Hospice Patients Alliance: Patient Advocates

Charitable Compassion and the Choices We Make

by Ron Panzer

May 14, 2012

In many parts of the world, secular bioethicists are wielding great influence over the health care systems and the patients treated there, over the institutions of higher learning and over the government policies approved by the "people's representatives." Learned professors and powerful politicians pat each other on the back as they give their "stamp of approval" to practices and policies that knowingly will result in the deaths of countless human beings at various stages of their lives. How did we fall to such a low level that we condone medical killing of any sort?

Though there were many steps beforehand, in 1974, the U.S. Congress passed the National Research Act which mandated the establishment of a National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which came to be known as the Belmont Commission. The Commission came up with the principles used to justify experimentation that may result in medical killing: the secular bioethical principles of "respect for persons or 'autonomy,' beneficence, and justice," and the Congress encoded these "ethical" principles into United States federal law in 1978. It is typical that the goal of the Commission was identified as the "protection of human subjects," but the results of its work is not the protection of human subjects, but the endangerment of them.

The Congress, which authorized this Commission to create a new "ethics," didn't think the moral law that Western Civilization has generally accepted for a few thousand years, as well as the Hippocratic Oath, to "do no harm," were "good enough" or "suitable" for them, for this modern society. The Nurse's Florence Nightingale Oath (and the oaths of other health professionals) fell into the same category: "too old fashioned" and tied down to what they considered "backward, traditional morality." The best way of describing how they saw traditional morality is that the moral law was too "restrictive."

Traditional ethics did not serve their purposes and were very real obstacles to their plans. They wanted to do things that they knew would be condemned by the divine law and the Hippocratic Oath. If most people saw and understood all that many modern researchers, scientists and others are actually doing, they would be horrified. In 1973, U.S. doctors had received Supreme Court approval for the continued medical killings of unborn babies; legalized abortion became the common law of the land. The next step was to get approval to experiment on unborn embryos and fetuses, as well as approval to experiment with other human beings in various settings. How could they get that approval?

Under the guise of creating "guidelines" that would assure "ethical" behavior, they moved forward. They didn't need to go to the courts for that approval. Thumbing their nose at God, they simply issued the approval for the "new ethics" out of their own mouths. The Congress simply enacted into law the recommendations of the Commission they had created for the express purpose of coming up with the seemingly rational justification for researchers, big business interests, and scientists to do just about anything they wanted to do.

Just think about it! A group of people sit around and come up with a "concensus" about what is right and good, disregarding the actual Divine Law, the Natural Law that is revealed to us through the right use of our reason and our informed conscience. They completely set aside the Ten Commandments that prohibits killing, as well as the Hippocratic Oath that states in part,

"...I will do no harm or injustice to [my patients].

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked,
nor will I advise such a plan;
and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Well, however much they thumb their nose at God and the Divine Law, real ethics do not arise from "concensus." They are not "created" from a discussion or debate about what is right. They don't magically appear after "just the right" group of scholars think about these things. Real ethics pre-exist our awareness or even our lives. God did not invite a group of scholars to give Him their advice on Mt. Sinai! He did not invite them to debate and then help create the moral law, or to then inscribe them on the tablets of the Law. Divine Law arises out of God's own nature, showing a way that leads to perfect justice, as His nature is Justice and Truth.

Just as the laws of nature pre-exist the scientists who discover them, because the laws of nature are eternal, ... the laws of morality, Divine Law, pre-exist all people and also are eternal. Man shares a common human nature with all other human beings past and future, and therefore, the moral law applies to all of us equally, forever. Law doesn't come from any man, including Moses, but from God. Law is revealed to us directly by the dear Lord, or is discovered as Natural Law, which is confirmed through the right use of our reason and our informed conscience.

Clearly, assisting a suicide, performing euthanasia by giving a patient a lethal dose of a medication or performing an abortion, were all absolutely forbidden by the Ten Commandments and the Hippocratic Oath as well as the oaths of the allied health care professionals! The secular bioethical agenda threw off any restraint on their activities through the moral law that most Americans, and many people around the world would think of as "moral." The secular bioethicists said that killing was "ok" under a variety of circumstances. They, and many like them, were not approving the capital punishment of a known murderer, for example, but were approving killing of human beings to use life, i.e., they were approving killing to profit in some way or to further an agenda.

Of course, the values of the secular bioethicists based in humanism, have been practiced long before. In recent history, the communists in the Soviet Union and in China, following Marx and Engels' socialist teachings shared in their "Communist Manifesto," have long had free access to the medical killing of babies as well as no-fault divorce and anything else that contributes to the disintegration of respect for the traditional family unit, for traditional morality and reverence for God and the life He gives.

This is not surprising considering the teachings of these socialists in their 1848 Manifesto which asserts:

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What a statement! "Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality. Well, communism has not abolished any eternal truths, nor has it abolished religion or morality. It has sought to do so, but has not done so, and there is a world of difference. The arrogance of the statement reveals the dark spirit motivating Karl Marx, who was not a complete atheist at all!

Even though millions of his followers consider themselves to be atheists, Marx was not. Brought up a Christian through high school, he had a good command of Christian theology and was a believer. However, he came under the influence of some who were decidedly anti-God. They did not deny that God existed, but were against Him, setting man up as his own god, which is a foundation for the humanism that permeates much of our world today.

We need to understand Marx and others like him, because it gives us a better understanding of what the culture of death is really about. Marx wrote shortly after high school, "I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above." Marx also wrote, "With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world and see the collapse of this pygmy giant. Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world. And giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator." Karl Marx certainly believed in the Creator God, but rejected Him knowingly. Who does that? What type of group or belief system, acknowledges God, yet rejects Him and seeks to become equal with the almighty God, the Creator?

Even if Marx at any time deluded himself into feeling "equal to the Creator," he never was anything but a mere man. It is a dark path he took, and those who read about Marx even a little bit will know that he was funded by others, by very powerful and rich patrons, as were Lenin and Trotsky and other communist leaders. Behind most of the anarchistic, amoral, anti-religious, atheistic and anti-life initiatives, movements, and revolutions in the world is the constant presence of those ultra wealthy elites who seek to establish yet another socialist "utopia" with themselves in control. They encourage people, giving them hope for a better life, and then manipulate conflict between the peoples of a nation, or between nations, to bring about the change the elite seek in societies and governments.

In 1917, the Bolsheviks promised "Peace, Land, and Bread," and then seized control of everything. The people who believed in them? They received oppression, "peace" through the imposition of absolute authoritarian rule, "land" that was shared on collectives, and "bread" after waiting on lines to get their government-allotted "quota." The same promises of peace, welfare and plenty are used to manipulate the people in other nations, even in nations of the West.

In other words, those who profess faith in man, as opposed to God, who profess to be materialists, humanists, even atheists, are not merely materialists or humanists or atheists. Because God does exist, and reveals that He exists somehow to everyone, these have chosen to reject and deny Him, to defy Him and to create their own "kingdoms" based upon everything that God's just divine law condemns as immoral. They know what the divine Law says and reject it: that is what the culture of death, the ethics of death is based on.

Such socialist totalitarian "utopias" were established by the communists in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia and elsewhere, all with their historical record of killing tens of millions of vulnerable and helpless citizens. These have been the most brutal regimes with the largest numbers of victims ever recorded in history. The ethics that arises out of such an anti-God system is an ethics of death. These are not "godless" systems, but anti-God systems. They are at war with the culture of life and any expression of faith in the Creator God. Their results confirm it. They always imprison those of faith and those who bring a message of life and light.

The dear Lord reminds us, "... If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also...." [John 15:20] Secular humanists and communists have a rabid hatred for those of faith, because, for them, it is not just about atheism. It is about setting up man as supreme, in defiance to God.

We must be clear from the very beginning that there are many variations of the culture of death, but there is only one culture of life. Wherever God is lovingly acknowledged as the Creator of life and reverence for that life is practiced, the culture of life will flourish. Wherever people practice kindness, mercy, and respect others before them, helping them however they are suffering, there the culture of life exists. The culture of life is not dependent upon any particular denomination or way of believing; it springs from the hearts of those who love, truly, wherever they are.

However, wherever God is denied and the lives He created are destroyed with impunity, that is the culture of death. The culture of death, along with communist and totalitiarian regimes, may seem like an atheistic force, but they are essentially rebellious dark forces that are anti-God and anti-life. The true compassion that arises out of the culture of life is nothing like the "compassion" that arises out of the culture of death, wherever it is embraced.

