Momentary Zen

Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

Sunday, July 31, 2005

Disability Activists Call for Moratorium on Starvation and Dehydration

Disability Activists Call for Moratorium on Starvation and Dehydration

The following Press Release is from a group called "Not Dead Yet" (HT: LifeSteward - LifeNews has more)

Disability activists have called for a nationwide moratorium on the
dehydration and starvation of people alleged to be in “persistent
vegetative state.” This would apply to individuals who do not have
an advance directive or durable power of attorney.
The call for a moratorium is a reaction to the newly-published report indicating high levels of brain activity in people thought to be in “minimally conscious state (MCS).” The study, published in the February issue of Neurology, discovered evidence that these individuals may hear and understand much of what is going on around them, but are unable to respond.

The study drew a distinction between MCS and Persistent Vegetative
State (PVS), but the distinction is not a reliable one. In a New York
Times article, Dr. Joseph Fins mentioned research indicating a 30%
misdiagnosis rate of PVS, indicating that nearly a third of persons
diagnosed in PVS are actually in “minimally conscious state.”
Fins is chief of the medical ethics division of New York Presbyterian
Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center.

With the exception of oblique references to Terri Schiavo, current
coverage of the study and its implications dance around the
most important issues regarding this study. Namely, thousands of
people around this country with labels of both MCS and PVS are
being starved and dehydrated, often without an advance directive
indicating their wishes, or a durable power of attorney appointing
a substitute decision-maker they chose for themselves.

“Given the current research regarding brain activity and misdiagnosis,
it’s a virtual certainty that countless people have been helpless to
prevent their own deaths through starvation and dehydration,” says
Stephen Drake, research analyst for Not Dead Yet, a national
disability rights group opposed to legalization of assisted suicide
and euthanasia. “There’s an analogy to DNA evidence and the
death penalty. Here in Illinois, the staggering numbers of innocent
and wrongly convicted people on Death Row resulted in a moratorium
on the death penalty. Whether you agreed with the death penalty
or not, everyone was forced to find ways to make sure no innocent
person ended up on Death Row again. The same amount of concern
should apply to medically induced deaths, in which the numbers
far exceed the number of convicted people executed each year.”

Not Dead Yet is calling for a moratorium on the withholding of feeding
tubes from people in PVS and MCS until they can be tested under the
same protocol used on individuals in the Neurology study.
State-of-the-art testing for cognitive activity should be a minimum
standard to be applied when someone’s death is proposed. Just as
the availability of DNA testing and competent counsel are accepted
as essential to people being tried in capital cases, the new technical
tools to evaluate cognitive activity and potential should be applied to
individuals before feeding tubes are withdrawn. Even with this
technology, there will probably still be mistakes. But at least it will
be the first step in reducing the number of conscious people dying
from hunger and thirst in hospitals and nursing homes, aware of every
minute and unable to cry out that they are awake.

Not Dead Yet
7521 Madison St.
Forest Park, IL 60130
708-209-1500
http://www.notdeadyet.org

Poor, Elderly, Disabled Veteran Euthanized Against His Will


Case One


Note: the following is the account given by two daughters in the involuntary euthanasia of their father. Names have been withheld to maintain confidentiality.



December, 2000



Letter to authorities:


My sisters and I believe that the circumstances surrounding the death of our father are suspicious and unusual, and therefore fall within the criteria of deaths designated by the (name of state) Death Investigation Act which warrant investigation. We also believe an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding our father’s death is wararranted by those agencies responsible for enforcing state and federal regulation compliance and investigating criminal activity, medical malpractice, and Medicare fraud. Because of the complexities and broad scope of this matter, we are addressing this letter to U.S Attorney and the District Attorney for the ____th Judicial Circuit, State of __________.

Our own investigation thus far has produced evidence supporting the allegations asserted herein, and we are concerned that the hospice, doctor, nurses and others involved may alter, desroy or otherwise dispose of any medical and-or other records in their possession and/or under their control before their records can be subpoenaed, if not already altered or destroyed. However, we have copies of medical records which prove most aspects of the fraud and other criminal allegations we will be describing in this letter. The various allegations we are asserting include criminal homicide, conspiracy to commit homicide, Medicare fraud, Title II Conrolled Substance Act violations, medical malpractice and many other violations of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) and the Official Code of (name of state).

I will address the medicare fraud, i.e., our father’s Hospice certification, first, not because it is the most blatant violation committed, but because it was while under Hospice care that he suffered the damages and , ultimately, his death, which are the subject of this letter. In Dr. (name of doctor)’s capacity as our father’s private physician, he certified to Medicare that our father was terminally ill with lung cancer in order to qualify him for Hospice benefits through Medicare. (name of doctor), it turns out, is also the Medical Director of this Hospice, that he recommended our father to sign up with (name of corporation/hospice) Hospice. There is no medical evidence whatsoever confirming such a diagnosis - no pathology reports, no x-rays, no lab reports. Nor is there any medical evidence of any other type of cancer. (name of doctor) was well aware at the time of Medicare certification, and at all times subsequent thereto, that all tests conducted on our father for any type of malignancy returned negative or inconclusive results.

During the course of our father’s care under (name of corporation/hospice) Hospice, the following violations were committed by (name of doctor) and (name of corporation/hospice).

  1. He was given a drug for which his medical records reveal he was allergic to, although at least four alternative drugs were available on the market, resulting in his death.

  2. He was given a drug which he was told was specifically for his COPD, but actually was medically contraindicated for his primary illness of COPD, resulting in his death:

    Note: Of concern : All of our father’s medications were obtained through through the VA hospital, both those prescribed by his VA physician and (name of doctor). However, (name of doctor) obtained the morphine from a private, local pharmacy, altogether bypassing the VA. This is because my father’s VA hospital records are replete with notations with regard to his morphine allergy and his diagnosis of COPD. (name of doctor) knew he would not be able to get the morphine from the VA, because it would have been red flagged by VA pharmacy.

  3. His regular medications were withheld from him, against his will. This included Lasix for his COPD and his medications for blood pressure (which is evidence that the morphine could not have been administred with the intent to aid and assist his breathing). Morphine in low dosages in combination with a diuretic such as Lasix may be used to decrease pulmonary edema (usually in very end-stage heart failure).

