Rx Life
Before You Sign...On the Dotted Line
by Paul A. Byrne, M.D.
In 1990, Congress passed the "Patient Self-Determination Act." As much of the legislation enacted amidst the escalating
disrespect for life that ensued in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade and Karen Ann Quinlan, the Act does not enhance but debases
the legitimate rights of patients and physicians, while undermining everyone's right to life. Under the law, anyone entering
a healthcare facility that receives any federal funds will be proselytized, if not pushed, to sign the misnamed "living will."
The myriad dangers of the suicidal living will are well-documented if not well-known. The latter is not surprising given
a mass media that covers up the mass murder of the abortion holocaust, while promoting the impending euthanasia holocaust
through death peddlers like Abigail Dear Abby Van Buren, who has hawked the living will for decades. Euthanasia, however,
has as much to do with the ballyhooed "right to die" as abortion has to do with the equally amoral and inane slogan "freedom
of choice." The plain truth is that euthanasia, like abortion, is something done to, not chosen by, its victims.
Even when the victim cooperates in his death by signing a living will, it is rarely with full knowledge of the nature
or consequences of his act and more often represents his surrender to the cultural pessimism that corrodes his God-given will
to live.The trick, then, is to convince the potential victim of euthanasia, which includes everyone reading these lines, to
sign his death warrant on the dotted line, especially, the person who has been forewarned about the deadly dangers of the
living will by those "pro-life
fanatics."
An effective way is to imitate the wicked queen in Sleeping Beauty and hide your poison deep within a deceptively
enticing and highly polished exterior. The apple, in this case, is a new name concealing an old lie. The polish is the striking
of familiar chords, while marching to a decidedly different drummer, as in the duplicitous "Christian Affirmation of Life,"
which is anything but an affirmation of life and anything but Christian.
- A Wolf in Shepherd's Clothing
Noting that the secular euthanasia lobby had fashioned a one-size-fits-all document to accommodate "those who feel no compulsion...to
profess a religious faith," attorney Bowen Hosford describes its counterpart for those who do: "In its instruction on life-prolonging
treatment, (the Christian Affirmation of Life) is as vague as the Living Will." Indeed, the document distributed by the Catholic
Hospital Association is simply the living will wolf in sheep's--or rather, shepherd's--clothing.
"Morally speaking, there is nothing wrong with the basic ideas of the Living Will," claims the creator of its Catholic
version, Rev. Kevin D. O'Rourke, O.P., who adds, "the Living Will is not contrary to traditional Christian teaching in that...it
might limit prolonged treatment and expense." Denying life-saving and life-sustaining treatment, of course, can save years
and even decades of "expense," traditionally called life by orthodox Christians.
While director of Medical Moral Affairs for the Catholic Hospital Association, Fr. O'Rourke espoused "allowing a person
to die" or "passive euthanasia" which he would have us believe is "entirely different from taking a positive action that causes
a person's death, or active euthanasia."
- A Distinction Without Difference
Just how "different" is this Dominican's dubious distinction? Writing in the Jesuit weekly America, Fr. O'Rourke
sanctions the starvation and dehydration of euthanasia victims in coma:
There is little evidence to support the theory that removing or withholding tube feeding from people in deep coma
induces great pain or even death, and allowing a fatal pathology to take its normal course may be a better way to achieve
the purpose of life.
God Who alone sustains the life of any man is the best Judge of its purpose. Fallible man who frequently fails to understand
the purpose of his own life is ill-suited to usurp God's role in judging the purpose of others'. As Cardinal Newman has reminded
us:
God has created me to do Him some definite service...which He has not committed to another. I have my mission--I
may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next....
Therefore I will trust Him. Whatever, wherever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness
may serve Him; if I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him. He does nothing in vain.
I have described the history of the "Catholic" living will, the Christian Affirmation of Life, to demonstrate that an
author's Roman collar (or other attribute of office) does not guarantee the document you are asked to sign will respect, much
less, protect your life. Nor does the sponsors' professed opposition to euthanasia, however, sincere.
The road to a premature grave, like the road to hell, is often paved with good intentions. In matters of euthanasia,
we should always bear in mind that intentions may be as difficult to decipher as they are deadly to its victims.
Since enactment of the Patient Self-Determination Act, advance directives are springing up like dandelions. Concerned patients,
families, and physicians ask about these documents and about the question of advance directives in general.
With God's help, I strive as a physician to honor my Hippocratic oath to safeguard the lives entrusted to my care. An
integral aspect of this responsibility is the communication and counsel that is the foundation of the doctor-patient relationship
so tragically undermined in our day.
I have studied and deliberated on the matter of advance directives for some time. As a Christian who believes life must
remain in the hands of the Creator, whose servant the physician is privileged to be, I have prayed about it as well.
Based on my experience as a physician and my faith as a Christian, I offer these practical counsels for you to consider,
with thought and prayer, before you sign an advance directive of any kind, under any title, and from any source:
1) Do not sign a living will or any of its variants, such as the Christian Affirmation of Life. If
you have signed one, rescind it in writing immediately and be sure to destroy every copy.
2) Do not sign an advance directive that would deny you treatment on the basis of such vague and life-endangering language
as:
As my fellow physician, Dr. Raymond Voulo, observes:
"Artificial means" include...food and water the most basic necessities of life--administered through a feeding tube.
What's so "artificial" about food and water?
Of course, there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with being artificial. The dictionary defines "artificial"
as "made by human skill and labor." What could be more natural than using your talents to serve God Who gave them to you?
And what better way than by defending His precious gift of life?