There is no compassion without love! Choices that are not based on the moral law are truly unethical and anti-life. Where there is no respect for the divine Law and for God, there is only a defiance that leaves men destroyed. A French proverb says, "Who spits against the wind, spits in his own face." That's what those who rebel against God do: they only bring calamity down upon themselves, by their own actions which are contrary to the realities of life and the laws governing our existence on this Earth. When they base their choices on such a defiance of the divine law, health care and service to man is turned upside down, caring becomes killing, service becomes exploitation.

There is no "compassionate killing" in the ethics of life. With the ethics of life, there is no suggestion that we should choose to impose death on ourselves or others, throwing away the gift of life the Lord gives. The ethics of life concern a man's character and the choices he makes, limiting those choices to those which contribute not only to society's good, but to the individual's good and welfare, to his life itself. They guide him in rejecting certain actions as well as encouraging actions that should be adopted. Of course, different ethical systems may have completely different ideas about what is "good" for an individual and what is "good" for society. However, the ethics of life always honors the lives of the vulnerable.

The humanists, composed of nominal atheists, reject much of traditional morality and in the case of the communist humanists, exalt the "state" and man. Many are, as we have seen, anti-God. If they were just "humanists" and promoting man's achievements, there would be no rabid hatred for those of faith, for the expression of faith, and for God Himself. Where does that hatred come from if it were not about denying Him and rebelling against Him.

This is the reason they seek to eliminate all public displays of religious, especially Judeo-Christian, faith, law or language. This is the reason they label anyone who even mentions the "moral law" or "God," as "religious fanatics." They seek to control the entire realm of public discussion so that the dear Lord is not even mentioned, so that the divine Law is not referenced. When others agree to a completely secular argument, those who are anti-God have achieved part of their goal: the elimination of God from public discussion and consideration. They know, they always lose when people look to the divine Law and to God for purpose, meaning and fulfillment as well as the ethics that guide their lives.

The humanists, whether communists or capitalists, therefore, generally approve and encourage all varieties of sexual relations, consider nothing "sacred" except the "state" and man, denigrate the status of the family, deprive parents of their right to raise children as they see fit, encourage state-controlled education of the children at increasingly earlier ages, limit speech to that which praises the "state," and actively seek to suppress all true religious faith. In other words, when they acquire complete control over government, they persecute those who reject their godless "religion of man," those who question the "state," and those who are devoted to the dear Lord. They imprison and kill millions and millions!

How socialist humanists with the power of the state in their hands treat those who question their tyrannical regimes, has been described by writers such as Alexander Solzhenitsynin in his book about the Soviet Union's prison camps, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, by Richard Wurmbrand in his book about how the communists tortured Romania's faithful in its prison system, Tortured for Christ, by Armando Valladares in his book, Against All Hope: A Memoir of Life in Castro's Gulag, and by Harry Wu in his book on Communist China's current prison camps, Laogai, the Chinese Gulag.

These authors spent many years in horrific conditions and endured real torture, truly unspeakable torture imposed by the communist prison systems. These heart-rending accounts expose the reality of these tyrannical regimes and help us understand where socialism ultimately leads. The modern media and public school systems have suppressed awareness of the horrors that result from socialist thought and totalitarian systems like communism. So-called "soft" socialism such as practiced in some nations of Europe will, and has, led to increasing power of the state, which eventually leads to "hard" socialism, communism, the totalitarian state. "Soft" socialism appeals to the idealistic and naive, but is a seed of tyranny and leads to oppression wherever it is adopted.

When the individual's welfare and rights are minimized in relation to the state, people become expendable "for the greater good" of society. Legalization of imposed death, i.e., euthanasia, is a certain eventual consequence of adopting socialist governments, because socialism exalts the state over man and is based in a spirit of rebellion toward God. It ends in anti-life totalitarianism.

However, the ethics of life derived from divine law and natural law asserts that individuals are not just part of a society, a nation or state, to be used, manipulated and later thrown away when they are old, disabled or ill, or otherwise considered to be of no use to that society, nation or state. Each individual is a complete, separate human being with his or her own intrinsic worth, purpose and needs! In a health care setting, the recognition of a patient's intrinsic worth and value is central to all we do!

Just as a citizen may be exploited, arrested or even executed at any time by the tyrannical power of a communist totalitarian regime, any patient may be exploited, forcibly taken against his or her will and terminated in a health care system that does not recognize the sanctity of life. And patient advocates in many nations have received reports of just such terrible violations of patient's rights. There is really no good reason for a patient to feel safe when reverence for life and for God is not the foundation for what a health care agency or system does.

Those administering a health care system based upon utilitarian values that see an individual's worth in terms of what he or she can currently contribute to society, can at any time determine that such an individual is no longer productive or useful and is therefore, better off dead, for the greater good of society. The communists in the Soviet Union, in China, and in the National Socialist ("Nazi") Germany all killed casually in health care settings.

The tacit approval for casual medical killing is a central part of the culture of death's approach to health care, scientific research, and technological development. It is a central component of some of the goals of the secular humanists. Killing, or eliminating the undesired, is necessary for what they wished to accomplish in the United States back in the 1970s and through the decades up to the present day. Killing of those they deem unworthy of life and a burden to society is how they seek to design a "better," more "logical," and efficient society. Similar efforts and agendas have been implemented in many nations of the world. What the Nazis were universally condemned for doing in terms of eugenic experimentation, modern science, technology, and medical management have accomplished and are doing today.

So, in the U.S.A., the Belmont Commission did the work it was asked to do by the Congress: it discarded the traditional ethics of life upon which our legal system and Constitution are based. It discarded the values that are in line with the religious beliefs of many, and then "came up" with something "new" that permitted the activities they sought to do. The Congress then enacted into law the nation's "new" ethics, a "federal ethics," based upon the Commission's work. Ever since, this new ethics has been wielded as a wedge to incrementally weaken and then destroy the protections for life that permeated the law beforehand.

You might think the public would want to know that their nation was now being controlled by an ethics that legally, almost completely obliterated everything they believed about morality and what is right. You might imagine it was on the front page of the newspapers for months on end with protests in front of the Capitol Building, but there was nothing. The public was not alerted to this pervasive change in our society, though it was published in the Federal Register. Do you read the Federal Register?

This new "federal ethics" was an ethics they asserted was better than the ethical laws given by God! It was a secular bioethics. "Secular," because it rejected God, does not mention God, and rejected any idea that we owe a duty to God to obey His Ten Commandments, especially the one forbidding man from killing.

Arising from a rejection of divine law and morality, the new principles of secular ethics were, from the very start, founded in values that humanistically exalt man and guide the implementation of the "culture of death" today. Though secular "respect for persons" or autonomy should assure that a patient's wishes and life are protected, it is being used in combination with the surrogacy laws to impose death on patients in many nations of the West.

Though secular "beneficence" sounds like it is "good," it is anything but "good." It was the rationale used by the National Socialists, the Nazis, "for the greater good of society" to justify the killing of the victims of the Holocaust. It is used today to justify experimentation upon the vulnerable, and the medical killing of the victims of today's "Invisible Holocaust." It is an "invisible" Holocaust, because the managers of the culture of death have seen fit to hide their crimes against humanity behind the "Privacy Rules" of the HIPAA and HITECH Acts in the United States, and other laws in other nations. Killed in private, individually, the medical killings are kept secret and are not revealed openly to the public.

Secular "justice," like the other principles, is not just at all, and is used to deny care to those who need it. And denied care, rationed care, assures death for those who would live if they had been cared for properly with real respect for their person, with real good will and truly just allocation of resources. Anyone who thinks there has not been enough money to care for those who are ailing, need only look at the trillions of dollars going to who knows where, into the pockets of "friends" of those in power who run various corporations. The money to care is there. The will to care is absent in our culture of death society!

Because the culture of death is in its essence an anti-God culture, if anything, it is necessary to remember Him, acknowledge Him and love Him, in order to cure the ills created by this culture of death. He is the key to reforming and restoring our ethics, healing our health care system, and protecting the lives of the vulnerable .

But, of course, there is profit to be made by those who use people, who kill people, who manipulate scientific inquiry and technological developments to create technological empires and vast corporate earnings. If there were not money to be made or other agendas to be implemented, the Congress and those behind them, would never have gone down this road!

We've got billion dollar abortion industries run by Planned Parenthood and the hospice industry. Most hospices today are culture of death hospices since the hospice industry leadership was taken over by the euthanasia society's successors, though some have remained true to the mission of serving life at the end-of-life. We've got billion dollar biotechnology, bioengineering, genetic engineering, and all sorts of other new industries, many of them doing what would be forbidden had the traditional ethics restrained and guided scientific and technological development so that harm to millions of people would be prevented.