  4. He was denied his right to change his course of treatment when he both wrote and verbally requested that the drug be stopped. He was allergic to this drug and he stated the morphine was making him sicker. His instructions were ignored and the administering of the drug was continued by both Hospice and (name of doctor):

  5. Food and water was denied him via abuse, neglect and later on, due to the comatose state caused by the above described drug (terminal sedation).

  6. (name of doctor) falsified my father's death certificate by incorrectly stating the cause of death to be lung cancer, by incorrectly stating the time of death to be two hours later than it occurred (right after an IV was given), and as for the other two causes of death listed by (name of doctor), i.e., pleural effusion and COPD, it will be shown that these were causes of death only because of his intentional hastening of these illness (by not providing appropriate care) to the point of his death.

  7. Several months before his death, my father was given a vial of morphine by a nurse at (name of corporation-hospice) and was told to keep it in his bedside stand to “think about”. It is doubtful that this vial of morphine was prescribed and legally dispensed by a pharmacist because there was no pharmacy label on it, just the manufacturer's label. It is not legal to dispense unlabeled morphine (or medications of any kind) and especially not without a specific doctor's order. The implications of this action by (name of corporation/hospice) is in direct violation of Hospice regulations and all basic standards of care.

  8. When advised by family members that our father wanted the morphine stopped, (name of doctor) failed to contact our father to verify his wishes about the morphine.

  9. (name of doctor) and (name of corporation/hospice) prescribed dosages exceeding those necessary for my father’s symptoms, and utilized methods of administering the morphine in contradiction to the standards of care for his condition, used excessive amounts of drug, and had them given to him by injection rather than a standard method of oral, subcutaneous or IV pump.

  10. He was illegally discharged from Hospice care and then reinstated a week later, suffering severe mental distress from such action by (name of doctor) and (name of corporation/hospice), in violation of Hospice guidelines and regulations as oulined in the CFR:

  11. He was denied his final arrangements with regard to his children due to the inadequacy of the “spirtual counselor” assigned to him.

  12. (name of doctor) and (name of corporation/hospice) made only one brief visit to our father during a 6-day stay at the (name of hospital) Hospital ( this was only a few weeks before his death), contrary to Medicare Hospice regulations.

  13. Various other violations of the laws and standards of care were committed, including, but not limited to, violations of basic standards of care and misleading family members about the effects of the morphine, causing them to submit to and assist in the assault and battery on our father, i.e., forcing him to take morphine injections against his wishes and convincing family members to ignore his wishes, as well and administer the morphine injections.

  14. The hospice violated our father's wishes to remain alert and oriented. The hospice's actions placed our father in a medically induced coma, despite the fact that he stringently denied experiencing any pain whatsoever during this time. He had not been comatose until given the morphine directly against his wishes.

  15. (name of doctor) and (name of corporation/hospice) did not provide continuous 24 hour nursing care for our father during the crisis symptoms resulting from the overdosage of morphine, (during the last days of his life) when he needed professional care the most.

  16. (name of doctor) and (name of corporation/hospice) rendered our father helpless through the administration of the morphine, and that is how he died, and he did not die with dignity as Hospice is supposed to provide for.


With regard to the fraudulent diagnosis and fraudulent cause of death, please be advised that we are in possession of our father’s medical records from the VA Hospital (name of hospital), where any and all tests for cancer were performed . (name of doctor) advised certain family members three days before our father’s death that he, himself, possessed no medical evidence of lung cancer, and that he had made his diagnosis based on the medical records of the VA Hospital and on what our father told him.

The VA Hospital could not have provided him with any evidence of lung cancer because no such records exist and secondly, physicians cannot legally or ethically diagnose and certify a terminal illness simply upon a patient's unsubstantiated fears. And the fact that the doctor admitted having our father's VA Hospital records means the doctor was fully aware of our father's allergy to morphine and also, that our father had COPD, for which morphine is generally contraindicated. Morphine depresses and slows down the respiratory rate, and especially in COPD patients can lead to death when the breathing is made to stop.

I should also mention that the doctor had treated him for his COPD during the three years he was his medical doctor, so he was aware of all his different illnesses, including renal insufficiency, which also made morphine contraindicated for him because it prevents adequate elimination of the morphine from the body.

Also not receiving his lasix caused the fluid buildup (pleural effusion) in his lungs to escalate. The morphine induced coma also resulted in his inability to cough, preventing him clearing his airways when in the medically induced coma. This resulted in more fluid buildup in his lungs.

When (name of doctor) prescribed the morphine, he did not prescribe an emergency kit to be kept near his bedroom which could reverse any respiratory suppression caused by the morphine. He knew he would have a severe adverse reaction: and, he knew that with his renal insufficiency, failure to get lasix and COPD, he could overdose very quickley on the morphine and that the antagonist Naloxene should have been available in case of an allergic reaction or overdose. As it happened, he did have an adverse reaction and he did overdose...dying shortly after receiving the IV morphine.

For the reasons stated above, a copy of this letter is being forwarded to (name of State) Drugs and Narcotics Agency for futher investigation into the misuse and abuse of a Title II controlled substance and the actions of (name of doctor) who is registered with the US Drug Enforcement Agency to prescribe and administer narcotics in accordance with the Controlled Substance Act.

On the first day of administering morphine to our father, the hospice nurse advised family members who were present to contact all family members so we could visit our father while he would still know us, because within a few days he would be comatose, and then he would die. In other words, the treatment plan was actually an involuntary euthanasia plan, because our father had been alert, oriented, and mobile up to this point, and demonstrated no symptoms of a person facing imminent death from illness. The Doctor literally described the onset and progression of an intentional morphine overdose.

On the third day of the morphine program, our father's wife contacted the Hospice nurse and advised that our father was unable to swallow his usual medications. She was advised by the Hospice nurse that his difficulty in swallowing was a result of the morphine and if he could not swallow his medications, not to worry about giving them to him. Our father was faithful in taking his medications, including his vitamins, because he intended to live as long a life as possible and to be as healthy as possible throughout the length of his life. Because of the dire necessity of certain medications, i.e., medications for pleural efusion, blood pressure and heart condition, it is another suspicious and unusual circumstance that these medications would be discontinued with no concern on the part of (name of doctor) or (name of corporation/hospice).

According to the pharmacist that dispensed the morphine injections , he was not aware of our father’s allergy to morphine and stated that the doctor had not informed him of past adverse reactions to the morphine.

