<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffcc" text="#000000">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<img alt="" src="cid:part1.01040602.02010103@pfli.org" height="137"
width="887"><br>
<font color="#3333ff"><b><big><big><font face="Calisto MT">PharmFacts
E-News Update -- 13 Nov 2009 AD<br>
</font></big></big></b></font><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: arial;"><font size="3"><font
color="#990000"><strong>This daily e-newsletter is only possible
through the generous gifts of our readers and supporters. Please help
us continue to fight for the defense of babies by donating
today!</strong></font><strong> </strong><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html"><strong>Click
here</strong></a><strong><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html">
</a><font color="#990000">to
help or to renew your dues online TODAY!</font></strong></font></span><br>
<font color="#3333ff"><big><big><font face="Calisto MT"><small><small><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></small></small></font></big></big></font><font face="Verdana"
size="2"><font face="Verdana" size="2"><tt><font color="#ff0000"><font
face="Calisto MT, serif"><font face="ARIAL, VERDANA, HELVETICA"><font
size="6"><br>
<!--START MAIN HEADLINE--> <img
src="cid:part2.03030509.07000709@pfli.org" width="250"> <br>
<a href="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=09111101">
<b><i><u><font color="red"><font size="+3">BIGGEST LOSER...</font></font></u></i></b></a><b><i><u>
<br>
<!--END MAIN HEADLINE-->
<a href="http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=22529"><b><i><u><font
size="+1">Abortifacients and money laundering alleged...</font></u></i></b></a><br>
<br>
</u></i></b></font></font></font></font></tt></font></font><font
face="Verdana" size="2"><font face="Verdana" size="2"><tt><b><i><u><img
src="cid:part3.00090902.07080406@pfli.org" width="200"><br>
<big><a href="http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=84895&N=489&L=3491&F=H">
<b><i><u>VICTORY OR DEFEAT BY STEALTH?...</u></i></b></a>
<br>
<big><br>
</big></big></u></i></b></tt></font></font><big><font face="Verdana"
size="2"><big><font face="Verdana" size="2"><big><big><tt><b><u><i><a
href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r111:3:./temp/%7Er11111ud8j::">
<b><i><u>Pertinent Sections of HR 3962 showing LOTS of anti-life
funding continues...</u></i></b></a>
</i></u></b></tt></big></big>
<hr><big><big><tt><b><u><i><b><i><u><a
href="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=09110605"><b><i><u>PHONY
ABORTION COMPROMISE EXPOSED IN HOUSE BILL...</u></i></b></a>
</u></i></b></i></u></b></tt></big></big>
<hr><big><big><tt><b><u><i><b><i><u><b><i><u><a
href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110707.html"><b><i><u>220-215...</u></i></b></a>
</u></i></b></u></i></b></i></u></b></tt></big></big></font></big></font></big><br>
<hr size="2" width="100%"><font color="#810081"><b><a
href="http://themoderatevoice.com/52547/14-killed-at-fort-hood-not-13-as-reported-why/"
target="_blank">14 Killed at Fort Hood, Not 13 As Reported.
Why?</a></b></font>
<br>
Posted by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Deputy Managing Editor,
Columnist
in
<a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/category/education/"
target="_blank">Education</a>,
<a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/category/health/" target="_blank">Health</a>,
<a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/category/media/" target="_blank">Media</a>,
<a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/category/politics/" target="_blank">Politics</a>,
<a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/category/religion/" target="_blank">Religion</a>,
<a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/category/science/" target="_blank">Science
&
Technology</a>,
<a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/category/society/" target="_blank">Society</a>,
<a href="http://themoderatevoice.com/category/war/" target="_blank">War</a>.<br>
<a
href="http://themoderatevoice.com/52547/14-killed-at-fort-hood-not-13-as-reported-why/#respond"
target="_blank">
Nov 10th, 2009 |
</a><a
href="http://themoderatevoice.com/52547/14-killed-at-fort-hood-not-13-as-reported-why/#disqus_thread"
target="_blank">Comments</a><br>
<br>
<div align="center">
<img src="cid:part4.02080207.02020503@pfli.org" alt="Velez_1518491c.jpg"
height="199" width="317"><br>
</div>
<br>
<small>Fourteen were killed at Fort
Hood, not thirteen as reported all week long. Which official is
correcting the death toll? <br>
<br>
Francheska Velez was a 21-year-old woman, shot to death by Major Nidal
Hssan at Fort Hood Army Base. <br>
<br>
Nine weeks into her pregnancy, Army Private Velez had just called her
cousin in Chicago on Thursday to say how excited she was about the
child
growing inside her. By night, she and her child were both dead,
bringing
the death toll at Fort Hood to 14 total. Not 13.</small><font
color="#3333ff"><big><big><font face="Calisto MT"><small><small><font
color="#000000"><small>
</small><br>
</font></small></small></font></big></big></font>
<hr size="2" width="100%"><small><font color="#3333ff"><big><big><font
face="Calisto MT"><small><small><font color="#000000"><br>
</font></small></small></font></big></big></font></small>
<div class="authordate" _extended="true">
<div class="authordate" _extended="true"><small>1.http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/give_me_obamacare_and_my_grandmom_is_doomed/</small></div>
<small></small>
<div class="authordate" _extended="true"><small><a class="navLink1"
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/sections/author_page/give_me_obamacare_and_my_grandmom_is_doomed/"
_extended="true">Summer Johnson</a> | Friday, 13 November 2009<br