Many of these enterprises are carrying out huge experiments on large groups of people, even entire populations, without the usual required proof that their technologies are safe in the long run for mankind. They are releasing their genetically-engineered products into the world without having any idea what will happen as a result! And when people object to growing genetically-modified crops, as is being done in Canada, Monsanto seeks to impose their products on the nations anyway.

Monsanto and corporations like it conduct global experiments on entire populations by forcing the use of genetically-engineered seeds whose man-manipulated genetic content will remain in the germ-line of those plant species, like corn, soybeans or cotton, forever, as they will cross-pollinate with other plant species. The "Bt corn" produced by Monsanto Corporation, for example, has bacterial genetic material in the corn, as part of the "man-created" new corn species, and that bacterial genetic material finds its ways into your intestines if you eat that corn, causing many intestinal and other health issues. Would you serve your loved ones genetically-manipulated corn if you knew it had bacterial DNA in it?

In the United States and some other countries, you are likely eating genetically-modified corn or soybeans in products you buy like Kellogg's Kashi cereals, but you don't know it, because the government has expressly chosen to not require labeling showing the genetically-modified contents. Simply consuming a product with high-fructose corn syrup may result in you ingesting bacterial DNA due to the source: genetically-modified corn! The federal officials know that the corporations will not voluntarily label their genetically-modified foods.

Why won't the elected leaders in government require full disclosure to the public through labeling? Because the elected officials' campaigns are supported by the big corporations, and many bureaucrats in the government regulatory agencies are former industry executives! Why else? Basically, Monsanto and other corporate leaders run the government's regulatory agencies through former employees who are now in government! These global corporations exert such complete control over government policy that it has become a global form of fascism where the people have no voice and the corporations do whatever they wish, even if the farm workers and their families subsequently acquire life-threatening conditions and die.

The bureaucrats in the government, the elected officials, and the corporate executives all know people don't want genetically-modified crops, seeds or food, and wouldn't want it, and won't accept it if they knew it was genetically-modified. So, they force people to eat it, by producing it and shipping it to the grocery stores without the people knowing they are consuming it, and then it is too late. So much for the principle of "informed consent" to their population-wide experiment! Who knowns what the long-term results of this experimentation will be?

What else? An experiment is being conducted on entire populations using vaccines that contain attenuated (weakened) viruses grown, or cultured, in aborted fetal tissue. Did you know that several types of vaccines given to you or your children, or children of others you know and care about, were developed using human fetal tissue? Did they tell you before they injected you or your children with these vaccines that they do contain some foreign DNA-contaminated substances? Who knows what the long-term results of doing this actually are? Who knows how the body responds to the foreign DNA being injected along with the vaccine's intended contents?

The aborted fetal tissue from cell lines used contains human genetic material, which can combine with the viruses being cultured, so when we are vaccinated, or our children are vaccinated with such vaccines, we are receiving some human genetic material ("DNA") from other human beings that were killed through abortion! Vaccines such as the Polio vaccine, Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, chickenpox and shingles vaccine, heatitis A vaccine, and rabies vaccine are produced using aborted human fetal tissue to culture the viruses used. How do you feel about that? Do you think this is "ethical?"

Dr. Joseph Mercola says,

"Setting aside, for the moment, unknown long-term health consequences of DNA contamination and religious beliefs about use of aborted fetal tissues -- the ethics of nondisclosure are reprehensible. Drug companies and vaccine policy-makers should not be allowed to decide whether or not to share this information with you. This is information you should have received prior to making a choice about whether or not to vaccinate."

According to "former drug company scientist Helen Ratajczak," "an additional increased spike in incidence of autism occurred in 1995 when the chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue." First described in 1943 and "estimated to occur in 4 to 5 per 10,000 children, the incidence of autism is now 1 per 110 in the United States, and 1 per 64 in the United Kingdom, with similar incidences throughout the world."

Something is terribly, terribly wrong when 1 in about every 100 children is autistic! This is not normal! The increase in numbers cannot solely be accounted for through "better diagnosis and detection," a common catch-phrase used by those who don't want to publicly admit the obvious: man is causing these increases somehow! Some environmental hazard may be contributing to these cases and foreign DNA-contaminated vaccines, along with mercury contamination from various sources, may be just two significant contributing factors.

This is the type of experimentation on large populations of people that is "justified" using secular bioethics. They say they are doing these things so that serious diseases are prevented, for the good of society. However, nobody knows the long term consequences. The short-term consequences appear to be catastrophic. Just imagine what it feels like to know your child will be disabled through autism and that that disability is likely caused by reckless actions on the part of vaccine manufacturers and other corporations who contaminate the environment with their products.

That these corporations have not done long-term studies to determine how safe these vaccines are is inexcusable. Instead of assuring their products' safety, the results of their global experiment will be reaped by the unsuspecting parents and children who receive these contaminated vaccines and suffer for the rest of their lives.

Would you like to be vaccinated with vaccines using viruses grown in human fetal tissue? Who will be held responsible for the results of this experimentation on entire populations of people? Nobody really. The governments around the world have given immunity to the vaccine manufacturers so they can continue to produce vaccines without fear of being sued for the known harmful effects that occur in some recipients of the vaccines.

If you were designing ethical restraints on science, would you allow them to use human fetal tissue to culture and grow the viruses used in vaccines? Secular bioethicists have no problem "justifying" such practices with their "ethics." So, scientific, technological, and medical research and development all move forward with a culture of death mentality, a culture of corruption that has no moral restraint, not even common sense restraint, threatening all of us. But this is not unexpected. When you discard the moral law, there is no restraint, and madness, greed and power assume the controlling hand in any decisions being made by the government's elected officials and bureaucrats.

These secular bioethicists arrogantly assert that what God says is right is not right, and, that what God says is wrong is not wrong or immoral. Let's be clear about that, because the federal ethics have been the law of the United States of America since 1978, even though most people never realized it. The major media certainly didn't educate the people about the 180 degree turn the American nation took overnight when these new ethics were encoded into law.

Along the same lines of thought, an organization deceptively named, "Compassion and Choices" promotes the deranged view that "compassion" is helping people to die by hastening their death, that people should be able to "choose" to die whenever they want to if they are suffering, that they should be able to involve the health care system in committing suicide or killing them. They believe that health care professionals that are normally thought of as in the "healing" profession, should now be in the death-dealing profession!

When did we start believing that suicide was "ok?" When did we start accepting that we should encourage people to choose to commit suicide? What is "compassionate" about giving a suffering patient the message that their life is not worth living as it is, and therefore, they should either kill themselves or allow themselves to be killed? What happened to our fear of the Lord's wrath for violating a commandment to "not kill?"

Of course, there is nothing new in their rejection of God's Law and its restraints on man's actions. About 2,600 years ago, the prophet Ezekiel shared the word of the Lord explaining just how those who reject God's law feel, how the U.S. Congressmen, and the many others who agreed with them in this effort, felt. He described what people like the members of "Compassion and Choices" and the secular bioethicists who reject God say: "...'The way of the Lord is not just.'" And then Ezekiel exposed them and said, "But it is their way that is not just." [Ezekiel 33:17]

Obviously, there's a completely different understanding of what "justice" is or what is "just." What is "justice?" It means "what is right" or "lawful" or "fair." Well, if you base your ethics on the reality that God is, that He really is, ... not simply a theoretical "god," but an all-powerful, truly existing divine God, and base your ethics on His law, then what is "just" fulfills that law. "Justice" is in harmony with the Ten Commandments, rewarding those who do good and punishing those who do wrong.

The secular bioethicists, however, base their idea of "justice" on man's law, new laws such as those created through the Supreme Court that say it is lawful to kill an unborn human being. Yes, there are court-ordered precedents that become "law," or "common law," and are just as authoritative as laws enacted by the Congress or the State legislatures. So, man's definition of "justice" includes legally killing the innocent, unborn and completely vulnerable and helpless, and arresting those who honor God and the innocent lives being slain by speaking out to try to stop medical murder.

God calls that evil. If someone were to kill your brother or sister, or son or daughter, wouldn't you consider that "evil" or wrong? But the Supreme Court says, it's legal, therefore, "just," therefore "right." And this says a lot about the members of the Supreme Court that voted to condone killing of babies in the womb. It says that they have abandoned the Divine Law, the moral law, as well as obviously, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment so clearly serves to protect the right to life for each human being, unless they have committed a capital crime and been convicted and sentenced by a court of law, i.e., unless their rights to "due process" have been fulfilled:

No "State [shall] deprive any person of life ... without due process of law.

