri Schiavo had a slimmer chance in comparison to that of Ramirez, do we truly know the degree? How can we know to what degree she could have recovered if she had been afforded the therapy that so many “think” she had? How do we know to what degree Terri was affected by the isolation and lack of stimulation? (The latter alone proven to be detrimental on the well-being of humans.) We simply can’t know. Nor do we know just how conscious and alert Terri actually was in spite of all this, since tests were denied and anyone who might suggest she was not PVS was then closed out with attempts being made to discredit their opinion.

Similar is that Terri and Jesse are human beings. Each had a spouse that made the decision to place them in a hospice. Each were ordered to be starved and dehydrated to death by the spouse. Each had family and friends that said they were responsive.

The difference is that Jesse had Judge Katz and Terri had Judge Greer.

In Terri Schiavo’s case, the majority of people were not aware of all the facts nor the possibility that a conscious human being could be starved and dehydrated to death by a spouse, guardian, court, hospital or simply anyone. Even if one does not want to believe that Terri was conscious, Andrea Clark  from Texas cannot be forgotten. She was indeed conscious, but the doctor and hospital felt it was within their rights to deem her futile and pull the plug. Perhaps if her case had been first, Terri would have had a chance.

The media frequently reported that Terri was brain dead, so that is what the majority of people believed, though it was absolutely not true.

The media frequently reported that Terri was on life support as though machines were keeping a dead body alive. She was merely on a feeding tube.

In Terri’s case, the truth often didn’t matter. Whatever the media reported must be the gospel. As a result, the Schindlers were often made to look like religious fanatics that wanted to keep their daughter’s body alive at all costs. They couldn’t possibly be seeing any response because brain death makes that impossible. So, they were either lying or misreading so-called “reflexes”. But… what might the majority of people thought, had they known the truth?

Childs’ article says, “”This guy was not hopeless and in a persistent vegetative state by any means,” says Dr. Steven Miles, professor of internal medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics.”

Would we have known that if the family hadn’t intervened and Judge Katz hadn’t agreed with them?

If Terri Schiavo’s care decisions had been taken out of Michael Schiavo’s hands, might we have likewise discovered she was not in a persistent vegetative state?

Also in the article was, “This is by no means a miracle of any kind,” Miles says. “Traumatic comas are notorious for late wake-ups.”

I agree! With the medical and legal trends as they are, the miracle was that Jesse was allowed a chance to live and recover.

Jesse Ramirez’s family didn’t agree with his wife’s decision and sought to have his feeding tube replaced. Judge Katz granted the request, appointed a guardian and set up a hearing. This saved Jesse’s life! Too bad Katz wasn’t also the Schiavo judge. Perhaps the outcome would have been much different. Nevertheless, when did it become acceptable to starve and dehydrate people to death? How can anyone suggest that is a humane thing to do only to non-criminal humans? There is no logic.

The Schiavo and Ramirez cases are very similar in that they show us just how careless we have become with the lives of those who have been injured or fall ill.

The Terri Schiavo case was a wake up call!

Though the snooze button appears to have been hit, with people still under false beliefs that molded their opinions, the Ramirez case is a loud and clear alarm going off! A man with a chance to recover was nearly murdered by a society and its trend to be too ready to give up and pull the plug on others. What does that say about us as a society?

Maybe it is time to do some serious soul searching, while we still have souls to search!

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

The Jesse Ramirez Miracle

Originally posted Wednesday, June 27, 2007 on Dakota Voice

News reports state that on May 30th, Jesse Ramirez and his wife Rebecca were traveling in their SUV, in the midst of an argument, when he lost control of the SUV and had a rollover crash. Both occupants were ejected from the vehicle. Jesse, 36, reportedly suffered critical injuries, which include a broken neck and head injuries, while Rebecca, 33, suffered only minor injuries.

It appears that around a week after the accident, Jesse underwent surgery, only to be transferred to a hospice the following day with orders to have his feeding tube removed. Who made the decision to transfer him and end his life? Rebecca Ramirez, the woman with whom he was having marital problems even as they crashed.’s “To keep him alive or let him die?”  by Rich Dubek and Kevin Kennedy, 12 News (June. 13, 2007 11:37 PM) reports, “Last Thursday, Jesse underwent surgery. On Friday, Rebecca Ramirez moved him to a hospice facility and made the decision to pull his feeding tube. She refuses to talk to 12 News but Jesse’s mother Theresa says “he deserves a chance to live, and she (Rebecca) won’t listen.” )

Jesse’s family turned to the courts for an emergency order to reinsert the feeding tube. As a result, Judge Paul Katz became involved in the case ordering the reinsertion of the feeding tube, resuscitation if necessary, and appointed a guardian to gather information for a June 26th hearing. Judge Katz’s actions are quite impressive after watching Judge George Greer a few years ago in Florida giving orders to kill first and ask questions later or not at all. had an amazing story. “Injured man’s awakening called ‘miracle’

By Dennis Wagner, USA TODAY

PHOENIX — Eighteen days after his wife instructed doctors to disconnect food and water tubes, a Chandler, Ariz. man is sitting up in his hospice bed, giving the thumbs-up sign and communicating with visitors.”