_extended="true">
tags : <a title="bioethics"
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/bioethics"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">bioethics</font></a>, <a
title="death panels"
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/death+panels"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">death panels</font></a>, <a
title="Obamacare"
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/Obamacare"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">Obamacare</font></a></small></div>
<small></small>
<h1 _extended="true"><small>Give me ObamaCare and my grandmom is doomed?</small></h1>
<small></small>
<h2 _extended="true"><small>The case for: a leading American
bioethicist defends the Obama Administration’s proposals as fairer,
cheaper and more trustworthy. </small></h2>
<small>
</small>
<p _extended="true"><small><strong _extended="true">What is the system
now?</strong> </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>The current United States healthcare system
can be summarized in a few words: under-performing, over-priced, and
inequitable. Unlike the UK or Canada, the US has for a large
employer-based healthcare system, which means that many -- children and
adults -- receive healthcare benefits via their employer. The remainder
receives benefits from three other government sponsored programs:
Medicaid (for those of a socioeconomic status too low to be able to
afford to pay for health insurance and do not qualify for
employer-based insurance) and Medicare (for those over the age of 65)
and the Veterans Administration system. There are a few other
categories of individuals who qualify for these government programs
including the chronically disabled, etc, but this is it in a nutshell. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>So if I had to add a fourth word to describe
the United States healthcare system I would use: potpourri; and I don’t
mean the good smelling kind. I mean a mish-mash of systems and
providers. Worst of all, when the United States has an unemployment
rate of 9.5 percent as of October 2009, this adds another nearly 10
percent of people who cannot receive insurance via their employer. This
is where an employer-based system of providing healthcare coverage
breaks down. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>There must be another way. Millions of
Americans are using COBRA (short-term gap coverage for recently
terminated employees offered by employers) now subsidized by the
government now under ARRA, plus Medicare, plus Medicaid. Thus, the
public option so hated by critics of reform is doing quite well, thank
you, IS effectively providing health insurance for a HUGE proportion of
the nation. Failing to extend insurance options to the rest of the
American 45.7 million Americans is a true moral failing. </small></p>
<small><strong _extended="true">
<p _extended="true">What will the new system probably look like? </p>
</strong></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>The "new system", most commonly known as the
"public option", scares many people because critics have obscured the
fact that most Americans use government sponsored healthcare --
including everyone in Congress. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>However, in fact the current proposal passed
by the House of Representatives this past Sunday simply adds one more
option to what everyone has. There will still be private insurers;
patients will still be able to choose whatever doctors they want.
Choice will still be a huge part of the "new system." </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>"So what has changed?" one might ask. The
federal government is <a
href="http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/house-democrats-unveil-health-care-bill-public-option/story?id=8946527"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">guaranteeing </font></a>that
there will be a federally run insurance program that will be available
to all Americans, the same insurance program that Senators and
Congressmen use, and it will allow an additional 90 percent or more of
uninsured Americans to have access to health insurance. This program is
most likely to be utilized by the young who cannot afford insurance
premiums in the earliest years of their careers and the working poor
who cannot afford premiums or who are not offered insurance in their
jobs. The program will compete directly with private insurers,
hopefully driving prices down, and creating greater competition in the
healthcare market -- something all free market capitalists love! This
could result in a reduction of premiums by 25 percent within the next 5
years. Yet private insurance plans will still exist and will still be
available just as they always have been -- so the employer-based
insurance system we know and some love will persevere. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>This system would allow for public provision
of health insurance options with the provision of care from any
provider patients choose. This kind of system would put us in very good
company. Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and
Taiwan all do it -- and with far better health outcomes and far less
healthcare spending. </small></p>
<small><strong _extended="true">
<p _extended="true">Is the fear over Obamacare "death panels"
exaggerated? </p>
</strong></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Absolutely. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>I mean, come on, "death panels"? When I
first heard this expression, I assumed that the Grim Reaper would be
one of the committee members. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Then I read the ridiculous stories about how
Ezekiel Emanuel wanted to kill my grandmother, I laughed out loud.
