MichiganMichigan Christians for LifeBible


Is hospice movement going beyond end-of-life care?

STEUBENVILLE, Ohio (National Catholic Register) – Families who have contacted the nonprofit Hospice Patients Alliance are raising important questions about hospice as a movement.


Although hospice’s stated mission remains that of providing compassionate and dignified care to people at the end of life, some are asking whether hospices are starting to go beyond that role by hastening death instead.

Since the first hospice program was started in the United States in 1974, hospice organizations have served more than 1 million patients at the end of life by providing a range of services dealing with management of pain and physical symptoms and psycho-social needs.

Many families who have had a hospice experience speak positively, even glowingly, of it, saying a hospice was able to help them at a difficult time in a way traditional health care could not.

But, especially since the March 2005, imposed-starving death of Terri Schiavo, reports of a dark side to the hospice movement are emerging.

In the state of Oregon, for instance, legalized assisted suicide takes place in some hospices, according to Rita Marker, executive director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Steubenville, Ohio.

Even in cases where the hospice staff does nothing more than provide support to the family during an assisted suicide, allowing the suicide to occur can be seen as a form of participation in evil, Marker said.

Although such developments don’t necessarily mean that hospice as a movement has changed, Marker said consumers need to be cautious before turning themselves or a loved one over to hospice care.

“You need to know who is in charge, what the protocols are, what the philosophy of that hospice is, and where they stand on the issue of food and fluid,” she said.

A spokesman for the hospice movement said that hospices neither hasten nor prolong dying. Stephen Connor, vice president of research and international affairs for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, added that the Alexandria, Va.-based group has a longstanding board resolution against assisted suicide.

Where assisted suicide is legal, Connor said, a hospice patient cannot legally be discharged because he or she wants to take a lethal prescription. In those cases, he said, the staff may be present to support the patient’s family.

Food and water

Connor said his group’s standard on medically administered food and hydration is that “people have a right to decide whether they want those interventions or not. And a decision about whether they should have them or not resides with the patient, usually made in the context of a family system. They ought to decide whether they want it or don’t want it, and those wishes should be respected.”

Connor said hospice does allow the withdrawal of food and hydration, even when the patient is not in immediate danger of death, although individual hospice programs vary in their policies on medical nutrition and hydration. Some do not allow patients to have intravenous fluids or feeding tubes, for example, while others may permit them.

Former hospice nurse Ron Panzer called hospice “a wonderful service if done with integrity and morality.” But, since founding the Hospice Patients Alliance in Rockford, Mich., in 1998, he has heard from patients, families and caregivers who have concerns about hospice care, ranging from overmedication to refusal of food and fluid.

Panzer, who now works in home health care, claims that some hospices eagerly hasten death and fight every attempt to prolong life.

“They interfere at every step in ordinary care,” he said. “They’ll pull the rug out from a patient by removing food, hydration and medications, and refusing to provide treatment for easily treated infections.”

Church teaching is clear on the subject. Even when death is thought to be imminent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 2279) states that “the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.”

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, said even though a person is terminally ill, assisted feeding can still be a form of basic care that should be provided unless and until it is actually doing more harm than good to the patient.

Pope John Paul II, in an address to the international congress on “Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas” on March 20, 2004, said: “The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.”

The church teaches that assisted feeding can be validly

discontinued only if it no longer provides life-sustaining nourishment, as in the case of someone in the end stages of cancer or if the means themselves are doing more harm than good to the patient, Doerflinger pointed out.

“The problem that can arise in hospice,” he said, “is that hospice care has increasingly been accepting more patients who have degenerative conditions that are not end stages of terminal illness and yet [hospices] may still have broad policies of not starting tube feeding, policies which would be more appropriate for the truly terminal conditions.”

‘Terminal sedation’

Indeed, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, in 2004, just 46 percent of hospice patients had a diagnosis of cancer. The top five diagnoses among non-cancer patients were end-stage heart disease (12.2 percent); dementia (8.9 percent); debility (8.2 percent); lung disease (7.1 percent), and end-stage kidney disease (3.1 percent.)

Robin, a Baltimore woman who asked that her last name not be used, said her father, a 69-year-old Parkinson’s disease patient, was admitted to a hospice in 2000 at the request of her mother. Thirteen days later, he was dead.

Robin said she believes her father was starved to death.

