Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The term, euthanasia, is from the Greek and was coined in 1646. It was intended to mean a gentle and easy death. A nuance was introduced, by 1742, referring to the means of bringing about such a death and, in 1859, to the action of inducing such a death. Modern dictionaries have a variety of definitions, but they all imply the same meaning, an intentional action to bring about death in someone who is suffering."
Euthanasia's broad meaning has inadvertently enveloped a set of actions that also involve the relief of symptoms in dying people," write the authors. "For example giving enough narcotic to relieve pain in cancer patients and adding enough sedation to enable comfort and minimize agitation is appropriate and compassionate care, even when the amounts required increase the probability of death. It can be argued that, in such circumstances, death becomes an acceptable side-effect of effective palliation. But, in our view, it is not euthanasia."
Physicians can help by not using "euthanasia" to refer to actions taken to assist dying patients and instead, can clearly name and define each action as well as its possible repercussions. PhysOrg
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Related: Korean pro-life doctors group
Monday, March 29, 2010
Related: UK law change allows same-sex couples to become legal parents, Top US students offered higher egg prices, Canada may be first North American country to offer free IVF
Related: Podcast from Life Training Institute
In the interest of balance: Pro-life Democrat offers pro-life bill in Louisiana and Lone pro-life Democrat who split with Stupak
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, credits Dr. Jones’s “conservative demeanor” as paving the way for acceptance of reproductive technology. “He had the virtues that cleared the path. He was a good parent, happily married.” NY Times
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Not so fast. Pro-life groups said their criticism had to do specifically with Obama’s executive order, which they say can do nothing to override provisions in the health bill. “We haven’t said anything to suggest we think executive orders are never of value,” said Douglas Johnson, NRLC’s legislative director. Bush’s 2007 executive order, which followed his veto of legislation that would have expanded embryonic stem cell research, did not contravene existing law, but instead supported it, making it more “airtight.” In addition, Bush’s 2001 executive order banning the use of most embryonic stem cell research simply undid authorization that had been put in place by federal regulations, not legislative action. The problem with Obama’s executive order is “it basically just recites what’s in the Senate bill.” Daily Caller
Related: Stupak defends Planned Parenthood
A major focus of his appearance was to help overturn Ireland’s blasphemy laws that make it “almost impossible” to talk about assisted suicide for fear of opposition from religious groups. “As an atheist I am often asked to debate the ethical issues involved in providing a person with information that will allow them to end their life peacefully and reliably at a time of their choosing. I am constantly up against this idea that somehow life belongs to God. I disagree strongly with that assertion.” LifeSiteNews
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
If Christians really understood that all facts are actually interpreted on the basis of certain presuppositions, we wouldn’t be in the least bit intimidated by the evolutionists’ supposed “evidence.” We should instead be looking at the evolutionists’ (or old-earthers’) interpretation of the evidence, and how the same evidence could be interpreted within a biblical framework and confirmed by testable and repeatable science.
If more creationists did this, they would be less likely to jump at flaky evidence that seems startling but in reality has been interpreted incorrectly in their rush to find the knockdown, drag-out convincing “evidence” against evolution that they think they desperately need. AiG
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Just think, if scientists found an unborn child just after conception -- a "cluster of cells" -- on the planet Mars or on Antarctica, the next day world headlines would read: "Scientists Have Found Life on Mars" and our president would be making a special televised address to the nation to announce these "spectacular" findings that scientists have found life. We would then be spending billions of dollars to probe Mars in search of a little water and nutrients because they know, that with a little nourishing, life can flourish.
When those were the headlines in the summer of 1997, all that was found was the fossil of a cell on a rock believed to be from Mars -- just look at all the fuss that is made. Yet, when certain scientists find the same "glob of tissues" in a woman's womb which actually contains the full genetic code of a brand new human being, they claim they don't really know what it is or that "it's not life."
Can you imagine what the controversy and resulting punishment would be if someone were to destroy the fossil of a cell on the rock believed to be from Mars? This is a sad commentary. Rebecca Kiessling, Conceived in rape, pro-life speaker
Medicalization is the process of turning more people into patients. It encourages more of us to be anxious about our health and undermines our confidence in our own bodies. It leads people to have too much treatment -- and some of them are harmed by it. And it's big part of the reason why medical care costs so much. LA Times
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Using a $321,000 grant from the Department of Health and Human Services, the emergency departments at two Pittsburgh hospitals have started rapidly identifying donors among patients whom doctors are unable to save and taking steps to preserve their organs so a transplant team can rush to try to retrieve them.
Obtaining organs from emergency room patients has long been considered off-limits in the United States because of ethical and logistical concerns. This pilot project aims to investigate whether it is feasible and, if so, to encourage other hospitals nationwide to follow. So far, neither hospital has yet gotten any usable organs. Critics say the program represents a troubling attempt to bring a questionable form of organ procurement into an even more ethically dicey situation: the tumultuous environment of an ER, where more than ever it raises the specter of doctors preying on dying patients for their organs. Washington Post
The guidelines included stringent requirements that any lines being studied with federal funding meet strict new ethical criteria, including making sure couples who donated the embryos for the lines' creation were fully informed of other options. The problem is that it remains unclear how many of the original 21 lines, which researchers have spent millions of dollars and nearly a decade studying, were derived at a time when ethical requirements were less specific, leaving in doubt how many would pass muster under the tough new guidelines. Washington Post
Friday, March 12, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
They come here because Watts is one of the city's poorest neighborhoods, and abortion rates tend to be higher in low-income areas, according to the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on sexual health issues. For four hours, Wilkinson's group offers free pregnancy tests, using the ultrasound to show women images of their fetuses and leading prayer-filled counseling sessions in which they urge the women to keep their unborn babies. . . . Frequently, the encounter becomes a religious experience, Wilkinson said."It can be a real catalyst for people finding God, or refinding God," he said. "Because of the crisis they're in, they're more open -- and that's when we introduce God." LA Times
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The study was massive, involving over 20,000 pregnancies between 1989 and 2006.
After adjusting for all relative factors—such as age, smoking habits, alcohol and coffee intake, and others—it was revealed that women who conceived using IVF or ICSI had a significant four-fold increased risk of stillbirth. Researchers found that this increased risk is not likely due to the underlying infertility issues that drove women to IVF in the first place; rather it is likely due to other factors, such as the technology involved in IVF. This stunning conclusion begs the question: Do women undergoing IVF know of such risks? LifeNews
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
convictions and confidence in the Holy Spirit, some believers wade into the conflict with talented academics in public without taking their opponents’ skills or ideas seriously, only to have their heads handed to them with the world watching. STR
Monday, March 1, 2010
Editor: Since both conditions exist, I guess we shouldn't allow it.