To get around that, they knowingly disregarded the already scientifically-established facts about when life begins, choosing instead to divert attention from the obvious thing that happens when an abortion is performed, and focus instead on the idea that a woman has a right to privacy in her dealings with her physician. It sounds reasonable that a woman have private communications with her physician, but as eloquent as the "reasoned opinion" of the high Court was, it is completely absurd since it ignores the most important thing about pregnancy: a baby has been created and that life hangs in the balance of what was being decided. To ignore that a human being is being killed, is the height of irresponsibility and a violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.

It is very much in line with what the dear Lord had to say about the Pharisees of His time:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin.
But you have neglected the more important matters of the law
-- justice, mercy and faithfulness.
You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You clean the outside of the cup and dish,
but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. - Matthew 23:23-25

Who else are the members of our Supreme Court but the ultimate "teachers of the law?" Yet, where is the justice, mercy and faithfulness in the decisions of the Supreme Court in its Roe v Wade ruling? Where is the justice, mercy and faithfulness in that ruling, knowing that their decision would result in the killing of even one baby, let alone the actual massive wave of medical killing of the unborn who can do nothing to protect themselves?

Is there "compassion" and "choice" for the unborn who are killed? Do those who consider aborting their pregnancy understand that in so doing, they are killing an actual, real human being living inside them? Have they been shown the well-established scientific facts of embryology that a unique human being is formed from the very point the embryonic developmental process begins to unfold?

Without access to accurate scientifically-established facts, those who are considering an abortion are obstructed in their attempt to arrive at a truly ethical decision. Those who consider fertility treatments that include the creation of "surplus" embryos, that are later killed, are obstructed in their attempt to arrive at a truly ethical or moral decision, because they are told that those embryonic human beings are not human beings. They may be good-hearted and motivated to "do the right thing," and even have faith in God, but if they are given inaccurate information, their conclusions will be wrong, their decisions will not be in line with the moral law. They will not have a properly informed conscience, and therefore, they will be led into error. They will be led to do wrong.

Without access to a proper understanding of the worth of a human life, and to a proper understanding of the experiences in life, including suffering as well as the joys of life, people are obstructed in their attempts to make moral decisions. Many people strive to, again, "do the right thing." They struggle with decisions not just at the beginning of life, but at the end-of-life, and at other points in life as well.

They are taught that those who are suffering terribly are "better off dead," that "if their quality of life is poor, that life is no longer meaningful," that "hastening death is compassionate," and that "really, you are only letting them go," that "it's not killing." When people are given this type of misinformation by those in authority, whether they are doctors or nurses, pastors or social workers, or others, they cannot arrive at a truly moral decision. They cannot form their conscience properly and find the right path. They don't have the complete facts, the correct understanding of what is at stake, and they are intentionally given misleading, incomplete or completely false information that only encourages more killing of the vulnerable.

That they don't find the right path is the intention of those who run those abortion mills or wish to hasten death at any stage of life. In a hospital, transplant team physicians may tell family members that their brain-injured loved one "will never recover," "will be a vegetable all his life," "has no chance," or even is "brain dead," when none of these statements is true.

Misinforming the individuals who make these decisions is terribly wrong and immoral, because it leads not only to the killing of the vulnerable, but to the unknowing killing of the vulnerable by those who wished to do the right thing, by those who would never wish to kill a human being! The greater wrong is done by those who knowingly mislead and misinform others so the opportunity for real compassion to be extended is destroyed by manipulating others' decisions. Why? Because they corrupt the moral decision-making process of those they counsel to take actions that violate the divine and moral law, and may even violate their own religious beliefs.

Is there "compassion" and "choice" for the vulnerable who are killed at the end-of-life? In Belgium and the Netherlands where euthanasia is legalized, there are thousands of verified involuntary medical killings, i.e., "euthanasias." Killing someone without their permission or knowledge? Is that "compassion?" Where is the "choice?" Now, in the Nethlands, there are efforts to broaden the criteria for medical killing so that those who are merely "lonely" elderly can be killed. Does that mean that some lonely elderly people will be targeted to be victimized by involuntary euthanasia? You bet it does! Where does it end? Where is the spirit of mercy in the counsel of these blind guides?

"Mercy" has always been understood as not killing when the punishment required it ... for example, imprisoning a criminal for life instead of executing him when he had been sentenced to death. What crime have the unborn committed that they are killed? Their parents, or physicians working in fertility clinics, chose to begin their lives through the actions they chose to do. They are responsible for initiating that life, but what "justifies" the killing of the vulnerable? This is an "ethics" that is ethics turned upside down!

Where is the justice, mercy and faithfulness in the actions of those who practice secular bioethics and kill those they deem "unworthy of life?" Where is the justice, mercy and faithfulness in those who argue that a human being is not a human being, a person is not a person, and therefore they can be killed?


The pro-euthanasia, pro-assisted suicide organization, Compassion & Choices, asserts that showing "compassion" for someone who is suffering is to end their life, and that is "death with dignity.". When people are suffering, the message they give is, "you are better off dead." "Now that you are suffering and your quality of life has declined, "dignity" is to die through suicide or direct medical killing. "Let us help you die."

Their use of the term, "dignity" appeals to a person's pride, and their fear. Individuals who do not wish to be seen in compromising positions, to be vulnerable, to need assistance from others think that if they commit suicide or are killed, then they will avoid those situations and will need no help. We all have pride or self-love, it's natural, but that doesn't mean we should feed it or make choices based upon our pride.

Real dignity involves a gracefulness in life, a loving charitable spirit that is, "patient, ... kind, ... does not envy, ... does not boast, ... is not proud, ... is not rude, ... is not self-seeking, ... is not easily angered, ... keeps no record of wrongs, ... does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres, [and] ... never fails." [1 Corinthians 13:4-8]

Yes, I'm talking about the spirit with which I, you, or any others of us can and should approach life and dying, because we are all living and dying at the same time. So long as we are alive, we are approaching closer to our end, whenever that might be. The way does not change if we receive a terminal diagnosis or suffer from any illness, disability or old age!

Those aligned with the culture of death talk about "compassion and choices" that arise from secular values and a devaluation of life. We are involved in loving work that involves charitable compassion that affirms life in all we do. "Charitable" is a word that for most people today brings to mind a legal designation for a nonprofit corporation. We're aware of the true meaning of the word and let that guide our compassionate service.

Charitable compassion fulfills the needs of the patient, assures him of his worth, treats him like a complete human being (he is), and establishes relationship, the relationship of love, person to person, soul to soul. We can never run patients through a health care system like an assembly line, treating all alike, if we have charitable compassion! We can never harm them or end their lives if we have charitable compassion! When we have charitable compassion, we see their suffering, we register within ourselves what they are going through, we extend our love to them and when we are with them, we give our full attention to them.

If at some time, we become the patient and are suffering, we recognize that not only are our caregivers human beings like ourselves, but that they also are suffering in some way. As a patient, we receive with love just the same as the caregiver gives with love, even though there is suffering. By accepting the service of others, we give the gift of service to those who are caring for us and it is no small gift!

Remember the dear Lord Himself washed the feet of His disciples and when Peter objected, He said that if He did not wash Peter's feet, Peter would have no part in Him. [John 13:1-10] We need to be receptive to that which He would give us, and receptive to that which caregivers would do for us. There is no loss of dignity in receiving care, though if we "think as man" we may think so. If we think as He would have us think, there is no loss of dignity, only an opportunity to share our love!

What gift do the recipients of imposed death, assisted-suicide or euthanasia give their "care" givers? Nothing! There is no uplifting love exchanged. With the way of charitable compassion, love is exchanged with mutual respect and reverence for life.

When we suffer and are in need of assistance, we need to be patient with ourselves and caregivers who may help us. In suffering, we need to be kind to others and to ourselves, continuing to extend our love though we suffer. In suffering, we need to not envy those who are more able, younger, healthier, richer or more powerful. In suffering, we are not to boast or be proud, and not being proud, and not feeding that pride, we allow ourselves to be helped by others and bless others by allowing them to serve us, even when we are less able and weak! [1 Corinthians 13]

In suffering, we are not to be rude to those around us and not to always think only of ourselves and not to be easily angered. Because we are not the only ones who suffer; everyone has their own suffering, even those who are working to help us. We may not know what suffering others carry on their shoulders, but it is certain that they suffer somehow, because this is a universal part of life itself!