“My father wasn’t terminal,” she said. At the time he was admitted, she added, he was having difficulty swallowing and had lost the ability to speak. However, she said he made it clear to her that he didn’t want to go to the hospice because he grabbed her and started to cry as he was being taken away. Once in the hospice, she said, no effort was made to feed him.”

Robin said her father’s chart indicated he was being given morphine and Haldol, a drug used to treat patients with psychosis and chronic brain syndrome, or dementia. Within two days of his admission, she said, he appeared “like a vegetable.”

“They kept him so drugged and his mouth was very bloody because he wasn’t getting anything in his mouth,” she said.

Panzer said in such cases patients may die of what he calls “terminal sedation” in which sedation is given with minimal or no hydration. “They don’t die of starvation,” he said, “but because the circulatory system collapses for lack of fluid.”

Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association, said making sure a hospice patient is not overmedicated is a valid caution.

“But the people who have the most experience with managing pain and pain control without overwhelming you are the hospice people,” she said. “They’re very good at using adjunct techniques, whether it is mild relaxants and lower doses of narcotics, or things like massage and nerve blocks, things that allow you to control pain” without being so medicated that one is “out of it.”

Robin said she is convinced her father would have lived another 15 years had he not been taken to the hospice. “They talk about quality of life. My father, even though he was not able to walk around and talk to people, certainly got a huge grin on his face whenever he saw my children,” she said. “And that was a couple times a week. He still had joy in his life, and who has the right to take that away?”

Panzer said families should learn what services are appropriate in hospice and make sure that, if medication is being given, it is because there is a symptom calling for it.

“If someone is in severe pain, the family should not be afraid of pain medication,” he said, “but when there is no complaint of pain, then increasing doses [of pain medication] is an act of murder.”

Dr. William Chavey, a Catholic and assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Michigan, said the church supports giving narcotics such as morphine for pain or the discomfort that comes with shortness of breath, but would not condone using them to actively hasten death.

It is understood in such cases, he said, that in the attempt to give the appropriate amount, someone’s death might be hastened. “But if the intent is to take away their suffering and not to hasten their death,” he said, “then this is acceptable. But if the intent is to hasten death, it is not acceptable.”

Is Palliative Sedation Becoming Another Form of Euthanasia?

Nancy Valko
©2008
Reproduced with Permission

Annie (not her real name) was, as my children would put it, really "freaking out". She was only in her 30s when it was discovered that she had rapidly advancing terminal cancer. Unfortunately, she had stopped taking her medication for her schizophrenia and her behavior deteriorated rapidly.

The decision was made to give her sedatives by intravenous drip for a short time and then stabilize her on her usual medication. Within a couple of days, the continuous sedative drip was slowly stopped and we were all relieved that Annie was now able to understand and deal with her terminal diagnosis.

This incident happened almost 20 years ago. Today, we have a much different scenario involving sedation and the end of life.

This year, Assembly woman Patty Berg, a California lawmaker who has repeatedly tried to legalize assisted suicide, sponsored the "Right to Know End-of-Life Options Act" (AB 2747), a bill that would require doctors to discuss such options as "palliative sedation" and "voluntary stopping of eating and drinking" with terminally ill patients. Not surprisingly, Compassion and Choices (the former Hemlock Society) is an enthusiastic supporter of this measure.

Palliative/Terminal Sedation

As I wrote in 2002,1 supporters define terminal sedation as the deliberate "termination of awareness" for "relief of intractable pain when specific pain relieving protocols or interventions are ineffective" and/or "relief of intractable emotional or spiritual anguish (existential suffering, psychological distress, emotional exhaustion)."2 Since such sedation continues until death, there is usually the withdrawal of all treatment, including even food and water, so that death occurs as quickly as possible. No matter how long it takes until death occurs, supporters of terminal sedation insist that the cause of death is the underlying illness rather than suppression of breathing, dehydration or the removal of essential drugs such as insulin or heart medications. It is unfortunate that supporters of terminal sedation now frequently change the term to the more benign-sounding "palliative sedation". True palliative sedation such as Annie's is not the same as this terminal sedation.

Paradoxically, despite the mainstream media's fascination with "right-to-die" issues, I have only recently seen any mainstream media source even start to look at the issue of sedating people to death.

In March 2008, Time magazine published an article, "When is Sedation Really Euthanasia?"3, in which Kathleen Kingsbury, the author, readily admits "terminal sedation -- often goes hand-in-hand with cutting off other medications or removing a patient's feeding tubes" and that terminal sedation is beginning to supplant lethal overdoses in the Netherlands as the preferred death procedure. In the end, however, the author appears to agree with Dr. Ira Byock, a palliative care specialist and active promoter of terminal sedation, who maintains that such sedation is a legal, "end-of-life" option that is sometimes abused by being done "too early", without the person's consent or "to sidestep legal requirements to perform euthanasia".

