<>
In an earlier post, I covered the plight of Amanda Twellman-Dieppa, who has Hodgkin’s Disease and worse, has relapsed and does not have a favorable prognosis. Unfortunately, the emotion of Amanda’s condition led to a confrontation with Medarex, who is developing a drug which may help Amanda’s condition. Unfortunately, the Twellman-Dieppa family chose the wrong method, but Mr. Drakeman, President of Medarex, stepped up to the plate in a big way.
SaveAmanda.com has an update, confirming that “a resolution has been reached, which meets the needs of the family and the goals of Medarex”. Details, as you might expect when an exception to all the normal rules is made, are being kept private, but considering the immense risk that Medarex is accepting in this case, the company’s actions are nothing short of heroic. The company was falsely accused of being uncaring and greedy, was hounded by a biased national radio host*, and faced a growing wave of unfair accusations through the Internet rumor mill; very few voices presented Medarex’s perspective, or tried to balance the known information. Despite the public pressure from both sides, the huge risk of allowing its competitors to see the results of MDX-60, and the embarrassment of hundreds of false rumors directed against them, Mr. Drakeman and the directors of Medarex stayed on mission to find a way to help Amanda. There is no way to know for sure whether MDX-60 will work, and even if it’s completely successful, it means years of recovery at best. Since my own mom had breast cancer, I understand that ‘success’ means remission, which is just another word for waiting for the possibility the cancer could still come back.
I am very thankful that Amanda will get the drug she believes is her best hope. I appreciate the determination her father showed in making sure he did everything he could. And most of all, the courage and idealist spirit showed by the directors at Medarex, though it will be ignored by most, is worthy of great praise on the record.
(* The radio host, it should be mentioned, grudgingly admitted that Medarex and it's President, Mr. Drakeman, have been invaluable in helping Amanda.)
Friday, May 06, 2005
Wow
[]
I was trying to think of a great article for today, and a few ideas came up. But they will have to wait for another day, because I found a tremendous article on a critical need we all face; How to really be a follower of Christ.
Timothy George and John Woodbridge wrote a powerful book, entitled “The Mark of Jesus", and excerpted it into an article, using the books of 1st and 2nd Corinthians to show historical examples from the missions of Paul. It’s a bit lengthy, but if you want to really be a Christian, or if you are curious about what a Christian should be like, you must read this article. Read the whole thing, as they say.
(grateful hat tips to Worthy Thinking, and to Oh How I Love Jesus)
UPDATE: I meant to write 1st & 2nd Corinthians, but actually wrote "Chronicles". Thanks Romeocat for the catch! The entry is now corrected.
I was trying to think of a great article for today, and a few ideas came up. But they will have to wait for another day, because I found a tremendous article on a critical need we all face; How to really be a follower of Christ.
Timothy George and John Woodbridge wrote a powerful book, entitled “The Mark of Jesus", and excerpted it into an article, using the books of 1st and 2nd Corinthians to show historical examples from the missions of Paul. It’s a bit lengthy, but if you want to really be a Christian, or if you are curious about what a Christian should be like, you must read this article. Read the whole thing, as they say.
(grateful hat tips to Worthy Thinking, and to Oh How I Love Jesus)
UPDATE: I meant to write 1st & 2nd Corinthians, but actually wrote "Chronicles". Thanks Romeocat for the catch! The entry is now corrected.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Was Jesus Sinless?
+++
The question about whether of not Jesus sinned has come up, as well as whether this matters in relation to His atonement for the world. In these days of Absolute Moral Relativism, the notion that Jesus Christ may actually have been exactly as the Gospel accounts describe Him, runs headlong into the humanist dogma, which thinks itself enlightened and tolerant, to grant the Son of God status as a ‘good teacher’, but not as the Lord God’s only begotten Son. So, a defense of the Lord’s perfection, once accepted as obvious as the corrupt nature of Man, is necessary.
There is an abundance of Scripture which refers to Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, much of the Old Testament is rejected by non-Christians in that context, and so for the purpose of this discussion I will leave aside the Old Testament passages which I believe specifically mention Jesus the Christ, and bear directly with New Testament passages when speaking of Jesus directly, and only refer to the Old Testament when addressing the Jewish position on sin.