Anyone who ever has even met Zeke knows that he’s an oncologist by
medical training and would prefer that people NOT die of cancer, for
one, or anything else for that matter. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Second, his argument -- —which is actually
quite sound -- simply says that we have to allocate effort to different
cases according to those who will receive the most benefit from the
care we give them. This is the nature of rationing, which all
healthcare systems have. So tough choices have to be made in situations
when there are scarce resources. But on these panels, no one is going
to make decisions about individuals. No one is going to say,
"Washington is calling. It’s time to turn off Grandmother’s ventilator.
She’s costing the public health insurance plan too much money." </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Americans have to trust someone to make the
big decisions. For more than 40 years they have trusted private
insurance companies, whether they have been aware of it or not, to make
the decisions about whether Aunt Sue gets that angioplasty or that new
drug. It really isn’t the doctor. Doctors recommend; insurers approve.
Anyone who has ever received a denial letter from an insurance company
knows that. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>So the question is whether Americans are
willing to trust the United States government to set the healthcare
budget and provide a third way to have access to healthcare for all,
reduce overall healthcare spending, and hopefully over the long term
improve healthcare outcomes. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>I can’t see how we can do worse than we are
doing now. I really can’t. </small></p>
<small><strong _extended="true">
<p _extended="true">Can you trust members of the ethics committee to
treat patients with dignity? </p>
</strong></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Healthcare professionals treat patients with
dignity, not government panels. They take their needs and interests
into account. But it is doctors who provide the care, not health policy
advisors. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>In the context of health reform, it is the
job of policy analysts and health advisors to ensure that the system
will provide the well, the sick and the dying with adequate care. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Much ado has been made of President Obama’s
"Independent Medicare Advisory Panels", but I would happily put
Harvard’s Atul Gawande MD and the National Institutes of Health’s
Ezekiel Emanuel MD, PhD in a room with former Governor and
vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and let them duke it out over
health reform any day and let the chips fall where they may. They have
two MDs and one PhD on their side; she has rhetoric and a moose gun. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Yet, Palin tries -- and fails. She has
supported reimbursement for time spent counseling for living wills and
advanced directives (even though the latter do not work); it’s the
prior conversations between loved ones and the dying that matter, not
the piece of paper </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Yet Palin’s attacks upon the (imaginary)
pro-euthanasia bioethicists are clear. When talking about "Obamacare",
she has <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/nat5336.html" _extended="true"><font
color="#2c63a1">described it</font></a> as a "system [that] is
downright evil". She refuses to accept a healthcare system where her
parents or her child would have to stand "in front of Obama's 'death
panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of
their 'level of productivity in society' whether they are worthy of
healthcare". </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Yet I wonder what Ms Palin (and others who
support her view) find more morally reprehensible: leaving 47 million
Americans without any access to health insurance AT ALL or creating a
government panel that would make decisions about how much care would be
given to which Americans, all of them having had access to health
insurance over their life span. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>And yes, Ms Palin, that might mean that your
aging parents might not get that third bypass surgery or that
state-of-the-art hip replacement over providing well care for all
children. Or is it "downright evil" in your view to leave the most
productive members of our society -- the chronically underinsured or
uninsured Americans aged 18 to 34 -- without access to affordable
healthcare coverage? I wonder, is she or anyone else okay with leaving
young women to die because they are <a
href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/10/unmarried_uninsured.html"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">unmarried and uninsured</font></a>?
