...I agree that is should be us taking care of our brothers and we shouldn’t need the Government to do it for us. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world and we are not doing it, so the idea of socialized healthcare intrigues me.Read the rest here
My response: I don’t see how noting that we live in a fallen world is an argument for socialized healthcare. The government is part of that fallen world too, so if it’s the fallen world that is to blame for us not taking care of others, how will the government do any better? That’s like saying, “hey, you’re kinda sketchy behind the wheel, so I’m gonna let my 105 year old grandma with cataracts drive the bus...”
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree...Read the rest here
The doctor just took one look at her and said no," said Miss Isbister.
"They didn't even try to help her with her breathing as they said it would just prolong her dying. Everyone just gave up on her."
Ian Laing, a consultant neonatologist at the hospital, said: "All the signs were that the little one was not going to make it and we took the decision to let mum have a cuddle as it was all we could do.
"Two hours later the wee thing was crying. This is indeed a miracle baby and I have seen nothing like it in my 27 years of practice. I have not the slightest doubt that mother's love saved her daughter."
Rachael was moved on to a ventilator where she continued to make steady progress.
Miss Isbister said: "The doctors said that she had proved she was a fighter and that she now deserved some intensive care as there was some hope.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500430/Doctors-gave-20oz-baby-dead---I-saved-life-cuddle.html#ixzz0PaaS2fGv
The NHS has a severe shortage of capacity, directly costing the lives of tens of thousands of patients a year. We have fewer doctors per head of population than any European country apart from Albania. We import nurses and doctors from the world’s poorest countries, and export sick people to some of the richest. More than one million people—one in sixty of the population—are waiting for treatment.I strongly recommend that you read the entire article.
This summer has been marked by persistent and, at times, even contradictory reports on the work being done by both houses of Congress regarding the sweeping “health care reform” legislation that President Obama wants to sign into law as early as September.No one doubts the wisdom of addressing this complex issue. Reform is needed. But the un derlying question re mains: What kind of health care reform do we want?Given the vast range of ethical and moral issues involved, this legislation will manifest in a clear and even remarkable way what values we will hold or fail to uphold as a nation. In a very real way, this legislation will define our national character.
Bishop William Murphy, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee for Domestic Justice and Human Development, sent a letter in July to the members of Congress offering as a guide four ethical principles that any health care reform should reflect:
1. A truly universal health care policy imbued with respect for human life and dignity.
2. Access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of legal immigrants.
3. Pursuing the common good while preserving pluralism, including freedom of conscience and variety of options.
4. Restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers.
Under the first point, Bishop Murphy went on to explain that the church is strongly opposed to the inclusion of abortion as part of a national health care plan.
He stated: “No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion.”
The actual situation, however, has become far more complex since it now appears that pro-abortion advocates hope to achieve their aims without mentioning the word “abortion.”
Thus, a bill proposed by Sen. Ted Kennedy grants authority to a “Medical Advisory Council,” appointed by the secretary of the Health and Human Services, to decide what procedures are funded.
This council would specify what services will or will not be included in the government’s insurance plans.
At present, the secretary of Health and Human Services is Kathleen Sebelius, allegedly a practicing Catholic, but an aggressively pro-choice politician. It is hard to imagine that her selection of candidates for membership on that council would be willing to restrict access to abortion services.
Of course, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Speaking to the Planned Parenthood organization during the presidential campaign, then Sen. Obama made clear his thinking on this matter, which was backed up by his voting record in the Senate.
He stated: “In my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose.”
(In this context, “reproductive care” is a euphemism for “abortion.”)
Until now, federal agencies or programs (as well as state or local governments receiving federal funds) are forbidden under the Weldon amendment, approved by Congress each year since 2004, to discriminate against individual or institutional health care providers or insurers who decline to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion.
The new health care program, as now proposed, would change all that. That is why an explicit statement in the bill is needed which asserts that government insurance would not cover abortion services.
In addition to Bishop Murphy’s four points, I would add a fifth. I believe that it should also be explicitly stated that euthanasia, either actively prescribed or passively encouraged, should not be permitted.
This is a serious matter for senior citizens. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions recently defeated an amendment that would have prevented the denial of health care benefits to patients on the basis of age, expected length of life, or of the patient’s present or predicted disability or quality of life.
Without such assurances, the same “Medical Advisory Council” could determine that those who are over a certain age limit are not worthy of further medical treatment and thus none would be provided.