If loose lips sink ships, loose words end lives. As with all generalities, the definition of "benefit" depends on who
does the defining. Marvin Kohl, for example, claims "mercy killing" is synonymous with "beneficent euthanasia" since "both
refer to the inducement of a relatively painless and quick death, the intention and actual consequences of which are the kindest
possible treatment of an unfortunate individual in the actual circumstances." (original emphasis)
Who will define what benefits you? Your doctor? The State? Your heirs? The hospital? Coupled with questions of expense,
it could be any of the above or several others, including someone who, as Kohl, may deem your death through euthanasia the
ulultimate "benefit."
- care appropriate to my condition
"Appropriate" in whose judgment? This is far too loose and open ended. The treatment that you or your family doctor may
regard as appropriate may differ decisively, even fatally, from the judgment of the attending physician who holds your life
in his handsand who may judge your condition by your "quality of life," the number of birthdays you have celebrated, the thickness
of your wallet, or the extent of your insurance coverage.
- incurable condition/irreversible coma
Before Sergeant David Mack awoke from his coma of over two years, four board-certified neurologists had declared that
he would never recover from his "persistent vegetative state." Citing their pessimistic prognosis, doctors plotted steps that
would have assured that he did not.
As a physician, I have seen patients survive and recover that I did not think would last the night. Deo gratias, with
God, all things are possible. The first lesson the physician should learn is humility.
- inevitable and imminent death
As the result of original sin, death is always inevitable, for we are all born with a terminal condition, viz., life.
Sgt. Mack's physician, Dr. Ronald Cranford, who has advocated denying life-sustaining nourishment to persons in prolonged
coma and removing life-sustaining organs from the same defenseless victims, writes:
Imminently dying patients deserve care and treatment whose overriding objective is not mainly to prolong life
but to maintain comfort, hygiene, and dignity.
Comfort and dignity, of course, are code words of the euthanasia sect, as in the death sentences "comfort measures only"
and "death with dignity." Another physician advocate of starvation killing once observed that "dying" can take twenty years
or more. Without explicitly expressed, concrete parameters stipulated within the text (such as "within 24 hours") "imminent"
is meaningless and offers no protection to the potential victim of euthanasia.
- natural death/prolonging dying
The only unnatural death is murder, such as euthanasia and suicide (self-murder). The first major euthanasia bill enacted
in the United States was California's "Natural Death Act."
Life prolongs dying, which is the euthanasian's way of saying prolonging life, the central mission of medicine.
A seminal article on euthanasia is entitled "The Physician's Responsibility Towards Hopelessly Ill Patients." Hope is
a way of life for the believer and a condition of life for every man. Where there is life, there is hope.
Thank God for life!
E'en though it bring
much bitterness and strife,
And all our fairest hopes
be wrecked and lost,
E'en though there be
more ill than good in life,
We cling to life
and reckon not the cost.
Thank God for life!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"For we are saved by hope. But hope that is
seen is not hope." (Rom. 8:24)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Do not sign any advance directive that would deny you:
- life-sustaining or life-prolonging procedures
"Choose life," the Holy Bible admonishes us, "that thou and thy seed may live." (Deut. 30:19)
Whatever these words may mean to you or your clergyman, they may prove a license to kill in the hands of the wrong physician
or hospital chaplain. And do not be beguiled by statements prohibiting "euthanasia" within the directive. Most euthanasia
laws, including those authorizing living wills, contain such boiler-plate language.
As a physician who has practiced medicine across the country and spoken with numerous colleagues who uphold our calling
to safeguard human life, I must tell you quite candidly that the danger you face as a critically ill patient is not being
given unnecessary treatments but being denied vital care that is necessary to sustain your life.
"The patient who was told by his doctor that he had six months to live is legendary," the V.A.'s Director of Educational
Services, Dr. Lawrence Foye, Jr. once advised a Senate committee. Of course, the alleged "futility" of a treatment that may
have saved your life is a moot point if you are fatally denied it. "Futile" is a death-enhancing word. The treatment of every
disease is always futile until we learn enough to treat it successfully, life-saving lessons that will never be learned if
we surrender to death in the name of futility.
4) Those who abuse life abuse language, even the language of those intending to protect life. A dictionary could--and
should--be complied of words that kill when used to deny you life-sustaining treatment, especially, when your name appears
on the dotted line thereafter. Elastic adjectives like excessive, and terminal, cryptic acronyms like DNR, a lexicon of lethal
language.
Accordingly, I have been reluctant to recommend signing any advance directive. A frank appraisal of developments over
the past two decades, however, has led me to conclude that signing an advance directive, specifically, a mandatory treatment
directive, is a prudent step to take for those seeking to protect their God-given right to life. (It is one that I have taken.)
These developments have little to do with the Patient Self-Determination Act and much to with patient elimination acts,
as we see signs of an impending euthanasia holocaust that will be as
genocidal as abortion.
- The Life Support Directive
Fortunately, there is a mandatory treatment directive that provides protection to patients. It's called the Life Support
Directive and was developed by America's oldest anti-euthanasia network, Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE), in 1981
more than a decade before the Patient Self-Determination Act went into effect.
The Life Support Directive doesn't restrict your ability to make medical decisions while competent, but it instructs
doctors and hospitals to provide life-saving, life-sustaining, and life-prolonging measures to protect your life when you
are unable to defend yourself. This is crucial since even temporary incapacity may lead to permanent death in the absence
of a signed Life Support Directive.
I'm encouraged that the Life Support Directive rejects the deadly "brain death" fallacy. There's even a Mother and Child
Life Support Directive to protect Mom and her preborn baby.
As a physician, I want to use the gifts God has given me to defend the gift of life He has given us all. As a physician,
I appreciate patients who help me defend their God-given right to life. Thousands of patients have executed Life Support Directive
for their families and themselves for just this reason.
Dr. Paul Byrne is a pediatrician and neonatologist.
Life Matters, Winter 1992