Miss Kingsbury also quotes Dr. Porter Storey, executive vice-president of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, as saying, "the option to sedate can be a tremendous liberation", relieving patients of their "fear of dying or not getting adequate help at the end of life". Dr. Storey maintains "Good doctors don't intentionally shorten life."4 Of course, a good doctor would not intentionally shorten life but sedating someone into unconsciousness and deliberately depriving him or her of food and water will in fact end life if it goes on long enough, regardless of the stated intention of the alleged good doctor.

California's Bill

While controversial public cases like Terri Schiavo's involved removing food and water from so-called "vegetative" people without "living wills" or other documents, California's "Right to Know End-of-Life Options Act"5 would allow a fully conscious, terminally ill person to intentionally stop eating and drinking while being sedated until death. However, causing or hastening death to relieve suffering is euthanasia no matter what procedure is being used and regardless of whether a person consents. And, of course, it is a very small step from allowing terminal sedation to actually allowing a faster lethal overdose.

The centerpiece of the California bill was a menu of "end-of-life" options including palliative (terminal) sedation and "voluntary stopping of eating and drinking" for people expected to die within a year. California health care providers who had ethical or medical objections to such palliative sedation were legally required to transfer the patient to a provider with no such scruples. Given the current "right-to-die" mindset in much of medical education, this does not bode well for developing future ethical health care providers when the bill stated "Every medical school in California is required to include end-of-life care issues in its curriculum and every physician in California is required to complete continuing education courses in end-of-life care."

When pro-life, disability, and other groups of concerned citizens mounted a campaign against AB 2747, the sponsors of the bill started removing some parts of the bill to get it passed, but, as of August 2008, the bill has not passed and the opposition to it continues.

Euthanasia Strategy

As assisted suicide bills have regularly failed in state legislatures in the years since Oregon passed its assisted suicide law, euthanasia supporters have had to change tactics, although not their ultimate goal of choosing death as a constitutional right. The outreach to medical groups like hospice and palliative care organizations is particularly disturbing.

Euthanasia supporters have been successful in getting some medical and nursing groups to change their official positions from opposition to assisted suicide/euthanasia to neutrality on the issue. And now, almost all of the mainstream media accepts death by withdrawal of treatment as humane and legal for the severely brain-injured. It was just a matter of time before that vulnerable group of people expanded to include people with lesser disabilities and now even the fully conscious but terminally or "hopelessly" ill person.

But as everyone really knows, it is virtually impossible to starve and dehydrate to death painlessly. The idea of terminal sedation to make such a death possible thus becomes essential to the process.

Bills like California's are not only incremental steps to the goal of legalizing euthanasia. They are also a crucial part of the effort of "right-to-die" groups to reeducate the public, especially doctors and nurses. This is why bills like California's are so insidious. When an induced coma with self-starvation and dehydration is seen as proper medical treatment for anyone, the whole rationale of ethical health care is turned on its head.

When medically vulnerable people are given the option of a legal, doctor-assisted premature death, can we be surprised when we discover that none of us is permanently safe from the same fate?


Notes:

1 "Sedated to Death" by Nancy Valko, RN. Voices, Pentecost 2002. Available online at http://www.wf-f.org/02-2-terminalsedation.html. [Back]

2 "Total Sedation in End-of-Life Care: Clinical Considerations" by Perry Fine, MD. Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing, Vol. 3, Number 3, July-September, 2001. [Back]

3 "When Is Sedation Really Euthanasia?" by Kathleen Kingsbury. Time, March 21, 2008. Available online at: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1724911,00.html. [Back]

4 Ibid. [Back]

5 The amended text of AB 2747 is available online at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2747_bill_ 20080702_amended_ sen_v94.html. [Back]

FDA Approves Ella Drug, Pro-Life Groups Say It's Untested, Causes Abortions

To Michigan Christians for Life from Life News

Washington, DC The Food and Drug Administration today approved the controversial ella drug that supporters label a morning after pill but pro-life groups point out will cause very early abortions. They say the drug is untested and women will be misinformed about how it works as an abortion agent.

