A recent commenter asked the question, "Why pray...does it help?" The commenter included a link to his blog which has as its
most recent post a lengthy look at prayer. Because I thought the commenter raised a good question, I have decided to write a few posts on prayer.
Although he raised a few points at the beginning of his post, I would like to first address information he included at the end regarding a study which sought to determine the efficacy of prayer for patients with heart problems. As he points out the patients were divided into four groups: a) one were assigned people to pray for them; b)one received MIT (music, imagery and touch) therapy; c) one received both distance prayer and MIT therapy; and d) one received no additional therapy. He notes that the study found that there was no clinical difference in the groups of patients.
The problem I find with this study is the assumption about prayer. Prayer is not like a therapy or even a medicine with somewhat predictable results. Instead prayer is speaking with a Person. It is mysterious because it is speaking with God. However, even everyday conversation with a human is somewhat mysterious. In the case of prayer, it is a conversation between a human and God.
Just because someone prays for another person to be healed does not mean that it will occur. There might be many reasons for this, but at the heart of the matter it is because prayer is the means of communication in a relationship between a human and God.
Consider a parallel human relationship. Children often approach their parents with all manner of requests. A good parent does not consent to every request that a child poses. For example, it would be dangerous for a parent to give a small child a pair of sharp scissors. It is very likely that to grant that request, the parent would be putting the child in a position to harm himself.
But wait, what about the request for a physical healing such as heart condition? Surely, God, who is all-loving and all-powerful would grant such a request. From experience, the answer is clearly no. Perhaps for the same reason. If the person is healed of a heart disease there might be a greater danger that will result. Such a danger could be pride as the person does not recognize the opportunity that his heart disease gave him to gain a new perspective on life. Instead of dealing with issues in his own life that he would have faced if he had thought his life was shortened, he ignores problems and proceeds with his life without heart disease, but with a hardened heart instead.
Now I recognize that it easy to talk about this in the abstract, but it is difficult to accept in your own life. However, there are many instances which I can think of where God did not answer my prayer in the way I wanted Him to answer my prayer. That can be very frustrating. However, there are some of these times when I later realized that if He had granted my request, I would have missed something better which came along later.
The other aspect of this is that requests of God are only part of our communication with Him. Think about a human relationship in which the one person only asks the other for favors. This is a rather odd relationship. The same can be said for someone who only prays to ask God for things. God hears every request, but perhaps an answer of no is to teach me that there is more to my relationship with God than simply asking Him for this or that.
Regarding the study of the patients. There is also the issue of the patients. Simply having someone pray for you may not make a difference in your own life if you are not open God. For instance, if a heart patient is filled with bitterness and hatred of God, he may not be open to being healed of his disease. The patient has a free will that may be in such a state that God, who will not force Himself on anyone, is unable to act.
The upshot of this is that prayer can be a tremendous help. Prayer can help me realize who I am and who God is. He is not a big slot machine in the sky which I may play until I hit a jackpot. Instead He is a Father who knows what is best for me, despite what I may think. Also, He desires a relationship with me. It should be child-like in that I should be free to ask Him for whatever I want, but it should also be a relationship like a child has with his parent in trusting His answer is the best for me no matter how difficult that is for me to see. And it should be a relationship of love in which the child knows he is loved by the parent and the child freely loves in return. This can certainly help me to see beyond myself and realize that I live in a world that is much bigger than me.
Posted by David at
11:59 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
Today is the optional memorial of Our Lady of Fatima. It celebrates the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary to three Portuguese shepherd children--Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco-- from May 13 until October 13, 1917. The overall message of our Lady to the children was one of a call to repentance, dedication to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and increased prayer especially the Rosary.