At one point, during the 10-days my father was on morphine, our father could not be awakened by family members or the Hospice nurse and (name of doctor) was notified of our father’s condition by the Hospice nurse. Rather than have the hospice nurse call local emergency medical personnel, (name of doctor) traveled from his county of residence, to my father’s home to examine him himself. It is more curious that during the visit, before leaving our father’s home, (name of doctor) authorized the hospice nurse to increase the dosage and/or frequency of morphine injections being administred to our father and advised family members who were present at the time that his dosage could be increased. This, even though our father had no complaint of pain at all.

Our father, on another day, awoke from his comatose state, but due to his inadequate food and fluid intake and in the absence of receiving his regular medications, was extremely weak and ill. At this point, he found a pen and paper and mananged to write a note of his own free will and accord, in the presence of not less than three family members stating that he wanted the morphine discontinued because it was making him sicker. The morphine was continued against our father's will.

The family member who wanted to conrol daddy’s treatment plan., (name of son) took the note from our father, and in a display of anger, slapped the note between his hands and told our father, "we are going to continue as planned." A local minister visited with our father that evening, and our father repeatedly told the minister that he did not want to be given any more morphine.

To ascertain our father’s mental state and awareness of what he was saying, the minister asked our father a series of questions, to which he answered all correctly, e.g., "who is the President of the United States," "what is your birthday," "how old are you," etc. The minister, however, had been told by the hospice nurse emphatically that the morphine was necessary to help our father’s breathing difficulties and urged our father to continue the morphine injections. This minister was made a victim, herself, in that she will have to live with the fact that she unwittingly contributed to the calculated murder of a good man for the rest of her life: Our father relied on this minister's word (who had relied on the nurse's promise that our father needed the morphine), and therefore our father subsequently submitted to the morphine (although he had previously vehemently refused them over and over again).

The following day, our father managed to sign a medical release form for his medical records from the VA Hospital, directing his medical records be sent to him in care of his daughter (name). He stated to another of his daughters that he wanted all of his children to know the truth if he died. Sadly, the records did not arrive until two weeks after his death; too late to get an injunction to stop the morphine from being administered to him, and too late to save his life.

Our father drifted in and out of consciousness for another day and was then rendered completely comatose by the morphine. For two days, at a minimum, he recieved no fluids or food and remained comatose. No IV fluids were administered to prevent premature death by dehydration and starvation. A statement obtained from one family member who was present at our father’s bedside during the last two days of his life stated that by the last day of his life, our father was receiving morphine injections on an hourly basis. He did not revive, again, and passed away on _____________, 2000.

The folowing are several significant facts which should be considered in an investigation into our father’s death: Our father was nearing the time when he would need to be re-certified in order to continue with Hospice. Some family members had begun to question the cancer diagnosis (which lab tests or other medically scientific tests failed to diagnose at all). Our father had related to several family members that (name of corporation/hospice) nurses had told him that the hospice was in financial difficulty and that was why they were shorthanded and could not be more available to him. (This financial difficulty was a self-created situation since the hospice was signing on more patients in order increase its profit.)

Approximately one month prior to his death, our father had called 911 and went to the hospital for breathing difficulties while under hospice care without notifying hospice in advance, allegedly contrary to their hospice rules. Our father called 911 to get emergency medical assistance because his many calls to hospice for medical assistance were not returned at all! It is my understanding that, according to Medicare guidelines, hospice would be responsible for payment of any hospital expenses incurred by our father for medical care for symptom control. If our father were to continue to use 911 as an alternate emergency avenue when the hospice failed to provide the promised 24 hour nurse on call, as it so often had in the past, it would have resulted in a great expense for the hospice.

Our father advised several of his children that immediately after his visit to (name of hospital), the hospice nurse advised him that they had a meeting and decided to discharge him, because he had gone to the hospital against hospice rules. Actually, the hospice had been responsible to provide emergency symptom management, but failed to do so, and to retaliate against our father when he simply wanted medical care for his illness, is the opposite of what hospice is supposed to do. The mental distress this caused our father was enormous. One week later, (name of corporation/hospice) accepted him back into their care, and a few days later they started him on morphine and ten days later he was dead.

Another curiosity is that during our father’s more than one week stay in (name of hospital), and subsequent overnight stay in the VA Hospital, he did not once complain of experiencing any pain whatsoever. If our father was then, two weeks later, in dire need of medication for unbearable pain associated with cancer, that seems odd indeed. Again, there was no medical proof he had cancer, no lab tests, no formal diagnosis (except on the falsified hospice enrollment forms and death certificate) and no pain.

One more curious and suspicious incident is that on the last day of our father’s life, in the last hour of his life, a hospice nurse arrived with an IV pump. She said it was a morphine pump. She had great difficulty in getting the IV needle inserted properly into our father's veins because of his physical dehydration and deterioration by that time. Within a few minutes of getting the IV going, she came put of his bedroom and announced his death to the family. This incident absolutely demands investigation.

We know that nothing we do can bring our father back. We also know we are not going to let this matter rest until our father’s death certificate is corrected in all respects, and those responsible for his death are held accountable.

Sadly, our father is representative of those at greatest risk of becoming victims of involuntary euthanasia - he was a veteran who proudly served his country. He was poor, elderly, disabled, and disadvantaged. Our father fought with all the abilities he had at his disposal to hold on to life. His determination to live had seen him through medical crises before, to go on to long term recoveries, but his extraordinary determination was not able to overcome the forces of a doctor and a hospice equally determined to end his life.

Our father, though elderly, ill, and, at times, very lonely, was a caring and beloved person, respected by those in the community, who never did one thing to harm anyone, yet he suffered a death less dignified and a thousand times more painful, emotionally, physically, and mentally, than a murderer on death row receives.

I hope the information contained in this letter and the enclosed medical records and statements are sufficient to initiate an investigation into the death of our father. If there is any further information you need please give me a call at the number provided at the top of this letter.

Sincerely,

(name of daughter)




Note: This case was reported to the State and local authorities who have to date done nothing. The state and local DA's office have had several months to investigate, but have conducted no such investigation. Further, the hospice and the hospice doctor have separate continuing business relations with the county coroner who would do part of the investigation for the DA's office. The DA's office has not investigated. They plan no action at all. We wish to know if hospices have a license to kill. It is evident, that in our father's case they did.