</small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Generally, though, I am more sanguine than
most about the ability of ethics committees or commissions to make good
decisions about what should be done in terms of making policy. I think
what patients don’t realize is that most decisions about what kinds of
care and what procedures are covered and in what amounts, about what
percentages of procedures are paid versus unpaid, and about the reasons
for all this, are actually done by committees. But in the current
system, it’s all done behind closed doors inside meetings of actuarial
scientists and executives at pharmaceutical benefits companies and
insurance companies. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>So let me ask you this. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Would you rather have your healthcare
decisions made out in the open as part of public debate by a public
committee comprised of ethicists, public members, politicians, health
policy analysts and others who specialize in making these kinds of
decisions on a large scale to save taxpayers money -- or by the (much
more) self-interested persons who work for the companies who have a
bottom-line to make for their pharmaceutical benefit management
company, insurance company and its shareholders? </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>For my money (and my health), I’d opt for
the public panel any day. </small></p>
<small></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>**Thanks to Myra Christopher and Arthur
Caplan for comments on previous drafts of this post. </small></p>
<small><em _extended="true">
<p _extended="true">Summer Johnson PhD is Executive Editor of the <a
href="http://bioethics.net/" _extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">American
Journal of Bioethics</font></a>, AJOB Neuroscience, and AJOB Primary
Research. She blogs at the <a href="http://blog.bioethics.net/"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">AJOB Editors' Blog</font></a>.</p>
</em></small></div>
<div class="authordate" _extended="true">
<hr size="2" width="100%"><small><br>
2. <a
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/have_death_panels_already_arrived/">http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/have_death_panels_already_arrived/</a></small></div>
<div class="authordate" _extended="true"><small><a class="navLink1"
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/sections/author_page/have_death_panels_already_arrived/"
_extended="true">Nancy Valko</a> | Friday, 13 November 2009<br
_extended="true">
tags : <a title="bioethics"
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/bioethics"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">bioethics</font></a>, <a
title="death panels"
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/death+panels"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">death panels</font></a>, <a
title="Obamacare"
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/tag/Obamacare"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">Obamacare</font></a></small></div>
<h1 _extended="true"><small>Have death panels already arrived?</small></h1>
<h2 _extended="true"><small>The case against: an experienced nurse
worries that Obamacare will entrench an existing quality-of-life
ethic. </small></h2>
<small>Medical ethics are concerned with care for a patient’s welfare,
something huge institutions are not very good at. The controversy about
"death panels" in proposed health care reform legislation is to be
expected. As a nurse, despite all the soothing noises from the Obama
administration, I do believe there is cause for serious concern. </small>
<p _extended="true"><small>For example, <a
href="http://compassionandchoices.org/blog/?p=445" _extended="true"><font
color="#2c63a1">Compassion and Choices</font></a> (the name of the
pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society after its merger with another "right to
die" group) boasted that it "has worked tirelessly with supportive
members of Congress to include in proposed reform legislation a
provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their
doctors about end-of-life choice." </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>"End-of-life choice" might have been an
innocent term a generation ago, but now in three American states
"end-of-life choice" includes legal assisted suicide. No wonder people
were worried when they read these words in HR 3962 (also known as the
Pelosi bill). It even includes a whole section on "Dissemination of
Advance Care Planning Information" that is problematic and misleading. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>In addition, although the idea of health
care rationing was originally dismissed as a myth, ethicists and the
mainstream media admit that <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092803837_pf.html"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">health care rationing is
necessary</font></a>. Government committees have been proposed to set
rules for health care services. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>Is ethical health care reform needed? Of
course. In 2003, I was privileged to serve on a Catholic Medical
Association task force on health care reform. Many good ideas, such as
health-savings accounts, ways to help the uninsured poor, and strong
conscience-rights protections, were discussed. The results were
published in a <a
href="http://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/CMA%20%20Healthcare%20Task%20Force%20Statement%209.04%20Website.pdf"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">2004 report</font></a> entitled
"Health Care in America: A Catholic Proposal for Renewal". The Obama
Administration has rejected most of these proposals. </small></p>
<small><strong _extended="true">
<p _extended="true">Ethics and health care reform </p>
</strong>Since I first started writing about medical ethics and serving
on hospital ethics committees, I have seen ethics discussions evolve
from "what is right?" to "what is legal?" to "how can we tweak the
rules to get the result we think is best?" This attitude is not very
reassuring when we are considering a massive overhaul of the US health
care system. </small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah
Palin has been ridiculed for coining the term "death panels". But it
resonated with me. In 1983 my daughter Karen was born with Down
syndrome and a severe heart defect. Even though Karen’s father and I
were told that her chances for survival were 80 to 90 percent after
open heart surgery, we were also told that the doctors would support us
if we refused surgery and "let" Karen die. We refused to allow such
medical discrimination against our daughter. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>Later on we were shocked to learn that one
doctor had written a "do not resuscitate" order without our knowledge.