Far-reaching implications
As you can see, this legislation has far-reaching moral implications for us as a people and as a nation. What it permits and what it disallows speaks volumes about the values that we hold dear and are willing to fight to defend.
I urge you to inform yourself about this critical piece of legislation. (Go online to the USCCB Web site:www.usccb.org/healthcare).
Then, call your senators and representatives to express your opinion. For the Senate, call (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak with your senator; call (202) 225-3121 to speak with your representative.
If you do not know the name of either, give the operator your zip code and you will be connected to the correct office.
This is, in my mind, one of the most important issues of our lifetime. Please let your thoughts be known.
God bless you!
O, St. Paul the Apostle, great convert, preacher of truth and Doctor of the Gentiles, intercede for us to God, who chose you.
You are a vessel of election, O St. Paul the Apostle, preacher of truth to the whole world.
O God, You have instructed many nations through the preaching of the blessed apostle Paul. Let the power of St. Paul's intercession bring about the conversion of President Barack Obama to the fullness of Your grace. Help the president to recognize the personhood of all human beings - born and preborn. Help us who venerate St. Paul's memory this day to continually seek Help us who seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we work to spread Your truth.
Commentary by Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula
(Editor's Note: Msgr. Barreiro, a Doctor of Dogmatic Theology and attorney with years of experience in international diplomacy at the UN, is head of the Rome office of Human Life International.)
ROME, Italy, August 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - All persons of good will need to understand the clear and present danger with which the US is being menaced by the health reform proposed by the Obama Administration. Abortion will be multiplied, the U.S. will move ahead on the road towards euthanasia, conscience rights will be in jeopardy: but what is worse, the United States would start moving towards a tyrannical, socialist government that would be the source of all sort of moral evils.
The current debate on health care reform has to be framed on the basis on some clear principles that are accessible to all persons of good will. The starting point is that health care is a basic human right. All human beings have a right to life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.
A consequence of this right is that all human persons are entitled to receive from society the necessary conditions to support life. If those conditions to support life were denied, the right to life would become illusory. One of the necessary means is appropriate health care.
This human right is complemented with the duty of each individual person to do all that he can to protect his own life, which at the same time is the first natural inclination that we find in all human beings. In this case the duty of the person is that, through gainful employment, he should be able to support himself and his natural dependents. This self-support should include healthcare.
The question that has always confronted us is when a person, either due to dysfunctions of society or his own personal handicaps, is not able to provide for himself or his family. In this case a Christian view of society on the basis of justice and charity leads to the support of those persons.
The Catholic Church has established hundreds of health care institutions dedicated primarily to assistance of the poor and destitute that could not afford to pay for appropriate health care. A good many non-Catholic Christian groups have also established such institutions.
In the recent magisterium of the Catholic Church, we can see the recognition of healthcare as a basic human right belonging to all human beings. This was proclaimed by Pius XI in his Encyclical letter, Quadragesimo Anno, n. 28, John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 42, par. 3, and Benedict XVI in his Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, n. 43. This position has been reiterated in letters to Congress by Bishops William Murphy on July 17th and of Cardinal Justin Rigali of August 11th.
The evident fact that society has an obligation to provide health care to those persons who are not able to obtain it by themselves, should not lead to the conclusion that this service should be provided by the Federal Government. A health care system administered by the Federal Government presents a multitude of problems.
Some have ascertained that the health care reform that is currently being considered by Congress is based on the good end of providing health coverage to all those who lack it. But there are reasonable grounds to be doubtful about this. There could be reasonable concern and doubt if that stated good end is just a cover up and a Trojan Horse to promote birth control and family planning, to expand in horrible ways the availability of abortion, to legalize euthanasia and to overwhelm the rights of conscience of all the persons that are rightfully opposed to those immoral acts.
We have to keep in mind that rights of conscience are violated not only by forcing a person to do what is against his beliefs, but also forcing him to refer a patient to another. If the rights of conscience of health care providers, medical workers and other health care personnel like nurses and pharmacists are not respected it would have catastrophic consequences for American society. All Catholic hospitals and probably many others belonging to different religious groups will have to close, and a substantial amount of their health care personnel will have to leave their professions or emigrate.
We also have to consider that this health program or any other administered by the Federal Government is another step towards socialism, and as a consequence towards the establishment of a despotic and dictatorial government.