The children actually received apparitions prior to the visits from our Lady. In 1916, the children were visited three times by the Guardian Angel of Portugal. Under obedience to her Bishop, Lucia recorded information about all of the apparitions. She recounts the first apparition of the angel, which occurred while they were shepherding their families few sheep:
We ate our lunch and began to say the Rosary. After that we began to play a game with pebbles. We had only been at it a few moments when a strong wind began to shake the trees and we looked up to see what was happening, since it was such a calm day. And then we began to see, in the distance, above the trees that stretched to the east, a light whiter than snow in the form of a young man, quite transparent, and as brilliant as crystal in the rays of the sun. As he came near we were able to see his features. We were astonished and absorbed and we said nothing to one another. And then he said:
Do not be afraid. I am the angel of peace. Pray with me.
He knelt, bending his forehead to the ground. With a supernatural impulse we did the same, repeating the words we heard him say:
My God, I believe, I adore, I hope, and I love You. I ask pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope, and do not love You.
After repeating this prayer three times the angel rose and said to us:
Pray in this way. The hearts of Jesus and Mary are ready to listen to you.
And he disappeared. He left us in an atmosphere of the supernatural that was so intense we were for a long time unaware of our own existence. The presence of God was so powerful and intimate that even among ourselves we could not speak. On the next day, too, this same atmosphere held us bound, and it lessened and disappeared only gradually. None of us thought of talking about this apparition or any pledge of secrecy. We were locked in silence without having willed it.
His words sank so deeply into our minds that we never forgot them, and ever after we used to spend long periods on our knees repeating them, sometimes until we fell down exhausted.
It is interesting the strong call that God had upon the lives of these three children. The second apparition, again expressed in the words of Lucia, reveals the seriousness of what was being asked of the children.
Suddenly we saw the same angel near us.
What are you doing? You must pray! Pray! The hearts of Jesus and Mary have merciful designs for you. You must offer your prayers and sacrifices to God, the Most High.
"But how are we to sacrifice?" I asked.
In every way you can offer sacrifice to God in reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication for sinners. In this way you will bring peace to our country, for I am its guardian angel, the Angel of Portugal. Above all, bear and accept with patience the sufferings God will send you.
The Angels' words sank deeply into our souls like a gleaming torch, showing us Who God is, what is His love for us, and how he wants us to love Him too; the value of sacrifice and how it pleases Him; how He receives it for the conversion of sinners. That is why from that moment we began to offer Him whatever mortified us.
The third visit by the angel to the children in the fall of 1916, was a final preparation for the visits by our Lady. Lucia records;
We lifted our heads to see what was happening. The Angel was holding in his left hand a chalice and over it, in the air, was a host from which drops of blood fell into the chalice. The Angel leaves the chalice in the air, kneels near us and tells us to repeat three times:
Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore You profoundly, and I offer You the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He is offended. And by the infinite merits of His most Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg the conversion of poor sinners.
After that he rose, took again in his hand the chalice and the host. The host he gave to me and the contents of the chalice he gave to Jacinta and Francisco, saying at the same time,
Eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ terribly outraged by the ingratitude of men. Offer reparation for their sakes and console God.
Once more he bowed to the ground repeating with us the same prayer thrice: Oh, Blessed Trinity etc. and disappeared. Overwhelmed by the supernatural atmosphere that involved us, we imitated the Angel in everything, kneeling prostrate as he did and repeating the prayers he said.
The message of reparation for sins is again strongly emphasized. It might seem difficult to understand God's choice of these three children, the oldest being only ten years of age, to make reparation for the sins of others, but it seems to only underscore the need for all of us to make reparation for our own sins and offer up sacrifices for the sins of others. Perhaps we cannot do the "great things" that others can, but we can offer up our "small offerings" of our daily life in love to God. It is perhaps a facet of the spiritual life to which I am not familiar.
I certainly did not grow up learning anything about patiently bearing suffering or offering my suffering to God as an act of love. And I was not taught a theology of making reparation for sins. However, the idea of taking up one's cross as Jesus called us to do clearly means bearing our burdens in love and offering them as sacrifices to God. Unlike Jesus, these should be made for our own sins out of love for the forgiveness that He gives us. And like Jesus, these sacrifices should also be made for others.