When we suffer, we must forgive, letting go the mistakes others make, because they are not perfect, just as we are not perfect. [Matthew 6:12] We see in them our own imperfection and understand they are only trying to serve as best they can. In suffering, we do not strike out at others but are happy in the eternal truth that God is with us, always. In suffering, we protect others as we can, we trust in Him, we hope in Him and because of His promise to always be with us, we persevere, we choose life, because He gave it to us and He will take us when it is time.

Until then, we have work to do, whether we are able and up and about, or bedridden, or even on our "deathbed." Even a dying man or woman can bless others and share his or her love, and what is love? ... but charity, shared from the giving space within. And what is charity? ... but love, that arises out of His touch, overflowing and guiding us to make choices that glorify Him and bless all those around.

Real "death with dignity" cannot be separated from life with dignity, as it is the same as life with dignity. As along as we are alive, we are not dead; whatever dignity we have, it is found in how we live with humility, not pride.

Who are the individuals who fear the suffering at the end of life? All of us, to some extent. It's natural. But that does not mean we must give in to fear and let fear guide our decisions! We have a better way. We have faith, and where there is faith and trust, we can overcome our fears, resting in His presence.

Those who counsel us to commit suicide or have others kill us, say that they are "compassionate." But such "compassion" is a lie from beginning to end. They only seek to mislead and deceive us in their attempt. They do not offer us life or a more abundant life. They offer us death and a complete denial of the hope we have in the dear Lord. They offer us nothing. They benefit us nothing. They are simply blind guides.

Do they bring hope to the suffering? Do they bring kindness? Do they bring justice, mercy or faithfulness to those in need? It is truly a dark "compassion" that they practice. It is truly a dark choice they make and encourage others to make, to kill themselves or to kill others through euthanasia. It is truly a dark choice they make to reject God's law that says, "do not kill," and to devalue the priceless gift of life He gives, and to then destroy it.

Can we imagine a "charitable" organization that gets together to execute a suffering patient? ... to kill that patient? That is, in effect, what organizations like "Compassion & Choices" are. "Donate your money, your time and energy so that we can make sure the vulnerable can kill themselves or be killed." That's their mission. That's their "charitable goal." That's where they would take our society.


What is really meant by "compassion?" The word literally means "suffering together" with another and is defined as "feeling pity or sorrow for the sufferings of another." Truly being with the one who is suffering is part of compassion.

The fundamental principle of the ethics of life is the acknowledgement that God is, that He is the Life of all things, the Creator of our lives. "... the Lord our God, the Lord is one." [Mark 12:29] And, He is the life. [John 14:6] The moment we acknowledge Him, we establish relationship, life to Life, ... "I" and "Thou" Lord .... This recognition transforms every moment of our lives, and it requires us to re-evaluate everything we do in health care, harmonizing what we do with His eternal loving presence!

Just contemplating His being and our relationship with Him could make our heads swim with wonder at the divine mystery of life we discover all around us.

The second principle of the ethics of life arises out of the first. We have a right to life because He created our life, and therefore we have a duty to protect that life, to care for that life, especially when there is suffering of any sort. That is compassion. Compassion is found in following His words about "the more important matters of the law" which should guide our actions: "justice, mercy and faithfulness." - [Matthew 23:23]

Compassion arises out of a heart filled with love, a love that can forgive those who make a mistake or have disobeyed, like a mother hugging her children and comforting them, even after having to discipline them for some act of disobedience or bad behavior. If we are truly compassionate when someone is experiencing suffering, we are to be with them, to support them, to care, to help, to relieve pain as much as we can, to nurture, to love. That is "compassion" in line with the divine law and His will.

Even when a patient hits, spits, insults or curses us, we are to care for them, forgive them, love them.

When we have compassion, we weep for those who are killed:

Oh, that my head were a spring of water
    and my eyes a fountain of tears!
I would weep day and night
    for the slain of my people. - Jeremiah 9:1

When we have compassion, we do not kill them.

When we have compassion, we not only care for the poor, we assist them:

"Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord,
    and He will reward them for what they have done." Proverbs 19:17

When we have charitable compassion, we do not ignore their needs.

Remember Terri Schiavo. Those "compassionate" "Compassion & Choices" types rejoiced that they were killing her and executed her by dehydrating her to death. The leaders of the National Hospice & Palliative Care Organization gave a standing ovation to those hospice leaders who killed Terri. What does that say about their compassion for Terri or their real attitude toward the disabled? What does it say about how deeply the culture of death has infiltrated the national organization entrusted to promote the mission of end-of-life care and the welfare of patients at the end-of-life? What would God say?

"... if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward." - Matthew 10:42

Yet, the judge's order expressly forbade anyone to give "even a cup of cold water" to Terri. When we have charitable compassion, we do not neglect to provide even the most basic care!

Terri was His follower, yet they denied her the most minimal of care and called it "good!" What a perverted, evil people who could treat a neglected, abused and vulnerable victim in this way while all the world watched!

When we have charitable compassion, we actually treat and care for the wounded:

"a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the [wounded] man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.
Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him.
The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper.
'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return,
I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have" - Luke 10:33-35

When we have charitable compassion, we do not abandon those who are in need!

The Samaritan did everything to assure the wounded man lived. He recognized the sanctity of life. He did not leave him to die.

When we have compassion, we rescue those who have been targeted for death. We assure that they live. When Moses was an infant, the Pharoah had issued an order that the male babies of the Hebrews were to be killed, and Moses' mother put him in a basket. Pharoah's daughter saw the basket, "... opened it and saw the baby. He was crying, and she felt sorry for him." [Exodus 2:6] She made sure he was fed and raised him as her own. That's compassion!

Compassion & Choices organization encourages death, suicide, euthanasia, the devaluation of those who are suffering, who are very elderly, terminally-ill, disabled. Though they may say they are only interested in voluntary acts of suicide or euthanasia by those who are suffering extreme pain and are terminally-ill, we know from reading the literature of the euthanasia advocates since 1939 that they only pretend to want to limit their agenda to these voluntary deaths.

Advocates of medical killing have used this ploy for almost 75 years now: the same language, the same lies. They are all about utilitarianism, using the argument that "the greatest good for society," requires that those whose quality of life is considered poor, who require much health care, should be killed. That is the opposite of compassion. What they call compassion is simply evil.

The dear Lord spoke about their type of "compassion" when He said,

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy;
I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." - John 10:10

What is the result of Compassion & Choices' "compassion?" Death, destruction and theft of estates, when people using their way of thinking kill the elderly and vulnerable under the guise of "assisted suicide" or "euthanasia." How many of the elderly are manipulated into agreeing with "euthanasia" or assisted-suicide in Belgium, the Netherlands or even in the United States and other nations, by adult children who tell them, "it's time to let go!" "Why suffer? End it now!" It's simply killing and destruction and grabbing what's left when they're gone. I've seen the adult children argue right at the bedside with the patient looking them in the eyes, arguing over who will get the patient's possessions. Is this compassion?

We know what real compassion is: when we have real compassion, we love those we serve. When we have real compassion, we choose life for the vulnerable, and we affirm the value of our patients' lives. When we have real compassion and love them, our patients may be aroused from their despair and choose to live, because they are awakened to their divine purpose, to their purpose in this world. They feel that they matter and are wanted, and that is what we all need to feel. And when death comes naturally without being imposed, we accept it as right, in its own timing.

And there is more to compassion: when we have compassion we will assist others in their needs, as we can. Out of compassion we charitably give from what we have in terms of time or money or possessions. Charitable giving uplifts the society. Assisting those in need uplifts the society and the community.

Family members and neighbors helping other family members or neighbors with their children or ailing loved ones, is part of the compassion that arises out of love. Extending that charitable giving of our time, energy, money and work efforts, to all around us, as we can do, is real compassion. In an extended family or a blessed community, real compassion allows for those who have time and energy to serve, to give of their time and energy to serve and care. We have gotten away from that.

Our families are scattered and the extended families have disintegrated in most communities, depriving those in need of a valuable resource. We have gone astray, requiring us to depend when we are desperate upon those whose only goals are skimming profit (or maximizing revenue) out of the skilled nursing facilities and hospices. It is no wonder that skilled nursing facilities and many hospices have become places where patients may be abused, neglected and victimized, even medically-killed.

When we have true compassion and our choices are based upon divine Law, the path becomes much clearer: we err on the side of life!

The Choices We Make

"That may be all well and fine," some culture of death advocates may say, but they then add, "what about when things are not so crystal clear?" "What about making decisions when people are really ill, terribly disabled, or "just wasting away, so old?" "What about when they have dementia, are physically disabled, developmentally-disabled, or are brain-injured?" "Who would want to live like that?" they say.