Note: Hospice Patients Alliance has received this report from a family which is willing to publicly speak about this case. HPA does not take a position on any specific hospice, but condemns the abominable lack of even minimal compliance with the most basic of health care standards, resulting in the needless death of this family's father and thousands of other helpless patients throughout the US. We condemn the hospice's violation of human rights and patient's rights described in this actual case history. In addition, it is deplorable that the local District Attorney and coroner's office refused to act at all. When a DA chooses to not enforce the laws, our land is truly lawless, and especially within the hospice killing fields!

Are you being targeted for euthanasia?

The “living will” actually gives permission
to hasten your death
by denying medical treatment.


By Mary Therese Helmueller

In 1984, while working as charge nurse in the intensive care unit, a 20-year-old man asked, “Can you give my mother enough morphine to let her sleep away?” I was horrified. “I can not kill your mother,” I responded. That was only the beginning. Recently, an 80-year-old was admitted to the emergency room and the physician said, “LET’S DEHYDRATE HER”; one more patient was sentenced to die in hospice with NO TERMINAL DIAGNOSIS and once again, THE LIVING WILL determined the death of a 70-year-old man regardless of how he pleaded to live. I can no longer remain silent.

Your life may be in danger if you are admitted to a hospital, especially if you are over 65 or have a chronic illness or a disability. The elderly are frequently dying three days after being admitted to the hospital. Some attribute it to “old age syndrome” while others admit that overdosing is all too common. Euthanasia is not legal but it is being practiced. Last year the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 1 in 5 critical care nurses admit to having hastened the death of the terminally ill! I believe the percentage is much higher. I have worked with nurses who even admit to overdosing their parents. No one knows the exact euthanasia rate in the United States, however Dr. Dolan from the University of Minnesota states that 40 percent of all reported deaths is probably a conservative estimation. If this is true then the United States is executing euthanasia at a higher percentage rate than the Netherlands where it is also illegal but widely practiced.

Did you know that many doctors and nurses whom we trust are speaking openly about their desire to practice euthanasia? In fact they are even speaking about ending their OWN lives when they reach the age of 65 or BEFORE if diagnosed with an illness. Some even admit to stealing the drugs for their own lethal injection. Think about it. These are the same people who will determine the value of YOUR life. If they do not value their own, how can you expect them to value yours?

I am a registered nurse in the St. Paul/ Minneapolis area with 15 years experience in emergency and critical care. My knowledge of euthanasia not only comes from my experience working in the critical care units throughout the Twin Cities, but also comes from a personal tragedy and loss in 1995. This is my true story. My hope is that you will educate others and protect yourselves and loved ones.

On Monday, February 20th, my grandmother was admitted to a local Catholic hospital with a fracture above the left knee. She was alert and orientated upon admission but became unresponsive after 48 hours and was transferred to hospice on the fourth day and died upon arrival.

I was in Mexico City conducting a pilgrimage and unable to be at her side so there were many questions upon my return. The doctors could not tell me the cause of her death so I began to search for the answers and was fortunate to obtain the hospital chart. It then became very clear that my grandmother had been targeted for euthanasia!

Carefully tracing the events it was evident that my grandmother became lethargic and unresponsive after each pain medication. She would awaken between times saying “I don’t want to die, I want to live to see Johnny ordained”; “I want to see Greta walk.” Johnny was her grandson studying in Rome to be a priest and Greta was her new great-grandchild. Even though over-sedation is one of the most common problems with the elderly she was immediately diagnosed as having a stroke. When she became comatose a completely hopeless picture of recovery was portrayed by the nurses and doctors who reported that she had a stroke, was having seizures, going in and out of a coma, and was in renal failure.

The truth however can be found in the hospital chart which indicates that everything was normal! The CAT scan was negative for stroke or obstruction, the EEG states “no seizure activity” and all blood work was normal indicating that she was not in renal failure! How were we to know that the coma was drug induced and that all the tests were normal? Why would they lie?

Looking over the chart it is clear that obtaining a “no code” status was the next essential step in executing her death. This is an order denying medical intervention in emergency situations. The “no code” was aggressively sought by the medical profession from the moment of her admission but was not granted by my family until it appeared that she was dying and there was no hope. Minutes after obtaining the “no code” a lethal dose of Dilantin (an anti-seizure medication) was administered intravenously over an 18-hour period. It put her into a deeper coma, slowing the respiratory rate and compromising the cardiovascular system leading to severe hemodynamic instability. The following day she was transferred to hospice and died upon arrival. The death certificate reads “Death by natural causes.”

My grandmother had no terminal diagnosis but the hospice admitting record indicates two doctors signed their name stating that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. How was this determined? The first doctor, who was the director of hospice, never came to evaluate her or even read the chart. More interesting is the fact that the second doctor was on vacation and returned three days after her death! Obviously these signatures were not obtained before or even upon her admission to hospice. How can this be professionally, morally or even legally acceptable? Can anyone therefore be admitted to hospice to die? It certainly seems possible especially if sedated or unresponsive. In fact, this hospice has recently been under investigation for accepting hundreds of patients who had no terminal illness.

It could happen to you

How can this happen? A serious problem lies in the definition and interpretation of “terminal illness” which permits the inclusion of chronic illnesses and disabilities. Terminal illness is defined as “an incurable or irreversible illness which produces death within six months.” The fact is that many chronic illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure are incurable and irreversible and without medical treatment such as insulin and other medications these illnesses would also produce death within six months. Therefore, those with chronic illnesses or disabilities can be conveniently denied medical treatment and even food and water to make them terminal. Typically it is the elderly who arrive in the hospital that are at the greatest risk. But it could be ANYONE! Especially those whose life and suffering is viewed as useless and burdensome.

Difficult to believe? Well it was for our prolife lawyer until his mother-in-law was admitted to a hospital several months later for a stroke. She became “unresponsive” and “comatose” a few days after her admission. The neurologist wrote an order to transfer her to hospice refusing an I.V. and tube feeding stating “this is the most compassionate treatment.” Remembering my story, our lawyer requested the removal of all narcotics and demanded an I.V. and tube feeding. This infuriated the neurologist. He began to accuse the family of being uncompassionate and inhumane. To prove his point he began a neurological assessment on the patient. Just then she opened her eyes and pulling the physician’s neck tie, forced his face to hers and said very clearly “Give me some water!” It was obvious that she was awake, alert and orientated. He angrily cancelled the transfer to hospice and ordered a tube feeding and intravenous. Several weeks later she was discharged and was exercising on the treadmill! She escaped the death sentence. Unfortunately many others like my grandmother have not. A stroke does not make you terminal but not receiving food and water does!