The crosses are already there in my life as they are in the lives of everyone. The question which God seems to ask is what will I do with them. I used to think that a stoic approach would be best. Now, I realize, although I fail miserably in practice, that these crosses are opportunities to grow in love. It is not simply a matter of gritting my teeth and making it through a bad situation, or even worse my ignoring the problem in order that it will go away. Instead, it is a matter of accepting what God has allowed, praying for grace, wisdom, and strength, and then offering the entire situation to God. I know if I do that He will use it to transform me and perhaps make a difference in someone else's life, as well.
Picture Source
Posted by David at
9:30 AM
|
Comments (3)
|
Link
Requiescat in Pace: Andrea Clark
I feel very badly that I have not posted this earlier. On Sunday, May 7th, Andrea Clark, who fought to stay alive despite her hospital's attempt to discontinue her care under a Texas law, passed away in Houston. From her sister:
Andrea passed away peacefully a little before 3pm today, with her family and her friends at her bedside. We love her so very much and we are going to miss her terribly. We hope that the battle that we fought for our sister will bring to light and bear witness to the horrible acts committed in the name of ethics in hospitals across the state of Texas.
The fact that we had to fight this battle is both frightening and a sad commentary on the so-called "ethics" now being practiced in medical facilities in this state. The battle for life is a difficult one, in the best of situations, but when a family is put through what we had to go through at such a time, it is especially agonizing.
We wish so much that we could have spent more time at our sister's side, when she was living and fighting for her life, rather than having to visit our attorney's office, give interviews to radio and television stations to let the public know of the atrocity about to befall Andrea, and literally stand outside the hospital and beg them not to kill our sister. In attempting to deprive Andrea of the most basic of her human rights--life--St. Luke's Hospital managed to deprive her family and her of that which is most dear to us all, when we are faced with the death of a loved one: a proper goodbye.
How, in the name of God, anyone can call putting someone to death when they are at their most helpless and begging for their lives "ethical," we cannot imagine.
Melanie Childers
Source
I pray for the peace, rest, and repose of her soul. And I extend my deepest sympathies to her friends and family who are mourning her death.
Posted by David at
7:58 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
Why Confess your sins to a Priest?
I recently received the following email:
I have a friend who is educated in Catholic schools. She said the Bible states that you are forgiven upon confession to a Catholic priest. What is she reading? Please tell me where this is found in the Scriptures? She can not tell me. In need of help.
I appreciated the question because it made me think of why I do believe that it is necessary to confess my sins to a priest. The shortest answer is that I trust that Christ established the sacrament of confession, and He provides this sacrament through His Church. However, as the questioner asked, where is the foundation for this article of the Catholic Faith? The question begs the idea that it is always helpful to have solid support for what you believe. I thought of at least two passages in Scripture which point to the need for aural confession of sins, but I needed to do a little more searching to provide a cogent, but somewhat brief reply. One online resource that I used for my answer (and which I would recommend) is the
Bible Christian Society.
The Bible does teach that sins are forgiven through what Catholics call the sacrament of confession. The sacrament of confession is the way that God has provided for the forgiveness of sins. In James 5:16, we are exhorted to confess our sins to one another. The passage does not say that we are to confess our sins to God alone. Instead, we are to confess our sins to one another.
In John 20:21-23, we read:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
The passage describes the apostles' encounter with the risen Lord. He sends the apostles forth with the authority which He received from the Father. Part of that authority is the ability to forgive sins. (See Matthew 9:6 where Jesus indicates that He has the authority to forgive sins.) Of course, only God can forgive sins, yet, because the apostles are sent with the authority of the Father through Jesus, they have the authority to forgive sins. It is God who forgives sins, but He works
through the apostles and their successors to administer that forgiveness.
However, in order to forgive sins, priests must know what the sins are. Therefore, it is necessary to confess sins. Unless the sins are submitted to the authority of a priest, they cannot be forgiven.