Well, that's exactly when we need to care, support and love those vulnerable ones. Weren't these secular humanist types the ones who say, "Judge not!" Yet, they judge these vulnerable individuals as not worthy of care, as better off dead. What more damaging human judgment could there be than to determine that someone else should die, because "they" don't value the life of the vulnerable disabled, ailing, or elderly! What a hypocrisy!

"What good is it?" they respond. "Why should we do it?" they argue, implying there is no good purpose to any of it. But they fail to recognize the mystery of life, the purpose and meaning of life, why we are even here to begin with. If they did recognize these things, they wouldn't ever ask these questions. It is only when we have already long forgotten the dear Lord, only when we forget Who is present in the life before us, that we ask these things.

We start out in life absolutely self-centered. Babies cry, scream, and throw tantrums till they get what they want. But we are supposed to grow and learn and allow ourselves to be chiseled into the work of art He would like us to be. All the pain and suffering we go through, all the insults, the upsets, the injuries and disappointments, can be used to shape us into what He would have us be.

We protest the cruel boss, the difficult working conditions and say, "I won't be treated this way!" Yet, He was spit upon, beat, whipped and crucified. While we should work for good working conditions for all, shouldn't we be grateful for the good things we have? Shouldn't we be "long-suffering," able to endure the insults others may send our way, that only injure our pride? Isn't it our pride that is truly our enemy in the long run?

The culture of death calls suffering and pain evil. We call evil, evil, and accept the suffering and pain that must accompany life, as suffering and pain accompanies the lives of all who breathe. We do not invite pain or suffering, but we bear it and overcome it through the love He gives us. We bear it and overcome it by loving and relying on Him for our strength, and then serving others as if we were serving Him.

The story of Job being tested as he is tempted by Satan through suffering (in the Book of Job) provides us the ideal picture of a man who is at his wit's end, who has lost all his possessions, who has lost his health and is suffering from terrible diseases and pain, and who is tempted by those, like the Compassion and Choices folks, to "just die," or commit suicide. Job is sustained by his faith in God, even though he doesn't understand why he seemingly is being punished.

Eventually, he sees God's majesty and recognizes that however great man's accomplishments may be, man cannot understand all things, and cannot understand why things happen as they do. He realizes that no matter what occurs, God's supreme majesty and glory evokes awe, love, devotion and humility. Job demonstrates life with dignity, even when everything had taken a turn for the worst. He waits on the Lord and although he struggles with understanding his condition, he never gives up his faith. He rejects imposing death upon himself, because he recognizes life comes from God, that our first allegiance is to Him, that we have a duty to live and to do the work left for us on this Earth. He accepts what has come to him, remaining true to God through it all.

Those aligned with the culture of death fight the very nature of life itself, protesting that which comes as part of life and all its experiences. They don't like the reality that there is suffering, that there must be "downs" if there are "ups," that there must be pain if there is pleasure, that there must be absence if there is presence in this world. They don't like the reality that there must be revulsion or repulsion if there is attraction, that there must be left if there is right. The world is filled with dualities, pairs of opposites, but we navigate our path through them with faith, hope and love.

We recognize that these realities are inescapable in this life we experience as man. Yes, we work to improve the conditions of our lives. Yes, we apply our reason and the knowledge we gather to help others and ourselves. Yes, we apply technology to accomplish many of these goals. But how do we choose? Do we use the secular bioethics with its "shifting sands" of sometimes to-be-applied "principles," and sometimes "not-to-be-applied" principles?

No. The culture of life has another way that avoids the destruction and unrestrained harm that arises out of the fraudulent ethics known as "secular bioethics" and its humanistic foundation. Our ethics are founded in the moral law, the divine law, guided by virtuous paths like reverence for the lives He gives, compassion, charity, kindness, generosity, forgiveness, humility, patience, love. Our ethics are guided by prohibitions such as "do not kill," "do not harm," "do not hate." Our ethics are based on doing "good" as He defines it and as the proper and objective use of our reason reveals to us based upon these virtuous paths, the prohibtions and with the intent to do what is good, what is right.

We have already seen much of how He defines the good. What else can help us make the difficult choices that confront us? How else can we know what is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do?

Well, we need to consider many factors when we make these decisions. We need to consider what the purpose is for whatever we're doing. What is the purpose of health care, for example? Those aligned with the culture of death would say the purpose is to promote the "quality of life" and eliminate suffering. But if they can't improve the "quality of life" and eliminate suffering, then they give up! They say, "time to go!" "Time to kill!" "Time to die!" ... and they do it.

We say that the purpose of health care is to express His love through everything we do, to love, to serve, to care, to support, to encourage, to bring hope, to promote joy, to relieve suffering when we can, to be with, to witness, to honor, to bring light into the darkness, to comfort, to cherish, to reverence the lives before us.

We understand that the reason for our choices is all of these, but ultimately to glorify Him. The "end" of our actions is to serve Him, to love Him through those we serve. And the "means" are those actions that help to accomplish the "end" or goal of glorifying Him. We can also say that the "end" or purpose of all we do is to promote our ultimate happiness and the ultimate happiness of our patients, to the best of our ability.

We know that real happiness can only arise when He is served. When He is pleased, we are pleased. When He is pleased, we are in bliss. When He is pleased, He will give us the strength to endure any suffering, and not only endure, but triumph over, through an overwhelming love that transforms everything we do.

Some aligned with the culture of death bring up questions about these "ends" and "means," asking if "the ends can justify the means" or if actions used to accomplish those "ends" or goals may be bad. They suggest that actions that may be bad or harmful should be used now, in the short-term, if the goal is achieved in the long term, eventually. In other words, if they intend good, they can do harmful things to accomplish that good sometime in the future.

Well, the answer is pretty clear. The dear Lord warned us that we never really know when our lives will end or how much time we have left here on Earth. [Luke 12:20] And when we think about it, all we have is right now. We never act in the future. We only act in the now. So, in a way, there is only now, and our actions are first judged by whether they are right or moral themselves. We cannot will or choose to do bad, to do the wrong thing.

Even then, questions remain. To be ethical, we must consider the choice or action itself. Our choices and actions must have a good motive or intent, and we have to consider the circumstances as well. We know that some acts are intrinsically bad or good, and that some are neither obviously "bad" or obviously "good," so we must certainly avoid those that are intrinsically bad, like physically attacking others, stealing, murdering and lying.

Then, when we consider what to do, we must look at what would be the motive in each choice that is available to us. Why would we act one way or another? What would "justify" acting that way? What is the actual purpose or intent in choosing that action? Is that purpose in harmony with divine law, natural law or even human law? Would God be pleased if this act is done?

The circumstances are also important. Prof. Austin Fagothey explains that here we ask questions like, "who? when? how? to whom? by what means? how often? ...." Who is involved in the decision? Who is involved in the act? The patient, the family, friends, others? When will it be done? How will it be done? And, to whom will it be done? What are the means of doing it? How often will it be done? These are some of the questions we need to ask, and in the asking, we will come closer to understanding what is involved in each choice, and therefore each action that arises out of that choice.

The choice we make is very likely a good action, if in and of itself, it is known to be a good act, we have a good motive to do so, and the circumstances that are involved also appear right when considered. However, if an act is instrinsically bad, in and of itself, we cannot do that. We cannot use our God-given will to act in a way that is contrary to divine law and His will.

What if the act itself seems to be good, at least we think so, but the consequences may be bad or cause harm? What if we can't avoid doing some harm, whether we act or not, or if we choose one act or another? What if we can't see clearly what is the right thing to do? How do we decide then?

In those situations, we have to evaluate the consequences of our actions and the nature of our actions. We already know we can't voluntarily choose to do something that is wrong, bad, harmful or evil. So, this brings us to:

The Law of Double Effect

  1. "The act to be done must be good in itself or at least indifferent [neither good or bad]."
  2. "The good intended must not be obtained by means of the evil effect."
  3. "The evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted."
  4. "There must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect."

1. "The act to be done must be good in itself or at least indifferent [neither good or bad]."

How do we know what is intrinsically good in itself? We look to the divine law and the natural law revealed to us through the use of right reason and an informed conscience. Some things are very clear: killing an innocent, helpless person is evil, immoral, wrong. Raping a person is wrong. Stealing is wrong. We know these things from the divine law, but we also know from what our hearts and conscience tells us about such despicable evil acts. Our mind tells us these things are wrong when we think logically about them.

2. "The good intended must not be obtained by means of the evil effect."