A clear understanding and definition of euthanasia is essential for a correct and moral judgment. Unfortunately the meaning is being altered by those who hold society’s values and by those who seek financial gain. According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and reaffirmed by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae euthanasia is defined as “an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering.”

The killing in hospitals today is commonly referred to as “the exit treatment” and disguised by the word “compassion.” Many doctors and nurses honestly believe that this is the most compassionate treatment for the elderly, the chronic and terminally ill, especially those whose suffering is seen as hopeless, inconvenient and a waste of time or money. Those who hold this twisted and corrupted idea of compassion actually believe they are doing good because suffering has no value and materialism is their god. For instance, how often have we heard that Medicare and Medicaid are “running out?” “So why not relieve pain and lighten the financial burden of our families and society?”

As a result, many patients are intentionally oversedated and forced to die from dehydration, starvation or over medication. “Death by natural causes” will be officially documented on the death certificate. Did you know that this is the exact same proclamation on the death certificate of St. Maximillian Kolbe? Everyone knows however that he died from a lethal injection in Auschwitz concentration camp after many days of dehydration and starvation!

Pope John Paul II states clearly in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae: “Here we are faced with one of the more alarming symptoms of the ‘Culture of Death’ which is advancing above all in prosperous societies, marked by an attitude of excessive preoccupation with efficiency and which sees the growing number of elderly and disabled as intolerable and too burdensome.”

Many souls are being denied the opportunity to reconcile with God and family members because their death has been hastened or deliberately taken. This is a grave and moral injustice. Pope Pius XII in his Address to an International Group of Physicians on February 24, 1957 stated, “It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason.” Pope John Paul II confirmed this in Evangelium Vitae saying, “as they approach death people ought to be able to satisfy their moral and family duties, and above all they ought to be able to prepare in a fully conscious way for their definitive meeting with God.”

Recently the Carmelite Sisters shared this tragic story of a friend whose husband was euthanized. Her husband was diagnosed with terminal cancer but was not expected to die for several months to a year. He had been away from the Catholic Church and the sacraments. He also was estranged from his children. One day he complained of pain that was not relieved by medication. The wife spoke to the nurse who then called the doctor. When the doctor arrived he gave an injection through the intravenous line. The husband took three breaths and died! The wife screamed, “I did not ask you to kill my husband!” “We needed time to reconcile our marriage and family.” She continued to cry, “He needed time to reconcile with God and the Church!”

It is evident that euthanasia is being even more cleverly planned and executed. A very holy priest from St. Paul was called to the hospital by a nurse to administer the last sacraments to a hospice patient. When the priest arrived he was surprised to find the patient sitting up in the chair! He visited with the patient approximately a half hour then heard his confession and administered the last sacraments. Just before he left the room the patient jumped up in bed and the nurse administered an injection. Perplexed and concerned, the good priest called the hospital upon returning to the rectory. The patient had already expired!

There is a good and legitimate purpose for hospice units, but how can it ever be morally acceptable to transfer patients to a unit to die when they have NO TERMINAL ILLNESS? How can sedating a patient and refusing a tube feeding and intravenous be considered compassionate? Dehydration and starvation is not a painless death! Has this become the Auschwitz of today? A convenient and economically efficient place to dump the unwanted, imperfect, and burdensome of our society?

Would a “living will” prevent these tragic events? The living will makes you a clear and easy target to be euthanized. A “living will” has nothing to do with living. It is your death warrant. It actually gives permission to facilitate your death by denying medical treatment. Did you know that it was originally developed by Luis Kutner in 1967 for the Euthanasia Society of America? It is the most cost effective tool for hospitals, insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid. Therefore, since 1990 it has been deceptively packaged and promoted as a patient’s right known as “the Patient Self-determination Act.” If cutting care for those patients who ask for it wasn’t so successful in saving money and controlling the budget, why then did it originate in the Senate Finance Committee and why was it supported by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health? These are finance committees whose only interest is controlling the budget! It is obvious that the living will is all about saving money, not your life!

Many people fear the loss of control that comes with illness and hospitalization. Tragically, they are deceived in thinking that the “living will” protects them and restores this control in their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one knows the exact condition in which they will be admitted to the hospital. The “living will” is written in very broad terms leaving it open to the interpretation of medical professionals and others who stand to benefit from your demise. Remember your best interests or your interpretation may not be theirs! Can you imagine writing general instructions or signing a legal contract for the care of your Mercedes Benz several years before any problem occurs? “Please do not give oil or gas”; “If in three days it can not be fixed stop everything and trash the car.” How absurd and ridiculous! It takes time to diagnose and treat even car problems! If we would not foolishly demand this for a car then how can we demand it for a human life which has an eternal value?

Recently, a 70-year-old was admitted through the emergency room in respiratory distress. He was placed on a ventilator and transported to the intensive care unit. He was awake, alert and orientated anxiously writing notes: “I don’t want to die”; “I changed my mind”; and “Please don’t take me off the machine.” He was very persistent and urgent with his pleading. I soon understood why! His family and physicians were meeting to discuss a serious problem. He had signed a “living will” declaring that he did not want “any extraordinary measures.” He was now viewed as “incapable” of making any decisions and they wanted to follow his wishes as stated in the legal document! Very convenient for those who do not want their inheritance spent on hospital costs and for those who do not want to be bothered with a “useless burden” to our society!

Today hospitals and health care facilities are required to ask patients if they have a living will or lose government funding! The question is proposed in such a way to create pressure on patients so that they think it is something good, desirable and necessary. “Do you know that you have a right in the state of Minnesota to possess a living will?” Please remember that the living will targets you for euthanasia by denying you medical treatment. Living wills kill; they do not protect you. Instead, I urge you to obtain a copy of “The Protective Medical Decisions Document” (PMDD) from the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, P.O. Box 756, Steubenville, Ohio 43952. Sign it and keep it among your records. Please get rid of your living will!

Can you or a loved one be targeted for euthanasia without a living will? The course of events and treatment in my grandmother’s short hospitalization are documented. She did not have a living will. Please know the following steps—it could save your loved one’s life.