In order to provide for future generations, the authority to forgive sins can be passed on to other men. It has been passed on from the apostles to today's priests. Thus, today's priests have the same authority in order to give people the opportunity to have their sins forgiven as Jesus established.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Posted by David at
12:08 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
Today has turned out to be a day off of sorts. My wife started to feel poorly last night, and although she thought she might be well enough to take care of our daughter today, I was only at work for an hour before she called to say that I should come home. Fortunately, I work within ten minutes of our home so I was able to wrap a few things up and head home to take care of our daughter while my wife rested.
It appears that she has what I had last week. It is much like the flu with chills, body aches, fever, upset stomach, and vomiting. However, it does not seem to be the flu because it does not last long. And that is about the only good news about what she has: it does not last long.
Actually, when I got the illness last week I thought I had food poisoning. I was at a conference out of town, and the end of one of the days I started to feel a stomach illness. My wife and daughter had joined me on the trip, and we were scheduled to meet with a classmate of mine and his family for dinner. I went ahead with the plans without telling anyone I was not feeling well. Although I had to go to the restroom before the food arrived, I managed to make it through the dinner. After the dinner, the illness really struck me. However, after a night's sleep, I felt much better. I was still fairly weak so I did not go to the conference the next day in order to take some time off to recover.
The shortness of the illness made me assume that it was food poisoning. However, now that both my wife and daughter have had the same thing, I assume it must be some viral illness. Fortunately, when our twenty-month-old daughter was ill, it was very brief. She never really even acted ill. After a fairly rough period, my wife does appear to be on the mend.
In the meantime during my "day off", I enjoyed going outside with our daughter to walk around the azaleas, which are starting to lose their blooms, and the recently bloomed peonies and rhododendron. The weather recently has been absolutely perfect, and today was no exception. It was sunny with no discernible humidity and around 70 degrees. I weeded while our daughter practiced climbing up the very uneven railroad tie stairs that go from the side to the front of the house. She seemed quite happy that I was home even as she enjoyed when I was sick last week in the apartment we had rented while we were out of town. I, too, have very much enjoyed the extra time I have been able to spend with her today. Maybe next time it will not be a necessity, but a time for all three of us to enjoy the day.
Posted by David at
10:44 PM
|
Comments (0)
|
I will be taking a brief blogging break as I will be out of town for a week. Although I will not be away from the Internet, the change in my schedule will probably not permit my adding any new posts. I plan on resuming early in the second week of May.
Posted by David at
12:38 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
Update on Andrea Clark: No Transfer to Illinois
Both
Blogs for Terri and
Wesley Smith are reporting that the plan to move Andrea Clark from St. Luke's Hospital in Houston, TX to a facility in Illinois has been cancelled. Apparently, the Illinois facility would not be able to provide the level of care that Ms. Clark needs.
The problem with this is that the Houston hospital now has the legal right to stop providing Ms. Clark care as of today, April 30th. Despite some assurances given, perhaps only given verbally, it is not clear whether the hospital will permit Ms. Clark to continue to receive care until a suitable facility may be found for her. Ms. Clark's sister is naturally trying via an attorney to get a written assurance that the hospital will not stop her sister's care over the weekend and perhaps even until Tuesday.
She said that they told her that they won't do it over the weekend. However, they have the right to disconnect Andrea, according to the law, on Sunday, April 30, unless they agree to do otherwise in writing. This means that, at any moment, on Sunday, or afterwards, they can go up to Andrea's room and turn off her respirator, without notifying anyone of this decision, without her family by her side as she dies, without allowing anyone to say goodbye.
Ms. Clark, her family, and supporters on the ground need our prayers and action. Click
here for information on who to contact.
Posted by David at
12:47 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
Pope St. Nicholas V List: Smart Sex
The most recent recommendation from the
Pope St. Nicholas V list is
Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World.