We can't "justify" taking actions that have a harmful consequence in order to achieve a good result. In other words, the "ends" do not justify the means. Having good intentions does not excuse doing evil!

We cannot choose to do something that involves evil or wrong to accomplish the good. We can't rob people and hurt them, for example, to pay for our mortgage or to help others.

What about a kidney failure patient who needs a new kidney to live? If we help them to live, that is a good goal, but we can't go kidnap someone, drug them and take their kidneys so that the kidney patient would live. We can't use evil means to accomplish the good! There have been reports of this type of action being done and it is clearly, criminally evil.

3. "The evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted."

For example, a surgeon operates on a patient to save his or her life, but in doing so, causes terrible pain for the patient that must be endured later. The pain is an "evil effect" but is a biproduct of the good and moral act of saving the patient's life, so operating is the right thing to do. The pain, or "evil effect," is ethically permitted as it is not intended, and the good is intended.

What about pain medications? If the patient is suffering from extreme pain, sometimes opioid medications are given that relieve that terrible suffering. Giving medications is a good act with a good motive to relieve suffering, so, with the true intent to relieve that suffering, it is a moral act, even if they have some adverse effects.

But the giving of medications, that normally relieve suffering and pain, is immoral and evil if the intent is to cause death through an overdose, or to cause a permanent medically-induced coma that will result in death through dehydration over time ("terminal sedation"). In other words, hastening death through the administration of opioids or other medications is intrinsically evil because the intent from the very start is evil. Intentionally hastening death through the use of terminal sedation is immoral and evil. This is a method of what is called "stealth euthanasia" as it does not appear to be directly causing death, even though death is intended and is certain to result from those actions and the failure to provide hydration.

Some practitioners aligned with the culture of death misuse this Law of Double Effect to hide what they are doing. They say, "I'm trying to relieve pain, but some patients die" even though they really intend death and do impose death. Well, the dear Lord knows and sees their heart and their intent. They intend death and make it happen, and therefore, it is immoral and evil.

4. "There must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect."

In other words, the good that is being accomplished should be greater than the evil or harmful effect involved in the action we choose. If the harm or evil done is terribly harmful to the patient, we should not do it. If there is another way, another option that avoids the evil or harmful effect, we must choose that way.

For example, if we have a kidney patient who will die without a kidney transplant, what do we do? A relative or friend, or even a stranger, might donate a kidney to that patient. In donating a kidney, they go through surgery and suffer pain, but they save another person's life. That is a good thing and is moral and right. The intent is good, the giving of the kidney to the patient who needs it is good, and the evil of suffering pain is less than the evil of the kidney patient dying.

Another example arises in open heart surgery. The patient needs to have his heart stopped in order to be able to surgically correct defects in the blood flow to the heart. The intent is good, to save the patient's life. Part of the means to doing so is stopping the patient's heart so surgery can proceed, and that is considered a harm or "evil," but a "necessary" evil. However, saving the patient's life is a greater good, and once surgery is complete, the heart is restarted and the patient is saved. This is right and moral, even though an evil effect (stopping the heart) is permitted temporarily.

What about taking organs like brains or hearts from patients who are brain-injured in a car crash, in order to save the life of another patient? Well, the first condition says that "the act to be done must be good in itself or at least indifferent." If we take an unpaired vital organ from a patient, such as a brain or heart, that patient will die. In other words, we would kill one patient to save the other. Killing is immoral and evil, so taking a brain or heart from the brain-injured, even though it is commonly done today, is still evil and wrong.

Yes, it is "accepted" today, praised, and considered a great "gift." But, what about the patient who is killed? If a patient has a heart that is beating and lungs that are breathing and cells that are exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide and functioning, that patient is alive. That is a fact. "Brain death" is a term created solely to make it possible to "justify" doing that which was recognized as immoral and wrong, the killing of one patient to get their organs for another patient. And, in many cases, if the brain-injured patient is given time, some of them recover completely, or partially. If we kill the patient to get his or her brain or heart, we never know if the patient might have recovered. Even if the patient does not recover, killing the patient is still unethical.

Some may have trouble accepting this conclusion, and if so, it shows how much we have internalized values that reflect the culture of death and forgotten the command to not kill. Even when reminded of this, many still have trouble accepting this. However, Moses did not come down from Mt. Sinai with a Ten Commandments from the dear Lord that said, "Thou shalt not kill!" ... and added a clause to say: "except you can kill these patients who are brain-injured, you can kill these patients who have dementia, who are unborn, who are very ill ...."

And then other objections are raised. People will say, "yes, but we keep people alive who would have died in those times." And the answer remains, "Thou shalt not kill." Or do you question Him? ... that He didn't know what He was doing? ... didn't understand what would arise in the future in man's societies? ... that God was ignorant about modern technologies?

When it's time for someone to die, He will take them. Until then, we care for people. Yes, there are certain extraordinary means that are not required to be used for treatments, but basic care like oxygen, nutrition, fluids, treatment for easily-treated infections, these should never be withheld if the patient can absorb and benefit from them.

We would do better to be focused mostly on asking ourselves, "what is the purpose for our lives?" "what is the purpose of health care?" "how can we serve the patient?" and especially, "what happens when we care for that patient with the brain damage?" Those who are giving care have the opportunity to grow spiritually, increasing their patience, love and charitable nature, and the person receiving that care still receives that loving care, whether we see signs of that or not. There have been patients said to be "brain dead" who have come back, sometimes in weeks, months, and sometimes in many years. There are many stories about such patients who report that they heard the doctors speaking about them, heard the family members having their discussions but could not respond. They somehow heard, even though the doctors said they were brain dead, were not really "there." But they were!

Another thing comes to mind here. Many of us have been brought up in this secular culture, a humanist culture that speaks in the language of defiance, that denies God and denies that there is even anything that could be "evil" or "good" based on divine law. Growing up in a culture that says we can do anything, say anything, enjoy anything, and it's all "ok," feeds a confusion and spiritual waywardness that may be difficult to shed. We might find ourselves resisting the idea that anything is intrinsically "evil," not wanting to be "judgmental" or bigoted, as we may have been trained to think about those who use such concepts and language. We might have a "gut reaction" and revulsion to using such terms.

Yet, to make progress in aligning ourselves with the ethics of life, in promoting the culture of life, we need to accept what the right use of reason helps us to understand. If God is, and He is ..., then there are things that are actually "good," and there are things that are actually "evil," and we have to recognize these things. Just imagine the dear Lord standing before you as you go through your day, doing this or that. Not as a frightening judge who is there only to condemn you, ... but as your dearest Friend who knows the right way. What would He think about what you do? Ever think about it that way? That's how we need to go through life, not in fear, but striving to please Him.

It is very revealing that so many of us don't like to use this type of terminology, because we've been trained to think it "judgmental," but that simply shows how many of us have bought into the lie about not being "judgmental." Yes, we are not to judge other human beings. That is for God to do. But we are to judge between right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and unethical, based upon God's divine law, and the natural law that is revealed to us through our proper use of our reasoning abilities and our properly informed conscience.

Those aligned with the culture of death scream at us: "don't judge, don't be judgmental!" Yet, this is just one of the deceptions foisted upon the people by those aligned with the culture of death. They don't want us judging that what they are doing is immoral, wrong, evil. They want to be able to kill those who they deem to be unworthy of life anytime they wish! And if we even speak the dear Lord's name, the become irate. If we quote a scripture, they quote the communist jargon about "separation of church and state" which is not in the U.S. Constitution. They try to destroy leaders who call others to a higher path, to abide by the moral law and have reverence for life. They insist we only speak in secular language without mentioning Him.

Another deception is very common: "God forgives, so it doesn't matter what we or you do!" "Just accept Him and once you're "saved," you can do what you want, you can't lose that grace." "We are good believers." Talking about the patient, they say, "we're just letting him go." "He suffered so long, it was time." And though they say they are "good believers" of this or that denomination or way, they agreed to impose death, they approved imposing death, and in some cases, they actually imposed death themselves, by their hand. I have heard about this many times.

Is it true that we can knowingly will to do evil and remain in His grace? Is it true that we can defy His law knowingly and destroy the life He loves, and still remain in His grace? "Saved?" Theologians argue about these kinds of things all the time, but the culture of life forbids imposing death. We cannot commit an evil to achieve good. To end suffering we cannot kill.

