Monday, November 28, 2011

Who decides if I will live or die?

I am not afraid of dying. But I am deathly afraid of dying in a hospital.

The one thing that must never be allowed to be part of our health care system, is the ability for a health care person to have any power to decide whether I will live or I will die.

I have been up close and personal to: negligent, complaining, arrogant, lying, non-caring, rude "health care professionals". No, they are not all like that. Many of them are not negligent, never complain, are humble, tell the truth and care.

But it's the former group I worry about, should they ever be able to practice euthanasia.

Here's what else I've encountered:
  • I've been told a loved one needs to vacate their bed because it is costing $1600 dollars a day.
  • One nurse complained to me that she was working without a signed contract and all I could think was, "and what does this have to do with the care of my loved one? You're still being paid right? Oh you are, so then why would I care that you don't have a signed contract?"
  • I've had a loved one be sent home from emergency only to return the following night to the very same emergency department with the very same problem.
  • I've had a loved one die from what I believed was a lack of care and neglect. A subsequent complaint to the regulatory body involved, concluded that no, there was no negligence and guess what? "The care provided this patient by Dr. X not only met, but in several instances exceeded the standard of practice expected in the profession." Exceeded? I think not.
I know that working in the health care profession can be hard, and that some are overworked, etc. Fine, that may or may not be true, some of the time, or all of the time, maybe for some and not for others.

Check out what Derek Miedema from the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada has to say on the subject. He gives some startling evidence of euthanasia and assisted suicide gone horribly wrong:
"In Belgium, one-third of euthanasia deaths done by doctors occur without the explicit request of the person killed, according to a 2010 study of euthanasia in Belgium. Why? Some doctors decided for the patient that euthanasia was the best option. Though hard to believe, others thought the conversation about dying would be too stressful for the patient, so they killed them instead.
In Switzerland, a 23-year-old rugby player, paralyzed as a result of a training accident, was depressed. Who wouldn't be? He was euthanized despite research that shows people with a spinal cord injury can and do create a satisfying quality of life with time and proper societal and family support.
Reports from the Netherlands indicate that 500 people died without their consent in 2005 alone. A woman in the advanced stages of dementia was recently euthanized there. A long-time supporter of euthanasia, doctors killed her even though she was incapable of deciding for or against the euthanasia decision at the time of her death.
In Oregon, the law requires that patients get opinions from two doctors before they are approved to die. The problem here is that 58 of 61 patients who died under the law in one year got their second opinion from an activist doctor tied to the group pushing for legal assisted suicide all over the U.S."
In the end, all I know is, I don't want anyone from that profession deciding whether I can live or I can die.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

PEI leads Canada in refusal to provide abortions

Good for PEI in refusing to cave in to the pro-abortions.

According to Tamsin McMahon at the National Post:
"Keith Dewar, CEO of Health P.E.I., the arms-length agency created to oversee health-care administration after the government abolished community hospital boards last year, said changes to provincial abortion policy would be up to the government. The province's Health Minister, Doug Currie, said the government has no intention of reopening the debate.

"Abortion is a complex and sensitive issue that was broadly debated and litigated on Prince Edward Island in the mid-1990s," the Health Minister wrote in an email to the Post. "We have no plans to change the current policy or programming."

Abortion is just one of several medical procedures that aren't performed on the island because they are too expensive, including some heart surgeries, cancer treatments and hip replacements, Mr. Currie has said. "To me, it's not about the political discussion, it's more about another service," he told the Charlottetown Guardian last week. "And the more services you add to the health-care system, obviously there's going to be more cost to that."

Doug Currie is right. With scarce financial resources already available for real life saving medically necessary procedures, why would his province decide to fund abortion, a life ending procedure? Abortion is expensive and is almost never medically necessary. So why should taxpayers fund it?

I think Ontario and the rest of Canada need to take the same stance as PEI and defund abortion.

