Starving Patients to Death is Legal in Every State in America

Opinion   |   Bobby Schindler

On June 24th, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the legally deficient 1973 ruling that a woman had a “constitutional right” to kill her unborn child.

Much of the credit was given to President Donald Trump for choosing Supreme Court justices who properly interpreted our nation’s Constitution. The pro-life community that devoted their time and resources and resolved to upend the law decriminalizing abortion is also due a significant amount of credit. Now, the battle to protect the unborn shifts to the laws of each individual state.

While this monumental ruling will certainly protect countless unborn babies, there currently exists a thriving Roe vs Wade type law that has a similar goal to end the lives of the medically vulnerable, as Roe did on the unborn. This law redefines feeding tubes, which provide a patient’s food and hydration, from basic and ordinary care to medical treatment and artificial life support.

Essentially, the redefinition of feeding tubes went unnoticed and as a result, it is now legal in all 50 states to either deny or remove a patient’s feeding tube – even against the expressed wishes of the patients – directly causing the patient’s death by dehydration and starvation.

In his book, Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, author and bioethicist, Wesley J. Smith writes that “defining ‘artificial nutrition’ as treatment instead of human care was a crucial step in the development of the culture of death.”

According to Smith, as far back as the early 1980’s, bioethicists like Daniel Callahan saw the feeding tube as a serious hurdle, openly stating that changing its classification from “basic care” to “medical treatment” would be “the only effective way to make certain that a large number of biologically tenacious patients actually die.”

Eventually, Callahan’s view became widely accepted. This included a 1986 opinion by the American Medical Association (AMA) that listed feeding tubes as medical treatment instead of a basic requirement for life, fundamentally changing the medical definition of receiving food and hydration by feeding tubes. This new meaning invites all kinds of scenarios that can end the lives of patients who either require feeding tubes permanently or temporarily until they can relearn how to eat and drink.

Take for example, the 2005 case of my sister Terri Schiavo, who needed a feeding tube after experiencing a brain injury and having difficulty swallowing. Her guardian and estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, incentivized by his adulterous affair and also monetarily by the close to a million dollars he would inherit upon Terri’s death, invented a story and subsequently lied to a judge, alleging Terri would rather die than live in in a disabled condition.

This revelation surfaced years after Terri’s unexplained brain injury when Michael conveniently remembered Terri’s desire to die just after she received a million dollar malpractice payout that Michael vowed would be used for Terri’s lifelong rehabilitation.

Nonetheless, the judge ruled in his favor and permitted the removal of Terri’s feeding tube, inhumanely starving and dehydrating her to death. A slow and horrific killing that took almost two weeks.

Indeed, Terri’s case alerted the public that feeding tubes can be removed from a family member – even when someone purposely lies and financially benefits from the inhumane and unjust death sentence. However, 17 years after Terri’s death, nothing has changed as dehydrating to death persons like Terri continues every single day.

Even more, this injustice is worsening because the bureaucratic killing apparatus deep-rooted in our healthcare system saves billions of dollars by rationing ongoing care, making it easy and desirable to kill. Not to mention that, unlike the zeal to protect the unborn, there is no urgency or serious effort to protect our medically vulnerable. Bear in mind, all of this was occurring prior to the medical bullying triggered by Covid-19.  (Continue Reading)

Full Article & Source:
Starving Patients to Death is Legal in Every State in America

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.

AZcentral.com’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.

USAToday.com 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.

AZcentral.com’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.