1) Oversedation causing lethargy and unresponsiveness
Difficulty or inability to awaken a patient.
Some patients, especially the elderly, are very sensitive to pain medications which are slowly metabolized by the liver. Toxic levels build quickly with very small doses commonly producing lethargy and unresponsiveness. Elderly patients require approximately 20% less of the normal adult doses.

2) A hopeless picture of any recovery
The patient appears to be comatose and dying. The medical staff affirms this with overwhelming reports and statements.

3) No code status also referred to as DNR/DNI (do not resuscitate/ do not intubate)—The consent is obtained from the family.
It is a request to deny a patient delivered emergency care in a life-threatening situation.

4) Lethal doses of Dilantin or narcotics —(morphine)
This will hasten the death, shortening the hospital stay and expenses.

5) Transfer to hospice without tube feeding or intravenous
Due to sedation and inability to eat or drink the patient will die of dehydration and starvation.

If a loved one is lethargic or unresponsive demand to see the medical chart and medications sheet. If you do not understand the terminology and medications, consult a pharmacist. A computer printout is available at pharmacies on most medications. If you suspect over sedation speak to a prolife doctor or nurse and then ask to stop all narcotics and wait at least for 48 hours to see if there is any improvement. Contact prolife organizations such as National Right to Life—to obtain information and local phone numbers of prolife organizations, doctors, nurses or lawyers in your area: National Right to Life; 419 Seventh St. N.W., Suite 500; Washington, D.C. 20004; 202-626-8800.

Think twice before giving consent to a “no code status.” It has become too convenient for those nurses and doctors who hasten the death of their patients! Furthermore, it not only denies emergency medical treatment but many professionals also deny the following: antibiotics for pneumonia; medications and assistance to choking victims!

If your loved one is being transferred to hospice DO NOT assume there is a terminal illness. Ask to see the chart especially in regards to unresponsive elderly and comatose patients. Remember that “comatose” is not a terminal illness, but not receiving food and water will make anyone terminal! Always ask for a second opinion. Consult with prolife nurses or doctors.

If you need assistance in finding a prolife doctor, information, or just need to discuss your concerns on a particular case, please contact The Moscati Institute; 2901 Branch Street; Duluth MN 55812; 218-728-4608.

Your life may be in danger especially if you are over 65 and admitted to the hospital. Euthanasia is not legal in the United States but is being practiced. Recently, Dr. Kevorkian in a TV interview said “Why is everyone focused on me? There are many more doctors doing the same thing!” A pediatric cardiologist who interviews students for a prominent medical school on the east coast recently reported that more than 95 percent agreed with Dr. Kevorkian’s practices. The culture of death has permeated the minds of our doctors before they enter medical school! Obviously euthanasia is already being taught through the media, entertainment, primary and secondary schools and even in our families!

Euthanasia is embraced by the lack of Christian values in our society. It is the result of a culture that has accepted and promoted the killing of unborn children. The value of life is the extent of the pleasure and well-being it brings. Suffering, imperfection, illness, and inefficiency are viewed as unbearable setbacks, useless and burdensome. Death is viewed as a “rightful liberation.” As a result, euthanasia is packaged to appear desirable and then sold to the unsuspecting public as the “living will,” “death with dignity” and “the right to die.” Is it not logical that those who can kill the child in the womb will also kill their parents in their old age for the same reasons of convenience, compassion, money etc. . . . ?

It is our moral obligation as Catholics to promote the teachings and truths of the Church. As an authentic Catholic we can never promote euthanasia by saying: “I hope there is a Kevorkian around when I get older,” or “Just shoot me if I ever become like that.” There is a great spiritual value to suffering. Every human life must be valued and supported as a precious gift of God. We can not afford to patronize movies, TV programs, businesses or any forms of entertainment that promote, encourage and support the killing of innocent life. We must support and vote for prolife political candidates or we share the responsibility of killing. We must support prolife organizations with our available gifts and talents. It is our duty and obligation to be informed Catholics. We can not fight what we do not know or do not see. Please contact Human Life International and ask for their monthly newsletter. Human Life International; 4 Family Life; Front Royal, VA 22630; phone: 540-635-7884; FAX: 540-636-7363.

Most important however we must pray for the conversion of our government officials and medical professionals that their minds are enlightened and inspired to work in building the kingdom of Jesus Christ by seeking to protect all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.

It’s time to wake up! Euthanasia is here! We will be responsible to almighty God for doing nothing. You have escaped death by abortion but you are all being targeted for euthanasia!

Miss Mary Therese Helmueller, R.N. lives and works in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. She is a registered nurse with fifteen years of experience in emergency and critical care. This is her first article in HPR

Cheney's boundless Iraq profiteering



By The Age

07/31/05 "The Age"
-- -- Things are going well in Iraq for the invaders. Well, at least for some people, such as US Vice-President Richard Cheney. He is receiving more than $US1 million ($A1.3 million) a year from Halliburton, the company of which he was CEO from 1995 to 2000, in "deferred remuneration" while he is VP. He is worth every penny.

Last week, two Democrat senators and a house member wrote to Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld asking if he knew about Halliburton's latest money-making dodge in Iraq. Keep in mind that Halliburton and its subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root, have a nice little earner going in supplying support for the US Army and for, ostensibly, putting out oil well fires. The Centre for Public Integrity in Washington counts Halliburton's windfall at more than $US10 billion - a little bit coming from the US Treasury but most coming from Iraqi oil revenue that is supposed to be used to reconstruct the country for the benefit of the people. The centre counts another 30 members of the Defence Policy Board with ties to American companies with $US76 billion (as of 2002) in largely uncontested and un-auditable military contracts.

The Democrats reckon that Halliburton may have overstepped even its sloppy moral line by making life impossible for another American company that has committed the crime of undercutting the Vice-President's company.

In their letter to Rumsfeld, the Democrats say that US company Lloyd-Owen International is being prevented from delivering fuel to Iraq from Kuwait (Who says the liberation hasn't been a success? What next? Ice to the Inuit?) by forcing LOI trucks to use a civilian crossing where the checks are so slow that the company can't get its 140 trucks a day through. The speedy, wave-'em-through military crossing is controlled by who? The Iraqi military? The US military? Nope, by the Vice-President's firm, which is also in the fuel delivery business.