Fear is at the heart of the sexual revolution—fear of other people, fear of relationships, fear of permanence—and its most fitting monument is the "hook-up." In a provocative new book, Jennifer Roback Morse exposes the sexual revolution’s fraudulent promise of freedom and points the way to the most thrilling human adventure of all: life-long love.
Morse explains why marriage is in crisis and why we should care. Strong, lasting marriages, she argues, are essential for the survival of a free society, not to mention basic human happiness. She fires the opening shots of a new sexual revolution and shows how everyone, married or single, can help. By the end of the twentieth century, most people had joined the once-radical sexual revolutionaries in embracing a pair of badly flawed ideas—that freedom means being unencumbered by relationships, and that sex is a purely private activity with no moral or social significance. Morse shows how these ideas reduced sex to a commodity--"consumer sex"--and left millions of people miserable.
Morse fearlessly explodes some of modern society’s most cherished, and destructive, myths. She argues that reproductive freedom is an illusion, recreational sex isn’t really fun, and sex is neither morally neutral nor essentially private. She offers a radically different yet compelling view of sex, based on the law of self-giving inscribed in our human nature.
A practical book by a practical woman, SMART SEX is about why and how to stay married. While most books on relationships deal with feelings and communication, SMART SEX is focused on the nature and meaning of sex and marriage, leading the reader to an appreciation of the demanding yet rewarding commitments they require.
I cannot say that I have read this book, but it certainly looks like a good read. For information which you would need to request the book for your local public library, click
here. Also, consider joining the
Pope St. Nicholas V email list to receive the emails with all of the information and suggested books.
Also, the author of this book, Jennifer Roback Morse, is currently involved in an online debate on the question of whether contraception is good for society. The debate is hosted by
Marriage Debate. (Scroll down to the beginning of the debate.)
Posted by David at
12:30 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
Link
Good News for both Clark and Vo
There is an update on the two women Andrea Clark and Lang Yen Thi Vo who have been facing the prospect of dying in hospitals because the hospitals refused to provide them the care which they need. In both hospitals, under a Texas futile care law, the decision has been made to terminate the necessary care that each woman needs. The law provides for 10 days before either the patient is removed or the hospital stops the care which they consider to be futile. Neither woman is terminally ill, but under the provisions of the law, the hospitals have determined that the care the women receive is only prolonging their dying. In the case of Andrea Clark, 54, who has suffered from bleeding in her head following a January surgery on her heart, the St. Luke's Hospital in Houston, TX had determined that April 30th would be the last day that Ms. Clark would receive dialysis and respirator care. For Ms. Vo, 63, who has suffered a number of strokes, the North Austin Medical Center hospital in Austin, TX was prepared to stop life support tomorrow.
After negotiations between the family and the St. Luke's hospital, Andrea Clark will be transported from to a facility in Illinois. The facility in Illinois has agreed to continue Clark's care. Naturally, the family is disappointed in being forced to have Ms. Clark transported to a facility which is so far from Texas. However, given the inhuman futile care law in Texas, Ms. Clark and the family might be very grateful to be outside of Texas.
In Ms. Vo's case, the family has been able, through a court action, to extend the ten day deadline that is provided by law. The hospital has agreed to extend the deadline until June 3. The extra time is only given to allow the family to find another facility which would provide Ms. Vo the care which she needs.
We can thank God for this good news for both of these women. It comes in the face of what is really quite an unbelievable occasion. In both cases, the hospitals are not refusing to provide treatment which had not yet been given. Instead, they are deciding to stop providing treatment which has already been given and proven effective. Members of both families want to see that their loved one continues to receive care, and in the case of Ms. Clark, she has been able to express her wishes to live. Also, in Ms. Clark's case, she has private insurance which is paying for her care. (I am not certain of Ms. Vo's insurance situation.) All of this has not seemed to matter to the hospitals who have been quick to use the Texas futile care law to demand that the patients be removed or left to die within 10 days of the hospitals' decisions. Ms. Vo has correctly received an extension because it is simply an absurd request to give only 10 days to transport someone to another facility. And, given the hospital climate in Texas based on this law, it almost forces the patient to leave the state. I pray that she too is sent to a facility that will give her the care which she needs.