Sitting up in his hospice bed and communicating with visitors?

The news was reported by Judge Katz at the June 26th hearing and confirmed by Judith Morse, the appointed guardian.

The article also says, “Jesse Ramirez Jr.’s awakening, which friends called “a miracle,” occurred after his sister, parents and other relatives went to court and obtained an emergency order for feeding and hydration tubes to be reinserted, reversing a directive given by his wife, Rebecca Ramirez.”

In light of the medical and legal trend we have witnessed in recent years, I don’t think the miracle is with Jesse Ramirez Jr.”s awakening, but rather, with him having the chance to awaken! Without the opportunity provided by Judge Katz, an injured man would have been wrongfully terminated several days ago! It’s a fact that needs to be faced and addressed!

Judge Katz, through his legal decisions, prevented a wrongful termination from taking place in the Ramirez case. Can we count on someone like Katz to be there to prevent the next wrongful termination being played out? One can only hope.

Previous article: A Chance of Having a Chance: The Jesse Ramirez Case

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

A Chance of Having a Chance: The Jesse Ramirez Case

Originally posted  Monday, June 18, 2007 on Dakota Voice

It’s happening again! A spouse attempting to have a spouse starved and dehydrated to death. This time it is in Arizona.

News reports state that on May 30th, Jesse Ramirez and his wife Rebecca were in the mist of an argument, when he lost control of the SUV they were driving in, which resulted in a roll over crash. Both were ejected from the vehicle. Jesse, 36, reportedly suffered critical injuries, which include a broken neck and head injuries, while Rebecca, 33, suffered only minor injuries.’s “To keep him alive or let him die?”  by Rich Dubek and Kevin Kennedy, 12 News (June. 13, 2007 11:37 PM) reports, “Last Thursday, Jesse underwent surgery. On Friday, Rebecca Ramirez moved him to a hospice facility and made the decision to pull his feeding tube. She refuses to talk to 12 News but Jesse’s mother Theresa says “he deserves a chance to live, and she (Rebecca) won’t listen.”

Dubek and Kennedy further reported, “An attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a group which supports pro-life causes, is representing the family. They say while Rebecca Ramirez has certain rights as a spouse, they question whether she is the right person to decide Jesse’s fate considering their marital problems. Attorneys also say Rebecca does not have written power of attorney to remove Jesse’s feeding tube. ”

I would have to agree with the attorney and family.

According to News5’s “Judge Orders Life Support For Patient”  (POSTED: 6:17 am PDT June 15, 2007 & UPDATED: 4:00 pm PDT June 15, 2007), “Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Paul Katz ruled Thursday that the feeding should continue and Jesse Ramirez be given resuscitation if necessary.”

The report continues, “Katz ordered that an independent attorney charged with being Jesse Ramirez’s advocate investigate the matter and come up with recommendations for resolving it.”

“Katz also scheduled a June 26 hearing on the matter.”

Also included in the report by News5, “Ramirez, 33, has said she does not want her husband to live if he could not care for himself.”

Why? Is she worried that she will be required, as his wife, to care for him? Nevertheless, she was reported as saying “she does not want”, rather than “Jesse not wanting”. Her wanting could be totally irrelevant to the case. After all, it is “his wanting about himself” that is what is important here and in every other case.

Luckily, Jesse Ramirez is in Arizona, rather than Florida with George Felos as his wife’s attorney and Judge George Greer presiding over the case, or in Texas with the futile care law. At least in Arizona, under the jurisdiction of Judge Katz, it appears he has a chance of having a chance. A chance to survive and heal, if that is his possibility! When did that become too much to ask?

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

What Say You, Kevin Moshier?

Tragically, Gary Harvey of Horsehead, NY fell down the basement stairs
in January of 2006 and received a traumatic head injury. Since that
time, he has either been in a nursing home or in the hospital and is
under the guardianship of the county. Ironically, the county, who claims
to be looking out for their ward’s best interest, was involved in a
so-called ethics committee decision that Gary Harvey should be starved
and dehydrated to death. The judge over-ruled the call for execution of
an innocent man, though a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) remains in effect.
Sara Harvey, Gary’s wife, is desperately fighting to keep her husband
safe. One can only wonder how much Gary knows of what is going on around
him. Does anyone in charge even care? * * *


Sara & Gary Harvey

Sara & Gary Harvey

The Gary Harvey case haunts me, Kevin Moshier.  Does it ever haunt you?  Do you ever wonder, as his court appointed attorney and simply as a human being, if Gary actually knows what is going on around him, but merely can’t let others know? What if he does, Kevin? What if he knows everything that has been said to him or around him? What if he feels everything? What if he feels desperation when his needs aren’t adequately met and when he has to fight still another infection? What if he feels the isolation and misses the once frequent visits of the wife he so loves? What if… Kevin Moshier?… what if he is actually a human being, who once laughed and planned and thought tomorrow would be one day closer to his future plans and dreams? What if he still isn’t done hoping for a better tomorrow? What if he needs your help, Kevin? Will you help him? What if you don’t? What if you don’t, Kevin Moshier? What if you leave him to fight alone? Will his tomorrows then forever end?