The Democrats say that the LOI crime is delivering fuel to Iraq for 18 US cents a gallon while Halliburton provides the same service at $US1.30 a gallon. The LOI spokesman says he could understand if Halliburton simply doubled the price, to 36 US cents a gallon. But at $US1.30 a gallon even a Texas carpetbagger should blush.

Halliburton has a $US2.5 billion contract for managing the fuel distribution system in Iraq. The man from LOI says that "we have not, to date, seen a functioning KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) piece of equipment to where we deliver". He also says that his chaps have only come across one KBR employee at these sites.

LOI needed Defence Department ID cards to make its deliveries and, in order to get them from - you guessed it - Halliburton, they had to make a delivery for Mr Cheney of construction material to Fallujah last month. The convoy was attacked and three men were killed and seven injured. KBR staff were ordered not to provide any assistance to the injured. "Many people volunteered to help, but were told not to by our management," according to a Halliburton employee. Presumably the convoy crew were a bunch of mercenaries, in Iraq to make a buck.

As George the Smaller told an audience at the West Point and Virginia Military Institute, America is "the single surviving model of human progress"

AMA stands against legislation to require lifesaving medical care for disabled, incapacitated patients

AMA stands against legislation to require lifesaving medical care for disabled, incapacitated patients

After the starvation and dehydration death of Terri Schiavo, some states are considering proposals to make it illegal to keep food and water from patients unable to make their own medical decisions (and who didn't previously ask that hospital staff not try to save them), but Lifenews.com reports that the American Medical Association has said it will oppose any such legislation. If you enjoy this article, you may also be interested in an article entitled 'Mass drugging of schoolchildren remains dark secret of public education, psychiatry.'

See more articles like this one at www.Newstarget.com

Original news summary: (http://www.lifenews.com/bio1048.html)
  • The American Medical Associated yesterday adopted a resolution opposing any legislation that would make sure disable and incapacitated patients are not refused lifesaving medical care.
  • After the starvation and dehydration death of Terri Schiavo, some states are looking at proposals to make sure food and water are not removed from patients who can't make their own medical decisions and have not previously asked that they be deprived such care.
  • However, the AMA says it will oppose any legislation making that kind of determination.
  • Many of the doctors attending the group's annual meeting in Chicago said they don't want government to get involved in the doctor-patient relationship, according to an AP article.
  • Nancy Valko, of Nurses for Life and a leading monitor of end-of-life issues, says the need for the legislation the AMA opposes is great because many hospitals are adopting "medical futility policies."
  • Also on Tuesday, the AMA reaffirmed existing policy saying it is ethical in some cases to stop life-sustaining treatment if the doctor believes it is in the patient's best interest.
  • Because of the kind of policies the AMA favor, some who specialize in monitoring euthanasia issues say patients should make their medical requests known now to prevent winding up in a situation similar to Terri's.
  • Wesley Smith, a leading pro-life attorney who specializes in bioethics issues, says people should make their wishes known beforehand.
  • "I think people need to create advanced directives in which they say, 'I don't want to be dehydrated to death and have my food taken away if I become cognitively disabled,'" Smith explained.
  • "We always hear about doing away with treatment, but they can also be used proactively to say, 'Look, don't take any actions to intentionally kill me,'" Smith concluded

“DISINFORMATION SYNDROME” AFFLICTS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

News Releases

For Immediate Release: July 20, 2005
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

— Officials Routinely Rewarded for Lying and Punished for Telling the Truth

Washington, DC — The federal government suffers from a “severe disinformation syndrome” in which agency specialists are pressured to alter reports by managers who are promoted for breaking the law, according to congressional testimony delivered today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a consequence, scientific and technical papers, particularly within environmental agencies, are routinely censored, altered or manipulated for political purposes.

“The Bush administration obsession with controlling the flow of information means that factual information that does not serve its political agenda rarely sees the light of day,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch who testified today. “Public servants who wish to speak honestly about matters outside officially approved agency talking points are required to cast a profile in courage because their honesty could cost them their jobs.”

Ruch appeared today before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs of the House Committee on Government Reform in a hearing entitled “Improving Information Quality in the Federal Government.”
The other listed witnesses were Kim Nelson, the assistant administrator for the information office of the Environmental Protection Agency, and William Kovacs, an official with the Chamber of Commerce.

The PEER testimony outlines a pervasive effort to edit out vital but discordant information across the range of environmental activities:

  • Science. PEER and the Union of Concerned Scientists have conducted surveys among federal scientists showing a high degree of political intervention to amend scientific findings;
  • Land Management. Federal agencies are routinely issuing documents that do not withstand judicial scrutiny because the documents are at variance with the agency’s own internal data; and
  • Public Health. Whistleblowers lack meaningful protections so that professionals who raise concerns are banished or terminated as a result.

A major problem cited by PEER is that Congress extends no meaningful legal protections for executive branch employees who communicate information to oversight committees or individual members. As a consequence, official reports to Congress are often inaccurate, incomplete or untimely.

“If agencies can lie with impunity to Congress, why should they be expected to tell anyone else the truth?” Ruch asked, calling for Congress to put teeth into laws forbidding interference with or retaliation for transmitting information to elected representatives. “Right now, the federal civil service is scared to death.”

###

Read PEER congressional testimony

Look at surveys of federal scientists
Political Appointees Pollute Waters At Ocean Agency
Politics Trumps Science At U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Rep. Lee Introduces Resolution of Inquiry into Iraq War Planning


Congress

Ask Your Congress Member to Co-Sponsor!

CLICK HERE.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Dem., Calif.) has introduced a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives (H. Res 375) which, if passed, will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq."

Here is a one-page PDF of the Resolution.

And here is a flyer to help you promote co-sponsorship of the Resolution of Inquiry by your congress member.

These are the members of the committee to which the Resolution has been referred. The more members of the full House co-sponsor it, the more likely some committee members are to vote for it.

Here are current co-sponsors:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00375:@@@P

The Thomas site will not be updated during August and will continue to display 39 co-sponsors. But Congresswoman Lee's office will continue to add co-sponsors. Already added, as #40, is Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. Other likely and important members to add include:

Members of the Out of Iraq Caucus who have not yet co-sponsored.
Members of the Black Caucus who have not yet co-sponsored.
Members of the International Relations Committee who have not yet co-sponsored.

Ask Your Congress Member to Co-Sponsor!

CLICK HERE.