Source
Posted by David at
12:09 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
Link
Andrea Clark's Fight Continues
The situation for Andrea Clark in Texas continues to worsen. The hospital in Houston where the fully conscience and privately insured patient is now receiving care, is prepared to stop her respirator and dialysis treatment on Sunday, April 30th. As the family continues to look for another facility in Texas which will take Ms. Clark and provide her with the care that she needs, the hospital that is ready to terminate her life has offered a deal to the family.
According to a post dated April 27, 2006 on Blogs for Terri,
St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital has just notified the family that they are willing to pay the almost $17,000 to move Andrea to Illinois if they will immediately - that's TODAY, move Andrea out of St. Lukes to the Illinois facility. If the family waits until tomorow to decide, St. Lukes will only pay half. And if the family can't make a decision by tomorow, the hospital may consider to pay absolutely nothing. In other words, the hospital is attempting to force Andrea out of the hospital in order to stop the financial drain of the cost of her care.
The family is urging people to contact the hospital to let the hospital know that what is being done to Ms. Clark is unacceptable. The hospital may be contacted via:
St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
6720 Bertner Ave., Houston, TX 77030
(832) 355-1000 (Main number)
generalinformation@sleh.com
Posted by David at
8:13 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
Two Texas Women slated to die
There are currently two women in the state of Texas who are living under a sentence of death. Neither has committed a crime. Neither are they currently incarcerated. Instead, they are guilty of requiring medical care which their physicians have determined should no longer be provided them despite their own wishes and the wishes of their family members.
There is a provision under Texas law which allows hospitals to refuse to give care despite the expressed desires of the patient and their families. In both of these women's cases, the hospitals have invoked these law provisions to decide that within ten days of the hospitals' decisions, the care will either be suspended or the patients will have been moved to other facilities.
The more widely known case is that of Andrea Clark who has been a patient of St. Luke's in Houston since November of last year. In January of this year she underwent open-heart surgery, and in February she began bleeding in her head. She currently requires a respirator and dialysis. However, she is not terminally ill, and her health care is being provided through her own private insurance. The attending physician has determined that continued care is futile. Under the provisions of the Futile Care Law, the physician's decision was reviewed by a hospital ethics committee who agreed with the decision.
Under Chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Andrea's in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be non-beneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient). These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients. In 2003, they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors. One of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee. Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. The bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush. The statute was designed to keep these cases out of court. Source
However, provisions in the law also require that the hospital and the attending physician assist in any type of transfer of the patient. The family of Andrea Clark, indicate that hospital has not cooperated in their efforts to have Andrea transferred.
Clark's sisters, Lanore Dixon and Melanie Childers, point out that under a little known Texas law, a self-appointed ethics committee can decide to forcibly remove care from a patient. Once that decision is made, the patient and family have 10 days to find another hospital to provide care for their family member.
But they say the law also requires that the attending physician help with the transfer which they say hasn't been done in Andrea's case. They say that the hospital has unlawfully and unjustly transferred responsibility to them, a denial of due process.
...
Houston hospitals have a policy in that once the medical treatment of a patient has been deemed "medically futile" no other hospital in the area will accept transfer of that patient to their facility. This means that the patient, who is usually in a very delicate condition anyway, has to be transported over a long distance, in order to receive care, her sister explains.
When asked if Andrea is capable of being transferred to another facility, the hospital hedges but reluctantly admits that she could be, according to the sisters. Hospital representatives will not discuss the case with media.
Source
Andrea's family and Andrea herself have expressed her desire to live.
Family members say that even though their sister can't speak, they know her wish is to live. They say that she can communicate by moving her lips and blinking her eyes.