Apparently he thought I "was too emotionally involved with that
retarded baby". </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>In later years, I was asked if I was going
to feed my mother with Alzheimer’s. And then, after my oldest daughter
died from an apparently deliberate drug overdose, I was told that it is
usually a waste of time to save suicide attempters. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>Did evil people say these things? No. These
doctors and nurses were otherwise compassionate, caring, health care
professionals. But they are just as vulnerable as the general public to
the seductive myth that choosing death is better than living with
terminal illness, serious disability or poor "quality of life". </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>When government committees and accountants
take over health care, will things get better? </small></p>
<small><strong _extended="true">
<p _extended="true">Common sense and ethics </p>
</strong></small>
<p _extended="true"><small>Health care does not occur in a vacuum. Real
people -- patients, families and health care providers alike -- are
affected when economics and new ethical rationales trump basic needs.
The Good Samaritan did not ask whether the man lying on the road had
health insurance. The Hippocratic Oath established a sacred covenant
between doctor and patient, not health care rationing protocols. I
strongly disagree with ethicists who contend that new technologies and
economics demand new ethics. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>I am tired of hearing some of my medical
colleagues talk about patients who "need to die". I am saddened to hear
many of my elderly, frail patients fret about being an emotional and
financial burden on their families. I am outraged when I read
editorials arguing that those of us who refuse to participate in
abortion or premature death should find <a
href="http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/published-editorials/2008/12/an-unconscionable-conscience-rule/"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">another line of work</font></a>.
</small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>I recently attended a 40th anniversary
nursing school reunion. We remarked on how much has changed. Some
things are better -- uniforms, equipment and technologies, for example.
But some things are worse, especially ethics. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>People are often surprised that even back in
the late 1960s, we had do-not-resuscitate orders and spoke to families
about forgoing aggressive medical treatment when patients seemed to be
on the terminal trajectory to death. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>But, unlike today, we did not immediately
ask them whether we could withdraw food, water and antibiotics to get
the death over with as soon as possible. Back then, we were often
surprised and humbled when some patients recovered. Today, too many
patients don’t even get a chance. Doctors and nurses are too quick to
give up hope. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>Back then, ethics was easily understood. We
didn’t ever cause or hasten death. We protected our patients’ privacy
and rights. We were prohibited from lying or covering up mistakes. We
assumed that everyone had "quality of life"; our mission was to improve
it, not judge it. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>Medical treatment was withdrawn when it
became futile or excessively burdensome <em _extended="true">for the
patient</em> -- not for society. Food and water was never referred to
as "artificial" even when it was delivered through a tube. Doctor and
nurses knew that removing food and water from a non-dying person was as
much euthanasia as a lethal injection. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>"Vegetable" was a pejorative term that was
never used in front of patients or their families. And suicide was a
tragedy to be prevented, not an alleged constitutional right to be
assisted by doctor and nurses. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>Today we have ethics committees developing
futility guidelines to overrule patients and/or their families even
when they want treatment continued. We have three states with legal
assisted suicide. We have even non-brain dead organ donation policies
(called non-heartbeating organ donation or donation after cardiac
death). Some ethicists even argue that we should <a
href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/7/674"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">drop the dead donor rule</font></a>.