PEI’s “life sanctuary” needs to spread westward and envelope all of Canada.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion? (who declined to debate)

A "pro-choice" commenter to my blog said that:
"this debate was a total set-up. no one from the pro-choice community in ottawa was asked to participate in the debate. while it was nice that jovan accepted the non-invitation, he did not have the background or experience to argue from the perspective of the pro-choice movement and ended up making some pretty oppressive and ineffectivley thought-out arguments. stephanie spends her entire career articulating these issues, of course she "won". but the pro-life side certainly didn't gain any credibility for such a poorly run event."

So I checked it out, to see exactly who was invited to debate Stephanie Gray.

Here is the list of people who either declined, or did not reply, or ignored the organizers' invitations.

i. Dr. Henry Morgentaler (declined to debate)
ii. Heather Mallick ("pro-choice" columnist for the Toronto Star) (no reply to invitation)
iii. Hon. Dr. Hedy Fry (MP) (declined to debate)
iv. Hon. Dr. Carolyn Bennett (MP) (declined to debate)
v. Dr. Kathryn Treehuba, Uof Ottawa professor (Obs-Gyn), and Ottawa-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)
vi. Dr. Fraser Fellows, UWO professor (Obs-Gyn), and London-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)
vii. Federation of Medical Women of Canada (declined to debate)
viii. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada- Joyce Arthur (declined to debate)
ix. NDP Party (no reply to invitation)
x. Canadians for Choice (declined to debate)
xi. Action Canada for Population Development (no reply to invitation) 
xii. Hon. Dr. Keith Martin (MP) (No reply to invitation)
xiii. Planned Parenthood Ottawa (Heather Holland - Executive Director- Declined to debate)
xiv. Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (no reply to invitation) 
xv. Professor Sanda Rodgers (University of Ottawa) (declined to debate)
xvi. Professor Wayne Sumner (University of Toronto) (declined to debate)

If the "pro-choicers" were not happy with Jovan Morales representing their position, they have only themselves to blame. They were given plenty of opportunity to participate, and declined to.

I guess they thought they could shut down the debate this way. Well, how well did that work out for them? Not too good I'd say.

Maybe they'll think twice next time, before rejecting or ignoring invitations to debate.

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion? (the video)

Seventy-two percent of Canadians surveyed in a September National Omnibus poll support legal protection for unborn babies. Most (62%) want protection from conception, or two or three months' gestation on. Another ten percent favor protection from 6 months on (Source: Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada).

The majority of Canadians clearly do want legal protection for our unborn children.

So why won't Mr. Harper allow us to debate abortion in Canada?

We still don't know the answer to that question so I guess we'll just have to start the debate without him.

Perhaps Mr. Harper might want to watch Stefanie Gray (CCBR) debating Jovan Morales (Atheist Community of the University of Ottawa) at the University of Ottawa on November 11.

Mr. Harper might want to get involved, and learn something that is extremely important to many of the people he is Prime Minister to. He might even learn something new. Or he can ignore us.

It's your choice, Mr. Harper.

University of Ottawa - abortion debate Nov 11, 2011 from Jeannie on Vimeo.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion?

The University of Ottawa Students for Life and University of Ottawa Medical Students for Life organized a great debate last night between Stephanie Gray (CCBR)and Jovan Morales (Atheist Community of the University of Ottawa) at the University.

The topic was "Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion?"

The debate may have never happened because the organizers spent four months looking for someone to debate Stephanie. Ten people were asked, including Joyce Arthur and Dr. Henry Morgentaler. All declined except Jovan (kudos to Jovan for his attempt to be a worthy debating partner to Stephanie.)

There was some rather annoying noise of the rude and heckling variety, but we were able to pretty much block it out. For the most part, the debate was fantastic.

I'm hoping we get a video loaded up to youtube for those of you not able to make it.

Stephanie was the clear winner.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

World Abortion Laws

(This article was published in the September/October 2011 issue of LifeCanada News)

Canada is one of only six countries out of 196 countries--that allows unrestricted abortion up until fetal viability and beyond.