"If their ethics committee makes a decision, it doesn't matter what the patient wants," Dixon said. "It doesn't even apparently matter what the patient's condition is, because our sister is not in a coma, she's not brain dead," Dixon said.
...
"Andrea, until a few days ago, when the physicians decided to increase her pain medication and anesthetize her into unconsciousness, was fully able to make her own medical decisions and had decided that she wanted life saving treatment until she dies naturally", Childers said. "We have learned that this is part of the process, when hospitals decided to declare the "medical futility" of continuing treatment for a patient.
"Andrea, when she is not medicated into unconsciousness (and even when she is, and the medication has worn off to some degree) is aware and cognizant", her sister said. "She has suffered no brain damage to the parts of her brain responsible for thought and reason or speech. She has only suffered loss of some motor control. The reason that the physician gave to medicate her so much is that she is suffering from intractable pain in the sacral region (in other words, she has a bedsore that causes her pain). This is not reason enough, in our books, and we are trying, as we speak, to get Andrea's medication lowered so that she can speak to us.
"There is also some disagreement as well as to whether Andrea is really in that much pain. When she is not medicated to this degree, and she sees her son, Charles, she smiles. She also mouths words (Andrea is very vocal, normally, even with a trach, and asks for food, etc., when she is not overly medicated) Andrea has voiced her wishes, over and over again, an d if she were not on so much pain medication, she would voice them again", Melanie says. Source
Another woman, Yelang Vo, finds herself in the same straits. According to Jerri Lynn Ward of the
Texas Advance Directives Blog,
Ms. Vo is in her 60's. She is a patient at St. David's North
Austin Medical Center here in Austin, Texas. She has been diagnosed with persistent vegetative state--but that is disputed by the family. Ms. Vo's daughter, Loann Trihn, is an emergency room doctor and she disputes the diagnosis. Such a diagnosis is very subjective and involves clinical assessments. Dr. Trihn and her father have both witnessed her mother being responsive.
The attending physician wishes to withdraw dialysis, That is not acceptable to the family--and it against the express wishes of the patient expressed before she became unable to communicate. Ms. Vo needs a new shunt surgically implanted for her dialysis. She is receiving it by a different means at the present. The physician, apparently, does not believe that her state of life justifies the surgery.
Withdrawal of dialysis with no further attempt at creating a surgical access port not only condemns Ms. Vo to a rapid and untimely death, but prevents any initiation of dialysis on an outpatient basis should her sepsis be successfully treated and maximum medical improvement be obtained. The family have all observed signs that the mother retains certain cognitive abilities which may well improve with continued treatment. Removing dialysis is a preemptive and premature act which deprives her of a more natural path toward a peaceful end of life and is contrary to her expressed wishes to fight with all her strength until her time has come. Dialysis is no longer an extreme procedure and is performed for many patients on a routine outpatient basis and can in some case be self administered. To deny such a service in a critically ill patient without family consent and access to judicial due process is ethically, morally and very possibly legally wrong. The care for this lady should continue according to the highest current medical standard. Source
Ms. Vo is facing the same problem that she would require a transfer to a distant medical facility.
The irony in this is, of course, how the law that is being used to provide cover for those who are taking the lives of these two women was supported by pro-life organizations and unanimously passed by both Texas houses and signed into law by then Governor Bush. In other words, a great number of people who thought they were doing a good thing to keep these type of health care disputes out of courts have given the power to hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies to determine whether people should receive adequate care or not. As these two cases illustrate, the law has actually stripped away a patient's protection from those who would want to deny them adequate care. Patients now find themselves in the hands of people who seem far more concerned about costs than about people. Clearly, the supporters of this law did not read the language very carefully. Or perhaps some, such as the Hemlock Society, who testified in support of the law, did understand the implications of the law. Because what the law does is provide just yet one more inroad for euthanasia.
H/T:
Blogs for Terri
Posted by David at
7:50 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