Here is the text of the Resolution:

109TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. RES. 375

Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution all information in the possession of the President and the Secretary of State relating to communication
with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ms. LEE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on _________________

RESOLUTION

Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution all information in the possession of the President and the Secretary of State relating to communication
with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the
policy of the United States with respect to Iraq.

Resolved, That not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution—

(1) the President is requested to transmit to the House of Representatives all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs, calendars, minutes, and memos, in the possession of the President relating to communications with officials of the United Kingdom from January 1, 2002, to October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq, including any discussions or communications between the President or other Administration officials and officials of the United Kingdom that occurred before the meeting on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street in London, England, between Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom intelligence officer Richard Dearlove, and other national security officials of the Blair Administration; and

(2) the Secretary of State is directed to transmit to the House of Representatives all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs, calendars, minutes, memos, and records of internal discussions, in the possession of the Secretary relating to communications with officials of the United Kingdom from January 1, 2002, to October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq, including any discussions or communications between the Secretary of State or other officials of the Department of State and officials of the United Kingdom that occurred before the meeting on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street in London, England, between Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom intelligence officer Richard Dearlove, and other national security officials of the Blair Administration.

Ask Your Congress Member to Co-Sponsor!

Deadly Immunity


Robert F. Kennedy Jr. investigates the government cover-up of a mercury/autism scandal



In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Georgia. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to fifty-two attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line. "We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits," said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. "This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country." Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that "given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let's say, less responsible hands." Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that "perhaps this study should not have been done at all." He added that "the research results have to be handled," warning that the study "will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group."

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children's health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines -- including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to eleven-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government's vaccine-related documents -- including the Simpsonwood transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. The measure was repealed by Congress in 2003 -- but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. "The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists," says Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to Frist.

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government's effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. "Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic," his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. "This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin." The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of "institutional malfeasance for self protection" and "misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."

The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical.

I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government's need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. "Why should we scare people about immunization," Waxman pointed out at one hearing, "until we know the facts?"

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation -- those born between 1989 and 2003 -- who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. "The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage," Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. "Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children."

More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among eleven children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis -- a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. "If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis," scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world's authorities on mercury toxicity, "then where are all the twenty-year-old autistics?" Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative "load" of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It's a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received -- but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore -- and cover up -- the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines -- and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

"You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. "It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours." Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative "unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs."

In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it "poison." In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low as one part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as "nontoxic" and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, ten babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.

In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within twenty-four hours of birth, and two-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccine programs, warned the company that six-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, "especially when used on infants and children," noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. "The best way to go," he added, "is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives."

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this "cost consideration," Merck ignored Hilleman's warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. "What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?" Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. "Why didn't CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?"

But by that time, the damage was done. At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury -- a level 99 times greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies -- including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health -- suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury.

Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don't require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC's top vaccine advisers, told me, "I think if we really have an influenza pandemic -- and certainly we will in the next twenty years, because we always do -- there's no way on God's earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials."

But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee's chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC "routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines," even though they have "interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight." The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."

Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he "would make money" if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist's direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. "It provides no conflict for me," he insists. "I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It's offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It's just not the way it works."

Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children's health, proud of their "partnerships" with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children's health. They are often resentful of questioning. "Science," says Offit, "is best left to scientists."

Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. "I'm not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now," Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, "will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use" of thimerosal in child vaccines.

If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines -- which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense -- over to a private agency, America's Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC "wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe," Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. "We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect" of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee's chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was "inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation" between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result "Walt wants" -- a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. "We've got a dragon by the tail here," said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. "The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization -- and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge."

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. "Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal," Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. "In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety." Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal's risks.

In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and -- in a startling position for a scientific body -- recommended that no further research be conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were "fatally flawed" by "poor design" and failed to represent "all the available scientific and medical research." CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because "an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?"

Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used in the Verstraeten study, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public.

So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a "very significant relationship" between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.

As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines -- the kind of population that scientists typically use as a "control" in experiments -- Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three -- including one child adopted from outside the Amish community -- had received their vaccines.

At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. "After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism," says state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation. "The fact that Iowa's 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children's vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone." Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in thirty-two other states.

But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries -- some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders "under review."

I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. "The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence," says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. "The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It's bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you've ever seen."

It's hard to calculate the damage to our country -- and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases -- if Third World nations come to believe that America's most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It's not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America's enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers -- many of them sincere, even idealistic -- who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world's poorest populations.

NOTE: This story has been updated to correct several inaccuracies in the original, published version. As originally reported, American preschoolers received only three vaccinations before 1989, but the article failed to note that they were innoculated a total of eleven times with those vaccines, including boosters. The article also misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms - an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. Finally, because of an editing error, the article misstated the contents of the rotavirus vaccine approved by the CDC. It did not contain thimerosal. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.

An earlier version of this story stated that the Institute of Medicine convened a second panel to review the work of the Immunization Safety Review Committee that had found no evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism. In fact, the IOM convened the second panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program, including those raised by critics of the IOM's earlier work. But the panel was not charged with reviewing the committee's findings. The story also inadvertently omitted a word and transposed two sentences in a quote by Dr. John Clements, and incorrectly stated that Dr. Sam Katz held a patent with Merck on the measles vaccine. In fact, Dr. Katz was part of a team that developed the vaccine and brought it to licensure, but he never held the patent. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.

CLARIFICATION: After publication of this story, Salon and Rolling Stone corrected an error that misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms ? an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. At the time of the correction, we were aware that the comparison itself was flawed, but as journalists we considered it more appropriate to state the correct figure rather than replace it with another number entirely.

Since that earlier correction, however, it has become clear from responses to the article that the forty-percent number, while accurate, is misleading. It measures the total mercury load an infant received from vaccines during the first six months, calculates the daily average received based on average body weight, and then compares that number to the EPA daily limit. But infants did not receive the vaccines as a ?daily average? ? they received massive doses on a single day, through multiple shots. As the story states, these single-day doses exceeded the EPA limit by as much as 99 times. Based on the misunderstanding, and to avoid further confusion, we have amended the story to eliminate the forty-percent figure.

Correction: The story misattributed a quote to Andy Olson, former legislative counsel to Senator Bill Frist. The comment was made by Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to the senator. Rolling Stone and Salon.com regret the error.

Kennedy Report Sparks Controversy