Today we witness a constant growth of government programs that control increasing sectors of society. Those programs as a whole represent a growing erosion of the legitimate and traditional freedoms of individuals, and of many organic and natural intermediate societies like the family, villages and towns and the States of the Union.
The persons who established the American Republic were well aware of the risks of despotism that go hand in hand with the existence of a powerful central government They placed in the Constitution all sort of checks and balances. The establishment of a national health care system would be another step towards the erosion of those constitutional guarantees.
A serious concern shared by most persons who are aware of the U.S. health care system's problems is the continuing massive increase in the cost of that system. The constant growth of the Federal deficit makes it very unlikely that the central government will reduce those health care costs. More so, what is likely to happen is that the establishment of the proposed reformed national health care system will instead expand the cost of that system through a bloated bureaucracy that will actively promote a materialistic anti-life ideology.
The establishment of this health system will be an attack of the organic principle of subsidiarity. Instead, Americans need to design and develop all sorts of initiatives: first, at a local level, and then at a State level, that would provide some guarantees of health care assistance to the poor and destitute. Taking into account the principle of gratuity so well developed in the encyclical of Benedict XVI Caritas in Veritate, the establishment of non-profit medical facilities and non-profit insurance groups should be encouraged. In the current demographic circumstances those institutions should give a priority to the protection of well established large families.
Last, but not least, the cost of the proposed system should be taken into account. During this time of economic crisis, the tax burden upon American citizens should not be increased. But it should also be considered that excessive taxation not only paves the way towards despotism, it damages the economy. It paves the way towards despotism because one of the guarantees of personal freedom, the establishment of a family patrimony, would be eroded by overtaxation. It damages the economy by killing economic incentive and eliminating disposable income, two of the growth engines of a free market economy.
All persons of good will should make a serious effort to understand the deleterious implications of the Obama administration's initiatives and oppose this health care reform, through prayer and all possible moral and legal means.
LifeSiteNews
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
More: here.
StopTheAbortionMandate.com Launches Video Galvanizing "Largest Pro-Life Coalition Ever Assembled" (8/20/09)
Click here
AUGUST RECESS ACTION Stop the Abortion Mandate Toolkit
Catholic Medical Association Opposes Health Care Bill Over End-of-Life Section
Elderly Should be Scared of Obama Administration Over End-of-Life "Death Panels"
Protecting Health Care Freedom of Conscience: A National Tradition
Health Care Reform Should Include Telling Women of Abortion Risks, Problems
Health Care Reform Bill Would Allow Abortion Business in Public School Clinics
FOCA-by-Stealth Timeline: How Congress and the Obama Administration are Implementing FOCA by Stealth
Pro-Life Do's and Don'ts (Father Tom Euteneuer, Human Life International President)
Poll shows public opinion about health care bill and abortion funding
USCCB Pro-Life Activities (re: health care reform issues)
National Right to Life
Pro-Life Talking Points
and lastly, a "human interest" story:
"Stoning of Soraya M" Star Jim Caviezel: Pro-Life More Important Than My Career
Lord Jesus, you are the Divine Physician,
And the source of all life and health.
Guide our nation at this critical moment,
As our government seeks health care reforms.
Give our elected officials the humility to know
That they are servants, not masters.
Give them the wisdom to realize
That every life has equal value.
Give them the strength to resist the idea
That some lives can be sacrificed to save others
Or that killing the unborn is a part of health care.
Give your people the courage to speak up
And to hold public officials accountable for their actions.
Save us, Lord Jesus, from a culture of death,
And let every reform in our public policy
Be based on the reform of our hearts and minds
In the light of your Gospel,
For you are Lord forever and ever. Amen.
Prayer source: Priests for Life
From Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States (USCCB):
“The Church’s obligation to participate in shaping the moral character of society is a requirement of our faith. It is a basic part of the mission we have received from Jesus Christ…”
“Our nation’s tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions and concerns into public life. Indeed, our Church’s teaching is in accord with the foundational values that have shaped our nation’s history: ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”
“In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation.”
Maintain the truth lovingly, and always love truthfully.(Pope John Paul II)
One can only imagine a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran's health-care system that seems intent on his surrender.
I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update "Your Life, Your Choices" between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives:
the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").
This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients.
America's 24 million veterans deserve better.
If so, leave a comment and we'll add you to the blogroll.
Atom Feed (xml)