In a paper published on March 24, 2009, American law professor, Randy Beck of the University of Georgia Law School discussed case law in Gonzales, Casey and the Viability Rule as it pertains to abortion.

Beck argues that the:
"The [American] Supreme Court has an unmet obligation to account for the significance accorded to fetal viability in its abortion jurisprudence...Even if one assumes that the Constitution protects a right to terminate a pregnancy, the Court has never offered a principled explanation for its conclusion that the right endures until the fetus can survive outside the womb."

Beck goes on to discuss fetal viability with three arguments.

But it is his third argument that Canadians should take special note. It is his argument of Viability in International Perspective.

Beck complains that "by allowing abortion for any reason until viability, the Court has pushed U.S. abortion law far outside the international mainstream." That “the vast majority” of countries “forbid abortion after 12 weeks gestation.”

Beck says: "Other nations terminate or constrict abortion rights at various points in pregnancy, typically at a much earlier stage in fetal development" and that it makes the US "one of only six countries that allow abortion on demand until the point of viability.”

Not only does Canada allow unrestricted abortion rights until viability, we also allow unrestricted abortion rights until birth. If the US’s abortion law is “far outside the international mainstream”, what does this say for Canada’s situation?
Beck gets his data from the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights group which identifies five levels of international abortion permissibility:

I. To Save the Woman’s Life or Prohibited Altogether (68 countries)
II. To Preserve Physical Health (35 countries)
III. To Preserve Mental Health (23 countries)
IV. Socioeconomic Grounds (14 countries)
V. Without Restriction as to Reason (56 countries)
So who does Canada share company with on abortion rights? Well China for starters:
"only six nations on the list allow unrestricted abortion to the point of viability or without any specific time limitation—Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, United States and Vietnam. A seventh country, Singapore, sets a limit of 24 weeks, which approximates the current viability threshold in the United States."

Beck notes the viability rules for these six countries:
"Most of the nations that join the United States in permitting such unrestricted late-term abortions make for dubious company. Communist China’s efforts toward population control clash with the theory of reproductive rights underlying the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence, and have led to coerced abortions in parts of that country. With respect to the other two Communist regimes on the list, Vietnam also places legal limits on family size, and North Korea is not viewed as a leader in human rights. The medical culture of the Netherlands appears to be generally less protective of fetal life than other nations, quite apart from the abortion issue. For instance, doctors in that country are much less willing than their European neighbors to provide life sustaining treatment to premature but potentially viable infants."

Dubious company indeed. Canada shares this "distinction" with three Communist regimes, China, Vietnam and North Korea. This is nothing to be proud of.

Beck says:
"Canada might seem a more conventional companion for the United States on legal questions. the current absence of an abortion law in Canada may be less a reflection of national sentiment than a result of Parliament’s failure in attempts to enact a statute meeting standards imposed by the Canadian judiciary".

I agree.

We know that every poll ever taken in Canada, regarding protection for the unborn, tells us that a majority of Canadians want some legal protection. Yet Parliament continues to abdicate its responsibility in bringing forth any such legislation.

And still Mr. Harper refuses to allow any abortion debate.

If the Prime Minister believes Canada requires unrestricted, publicly funded abortions right up until birth--an abortion regime significantly less protective of fetal life than almost every other nation in the entire world, even though our Supreme Court clearly said it is up to Parliament to come up with an abortion law--then Mr. Harper needs to explain to Canadians why he believes this.

He has never offered a principled reason for censoring a public discussion on abortion in this country. If not now Mr. Harper, then when?

Friday, November 4, 2011

We sure do want the debate

I agree with Andrea Mrozek and her three cheers for We Want the Debate.

What I don't understand is--that press release issued by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's entitled Abortion: There’s Nothing to Debate.

Why would anyone issue a press release, that says there's nothing to debate, then debate the very thing, they say there's nothing to debate about?

Maybe it's because the debate they don't want to debate, is actually a really good topic to debate.

Maybe it's something like when Jean Chretien said:
"It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

I didn't understand that either.