What about assisted-suicide or voluntary euthanasia? Well, the first criteria, the act itself, must be evaluated: killing the patient is evil in and of itself, even if the motive might be "good," i.e., "to relieve suffering." Therefore, assisted-suicide and euthanasia is immoral, evil and cannot be done. Same thing with abortion. The motives here can vary, and many of them are themselves immoral, but the act of ending a pregnancy, i.e., "abortion," is in and of itself immoral, because it is clear that the baby is killed. That is the scientific fact, so therefore, abortion is immoral, unethical, contrary to natural and divine law, and is not to be done. Even if legal, those who are aligned with the culture of life will not choose to do such a thing. There are some things that are just terribly wrong and evil, no matter how much people wish to do them and no matter how many people approve of doing them! ... even if the Supreme Court says it is legal.

And what do we who are part of the culture of life do when we see these evil things? Do we witness such things and choose to ignore it? Do we see someone contemplating killing their child or another person, and yet do nothing, say nothing? Do we watch what is going on, yet turn away, pretending to ourselves that we do not see?

The dear Lord spoke to the prophet Ezekiel and us about this very thing:

"... if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.'

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman ...; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me.
When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.

"But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself." - Ezekiel 33:6-9

We may be afraid to speak up, to be considered weird, to be condemned. But we do have a duty to protect those who are helpless.

Before the new ethics was set forth by the Belmont Commission, words like "sin" and "wicked" were understood to be what they clearly mean. Now, it is clear that to even mention them is to open oneself up to ridicule and mockery, as if we are a backward people "clinging to our bibles" and holding back "progress." But, the divine law is not outdated. The divine law is not irrelevant to our lives today! Any "progress" that violates God's law is simply evil and we see its results in the millions of medical killings of the vulnerable, the unrestrained experimentation on entire populations through genetically-engineered seeds or DNA-contaminated vaccines that use immorally obtained aborted fetal cell tissue to culture the viruses used in the vaccines.

With all the confusion, chaos and victimization occurring in our society, the divine moral law is needed more than ever. With the millions of medical murders occurring, it is needed more than ever. Can it be made any clearer that the fruit of the secular humanist way is only more death, more killing, more chaos and despair?

When I was very young, I only sensed that God existed. But the beauty of His Creation whispered to me, "He lives!" I was taught nothing about Him at all. When I became a young man, He compassionately showed me the grace to see and understand without any doubt that He exists, that He is real, ... really real. And ever since, my life was changed. Imperfect, filled with faults, a prodigal, I have struggled to find a better way and have failed many times, but He has mercifully restored me. I know now that:

"The mercy of God is like an overflowing torrent --
it carries away hearts with it as it passes.
The good God will pardon a repentant sinner more quickly
than a mother would snatch her child out of the fire." - St John Vianney

And so He carried away my heart.

Though we have done wrong, thought wrong, been wrong, He forgives. Though I have done wrong, thought wrong, been wrong, He forgave me. His love is sweeter than the sweetest wine. If you believe that He is really real, and you know that He is really real, words like "evil" and "good," "justice, mercy and faithfulness" take on deep and very significant meanings. They matter. And I know that He is really real!

The secular humanists and the modernists, the materialists, are anti-God first and foremost, whether they admit it or not. They will say, "you can't 'know' that God exists!" But we can! If I walk down the street and meet "Jim," I know he exists. If the dear Lord comes into my life and reveals Himself to me, and He has, I know He exists, just as millions before me have witnessed and testified.

Even then, there are many who will stubbornly still say, "there is no right or wrong," "I'm OK, you're OK," "everything's OK." Well, it's not all "OK." They say the Bible teaches us "not to judge," so "don't be judgmental!" They quote Matthew 7:1 ""Do not judge, or you too will be judged." They scream at us, "don't impose your morals on us!" Yet, they will impose their morals on us, and prevent us from sharing our faith with others or speak it in many public settings.

Like all those who rebel against the moral law, against His will, and simply wish to do whatever they want to do, they misinterpret the obvious meaning of the scripture: ""Do not judge, or you too will be judged." It is clear, that this means that we should not judge another person, as if we know what is in their heart. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we should not judge and determine what is the right way of doing something or the wrong way. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that there are no things that are intrinsically evil or good. In fact, just the opposite is said: there are many things we might do that are truly evil, and there are many things we might do that are truly good. The Bible is filled with statements about those things and actions that are good and those that are evil. These things would not be mentioned at all, if we were not to know what is good and what is evil

The culture of death advocates, following the same line of "reasoning" that "everything is ok," or "there is no absolute right or wrong," would like us to believe that we "should not judge," and therefore, for example, we should believe it's "OK" for people to medically kill the vulnerable, disabled, ailing and elderly. "Judge not!" they say. But inwardly, they know, they're just trying to get us to approve their agenda which leads to chaos, disorder, the disintegration of a moral society and ultimately to the culture of death they believe is "right" and "just."

For those who rebel against Him and deny Him, they hate words like "evil," because they don't wish to be condemned for the wrong things they continue to choose to do. They just want to do whatever they want to do without restraint, like those who called for the Belmont Commission to "justify" doing anything they wanted to do. In other words, the federal ethics that are supposed to "control" and "restrain" what is done, that make it legal for what is done, were specifically created that there be little effective restraint on the experimentation upon human research subjects, whether embryonic human beings, fetal human beings or born human beings.

Any ethics that basically has few restraints on what is done and can be done, is not an "ethics" at all, because ethics serve as a guide to making right choices in life and in our activities, as well as avoiding wrong choices. What choices are considered "wrong" and are condemned by secular bioethics? Can you name anything?

The modern researchers using secular bioethics are doing whatever they want to do in the halls of science, in the research labs, in health care settings and baby-killing mills. No restraints, ... no ethics!

Of course, if you start to believe God is real, and that those Ten Commandments and moral laws might mean something, you start to make changes in your life. Moses had to take off his sandals, because he was standing on holy ground in the presence of the dear Lord. He is with us right now, so the ground you and I stand on right now is also holy ground! We have to take Him seriously!

Considering Him real and taking Him seriously changes the direction of our lives. When we perceive the glory that is His, right now, how shall we go forward and choose to live?

What choices will we make? How will we show our compassion, knowing we are in His presence every step we take? How will we choose to treat our brothers and sisters here on this Earth? How will we choose to treat the patients we see, the neighbors we meet, the people we serve wherever we are?

Will we be "watchmen" to those around us and to our society? Or will we remain silent? And if we remain silent, we will be held responsible for that. The dear Lord says, "... I am with you always..." [Matthew 28:20] Even now. With us. With our patients. With everyone.

But do we hear Him? Do we incline our heart to Him? Can we take Him seriously then? Do we trust in Him, that He will show us the way? Are we taking that first step in doing what would be pleasing to Him? What type of compassion shall we extend to others? What type of choices shall we offer those in need? ... the "compassion" that advises ending the lives of the vulnerable? ... or the compassion that lovingly cares for them and affirms their value in life?

Real compassion is charitable, loving, and kind. The moral choices we offer to our patients affirm the value of their lives.

Somewhere, some time, along the way, as we serve with compassion, patiently and lovingly, we will discover His footsteps ahead of us demonstrating in everything He did, the ethics of life.

See also:

Fagothey, Austin, S.J., Right and Reason (second or third editions only) (St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company, 1963)

Ratajczak, Helen V., "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes -- A review," Journal of Immunotoxicology, 2011; 8(1): 68-79.

Irving, Dianne N., M.A., PhD:
"The woman and the physician facing abortion: the role of correct science in the formation of conscience and the moral decision making process", 1999
What is "Bioethics?" 2000.
"The Bioethics Mess," 2001.
Which Ethics For Science and Public Policy?," 1993.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, The Communist Manifesto, 1848.

Solzhenitsynin, Alexander, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, 1962.

St Jean Vianney, The Littie Catechism of the Curé of Ars

Valladares, Armando, Against All Hope: A Memoir of Life in Castro's Gulag, 2001.

Wu, Harry, Laogai, the Chinese Gulag, 1992.

Wurmbrand, Richard:
Tortured for Christ, 1983.
Was Karl Marx a Satanist?, 1976.

Permission is granted to share these articles with others or post them on other websites so long as credit
is given to the author and Hospice Patients Alliance with a link to this original page.

Back to Articles by Ron Panzer

Search This Site

  About Us   | Disclaimer | Donations | Euthanasia Issues | FAQS

Find Attorney |   Find Hospice | Find MD Consult | Find Nurse Consult | Guide to Hospice

Help   | Home | Hospice News Center | Hospice Regulations | Newsletter |   Privacy Policy

HPA is a nonprofit, charitable 501(c)(3) patient advocacy organization

All material copyright of Hospice Patients Alliance ("HPA") unless otherwise credited.