Billed as a better morning after pill, because it can be used longer after sexual intercourse than the traditional Plan B drug, the drug would almost always cause an abortion because it would begin working days after conception, which confers into existence a new, unique human being.

Supporters of the drug have gotten around that fact by redefining the beginning of pregnancy as implantation rather than conception, or fertilization.

"The prescription-only product prevents pregnancy when taken orally within 120 hours (five days) after a contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. It is not intended for routine use as a contraceptive," the agency said.

The FDA approved the drug with prescription-only status and Erin Gainer, the CEO of drug-maker HRA Pharma, said previously "We currently have no plans to request over-the-counter status for this drug."

In June, the FDA Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs gave its approval to the early abortion drug on two 11-0 votes.

Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. will sell the abortion drug under the name ella starting in the last three months of the year.

Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America led off a conference call today with reporters in advance of the decision, saying that the FDA is misleading American women.

"The FDA underscored the point that this decision was driven by politics by releasing it late on a Friday when people are not paying attention," she said.

"The meager trials done on ella indicate it may cause miscarriages and birth defects. Yet the FDA allowed the HRA Pharma to avoid fully testing the drug so women will be kept in the dark on what kind of serious complications it may cause to her and her baby," she added.

Ella is the first selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) available in the United States for the indication of “emergency contraception (EC).” According to the European Medicines Agency, SPRMs block progesterone which is necessary to maintain a pregnancy. This effectively deprives the unborn child in the womb of the nutrients he or she needs to live.

The FDA advisory panel made its decision based on data from two phase III clinical trails the French drug maker HRA Pharma sponsored.

The studies showed 1.51 percent of women using ella (or ellaOne in Europe) became pregnant when using the drug 72 hours after intercourse while 2.81 percent became pregnant when using the Plan B drug.

During the advisory committee meeting, Americans United for Life and the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists told the FDA a study in England confirms the pro-life perspective that ulipristal acts as an abortion drug.

Anna Glasier, of NHS Lothian in Edinburgh, led a study of more than 5,500 women in the UK published online in The Lancet medical journal. It found fewer pregnancies among those women given the ellaOne drug within five days of intercourse.

And for women who took the drug between 3-5 days after having sex, only women taking the traditional morning after pill became pregnant. That's because all of the women using ulipristal during that time period had abortions.

Wright pointed out how the FDA is following its decision during the latter part of the Clinton administration to approve the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug -- which has killed at least 13 women, and potentially dozens more, and injured more than 1,100 in the United States alone according to FDA reports.

"Though called an 'emergency contraceptive,' the drug operates the same way as the abortion drug RU-486, which has caused numerous deaths and over 1,000 reported adverse events," she said.

Wright said women could become victims again, especially because the ella abortion drug has not undergone rigorous testing and medical trials.

"Adequate trials have not been done with this new drug," she said, noting that women have not been tested with the drug after use five days from intercourse even though the plan is to get women to use the drug after that time period.

She noted abortion businesses are already violating the three-day time limit the FDA suggests with the morning after pill and various limits associated with the RU 486 abortion drug and she is concerned more abuses are forthcoming.

"What kind of an effect does ella have on babies who survive the drug?" Wright asked.

She said she is concerned about a high rate of potential birth defects for unborn children who are born after failure of the ella pill, known as EllaOne in Europe. Wright pointed out that clinics trials concerning potential birth defects were not conducted before the FDA advisory committee issued its recommendation and have not been done since then.

"Incredibly, despite evidence that ella may cause birth defects in babies that survive, members of an FDA Advisory Committee recommended against long-term studies to determine if it does, preferring that women be kept in the dark," Wright said.

Although the manufacturer of the drug claims it is safe for women, "The drug sponsor should prove it," she said.

"Women deserve better than this. If the FDA deliberately misleads women by mislabeling the drug as a contraceptive, and does not send the drug back for adequate trials to determine the possible serious complications to women and their babies, it will be putting abortion politics above women's health," Wright concluded.

"The FDA should not have lower standards for reproductive drugs for women than it would for any other drug," she said.

Kristan Hawkins, the director of Students for Life of America; Jeanne Monahan, Director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council; and David Bereit, the director of 40 Days for Life, also participated in the call.

Related web sites:
Congressman: FDA-OKd Abortion Drug Ella May Be Funded in ObamaCare - http://LifeNews.com/nat6633.html
Ella Causes Abortions - http://www.ellacausesabortions.com

Back to Home Page

Created and maintained by Artmix Web Works since 1997.