</small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>We see living wills and other advance
directives with check-offs for even basic medical care and for
incapacitated conditions like being unable to regularly recognize
relatives. We are willing to sacrifice living human beings at the
earliest stages of development to fund research for cures for
conditions like Parkinson’s rather than promote research on ethical and
effective adult stem cell therapies. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>We are inspired by the Special Olympics but
support abortion for birth defects. We now talk about a newborn child
as another carbon footprint instead of as a blessing and sacred
responsibility. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>I could go on and on but I think you get the
idea. </small></p>
<p _extended="true"><small>Death panels are not the overwrought fantasy
of right-wing nut cases. Real "death panels" are already at work. They
have been created by apathy, misplaced sympathy, a skewed view of
tolerance and an inordinate fear of a less than perfect life. Death
panels? In the famous words of the comic strip character Pogo, "We have
met the enemy and he is us." </small></p>
<small><em _extended="true">
<p _extended="true"><a href="http://www.wf-f.org/bd-nvalko.html"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">Nancy Valko</font></a> is
president of Missouri Nurses for Life and a spokeswoman for the
National Association of Pro-life Nurses. </p>
</em></small>
<div id="conditions1" _extended="true" align="justify"><small>This
article is published by <b _extended="true">Nancy Valko</b>, and
MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it
or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial
purposes following <a
href="http://www.mercatornet.com/info/copyright_and_syndication"
_extended="true"><font color="#2c63a1">these guidelines</font></a>. <br>
<br>
</small></div>
<font color="#3333ff"><big><big><font face="Calisto MT"><small><small><font
color="#000000"></font></small></small></font></big></big></font>
<hr size="2" width="100%"><font face="Calisto MT">PFLI
PharmAid Center<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:pfli@pfli.org">pfli@pfli.org</a><br>
PO Box 1281<br>
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA</font><font face="Calisto MT"><br>
800-227-8359</font><font face="Calisto MT"><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.pfli.org">www.pfli.org</a>
</font><br>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="%3Cform%20action=%22https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr%22%20method=%22post%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22cmd%22%20value=%22_s-xclick%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22image%22%20src=%22https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-butcc-donate.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20name=%22submit%22%20alt=%22Make%20payments%20with%20PayPal%20-%20it%27s%20fast,%20free%20and%20secure%21%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22encrypted%22%20value=%22-----BEGIN%20PKCS7-----MIIHDgYJKoZIhvcNAQcEoIIG/zCCBvsCAQExggEwMIIBLAIBADCBlDCBjjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJBgNVBAgTAkNBMRYwFAYDVQQHEw1Nb3VudGFpbiBWaWV3MRQwEgYDVQQKEwtQYXlQYWwgSW5jLjETMBEGA1UECxQKbGl2ZV9jZXJ0czERMA8GA1UEAxQIbGl2ZV9hcGkxHDAaBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWDXJlQHBheXBhbC5jb20CAQAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEgYBCghZOVGZlieOruRnAgEV8/uAC9TQOtQX2x7btEZ/H93aoVYUvu+qWfglPJbCj3NjvKSZr92X5eNxd11TKGgDqtI7f8vWuwntnuHnwoXm8laoLpklBH8ZSc7IX6wtZmw1/St/Lfxu6l+L0HfZDJrYmnTCS9pVMpt/xs/0cc9OsLzELMAkGBSsOAwIaBQAwgYsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAUBggqhkiG9w0DBwQIMdzynwtmH
%0A%0A%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
YwF%0AAYD%0AVQQ%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-----END%20PKCS7-----,%22%3E,%3C/form%3E"><br>
<img alt="" src="cid:part5.02070102.02070801@pfli.org" height="44"
width="73"></a><br>
</p>
<p><font color="#3333ff"><big><big><font face="Calisto MT"><small><small><font
color="#000000">PFLI supports
pharmacist rights of conscience NOT
to be forced to dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their
sincerely held religious, moral or ethical beliefs. For more info see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq">http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq</a></font></small></small></font></big></big></font></p>
<p><small>*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is
exclusively
pro-life.
<br>
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
<br>
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
<br>
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter
excerpts
<br>
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.pfli.org">http://www.pfli.org</a>.
<br>
Or e-mail us at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:pfli@pfli.org">mailto:pfli@pfli.org</a>.
</small></p>
<p><small>*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts
E-News, just send an e-mail
with the
word
<br>
"subscribe" in the subject area or better yet, just enroll right from
our main news page at<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.pfli.org">http://www.pfli.org</a>; to cease your
subscription [although
we can't
<br>
imagine anyone would!] self-manage your account at:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org">http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org</a><br>
</small></p>
<p><small>*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following:
Pharmacists
For
Life International,
<br>
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA, 1-800-227-8359 [US &
Canada only],
<br>
+1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-740-206-1260 [fax]; e-mail us at
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:pfli@pfli.org">mailto:pfli@pfli.org</a>.
<br>
</small></p>
<p><small>*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew
your
membership
or donate right on our
<br>
secure website at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.pfli.org">http://www.pfli.org/shop</a>.
Click
on the "PFLI Store" link on the toolbar and
<br>
follow the prompts!
There you can also donate to PFLI as well as purchase a wide range of
publications. </small></p>
<font color="#3333ff"><b><big><big><font face="Calisto MT">
</font></big></big></b></font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<img src="cid:part6.03000505.09050105@pfli.org" border="0"></div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<img src="cid:part7.03030403.00040002@pfli.org" border="0"></div>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>