To answer the question of whether Jesus sinned, requires a basic agreement on the meaning of ‘sin, especially as practiced in Jesus’ day. Accordingly, I have selected verses which bear on the general description of sin, and on the actions of the Jewish authorities in Jesus’ specific case.
First, the functional starting point – does it matter? To that, I reference Ezekiel 33:12, which reads:
“The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.”
So, if Jesus Christ had sinned, even though He was perfectly righteous, He would have been made unfit to be the Savior of the world in that moment. This is exactly why satan tried to tempt Him in the wilderness, and a point on which I may not yield.
So, what else does God have to say about sin before the coming of Christ? Quite a bit, actually. Consider what these verses say:
“The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men” (Isaiah 29:13)
The law is from God, not what men demand.
“He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)
To love God and act in that love, is to not sin at all.
“The day of the LORD is near
for all nations.
As you have done, it will be done to you;
your deeds will return upon your own head.” (Obadiah 1:15)
You get back what you do. Sin, therefore, must be to do a thing which is destructive and evil. To do good would only bring good back to yourself.
“Rend your heart
and not your garments.
Return to the LORD your God,
for he is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and abounding in love,
and he relents from sending calamity” (Joel 2:13)
God is not concerned with what happens on the outside, but what happens on the inside, in your heart.
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)
Again, we see plainly that God is concerned not with technicalities, but the heart and soul of a person.
“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
(Leviticus 19:18)
Even in the book most often quoted as onerous and burdensome, God speaks plainly about love and doing good.
Therefore, the notion of sin must be considered not by what is written in ink, but in what pleases and serves God.
Further, we have the example of how Jesus was treated in His own life. Consider the words and actions of the Pharisees and Levites in these situations:
“Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.”(Matthew 9:1-8)
See how the Pharisees are answered, and how by doing what is good Jesus rebukes them.
“While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."
But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons."
(Matthew 9:32-33)
See how Jesus does a blameless thing, and His enemies seek an insulting explanation. Who in this point pleases God more?
“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"
He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.”
(Matthew 12:1-14)
Jesus not only explains the law, but provides a historical context. Se how the Pharisees do not answer, but accept His truth.
“Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
(Matthew 15:1-11)
“Break the tradition”? See how cumbersome these men become, that even a habit they have become used to, is now considered a requirement!
“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.”
(Matthew 19:3-11)
Jesus again explains the law and more, shows us that some of the old law was not what God desired, but what man was willing to accept.
“Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
(Matthew 19:13-14)
Could Jesus be more plain? It is not about deeds against a standard, or knowledge of a code of rules, but the purity of heart.
Now, after all this, you would think that the Pharisees would have had a lengthy list of accusations to place against Jesus, but when they arrested Him, they couldn’t even agree on their stories:
“The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "
Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
”He is worthy of death," they answered.”
(Matthew 26:59-66)
Note that carefully. Not that Jesus broke any point of the law, not any of the Commandments, except that they claimed He blasphemed, and if Jesus is the Son of God then that charge was false.
So they take Jesus to Pilate, but once there, they no longer accuse Jesus of Blasphemy, but Sedition and Insurrection against the Caesar by claiming to be a king.
The matter is plain, from that perspective – even the Pharisees could not find a law Jesus had broken.
OK, now I sense the people who don’t accept the Bible as literally true, will protest that I am taking the accounts at their word, and that very possibly the Sanhedrin did in fact press Moses’ law against Jesus. To that, I answer look at what happened. Jesus was not stoned, as is the customary punishment for Blasphemy. He wasn’t even flogged by the Sanhedrin, which we know was an option through the events mentioned in the Book of Acts. Nope, the Sanhedrin sent Jesus off to Pilate and Herod. Why? Because they had no religious basis on which to kill him, and depended on the Secular government for that. So, on that basis, the sole conclusion available, is that the Sanhedrin could not indict Jesus convincingly on a charge of violating the law. IF they could, they could have discredited Him, which would have done exactly what they wanted.
Now, returning to the Person of Christ, what signs do we see that support His sinlessless? Consider these verses:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
(Matthew 5:17-18)
Jesus said this at the start of His ministry. Would His disciples have included this in the Gospel according to Matthew, if they believed He had broken the Law? Would Jesus have said this, if He was going to violate the Law?
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
(Matthew 11:27)
Jesus enjoys a special relationship with God the Father. Who could say this, except the one man who never sinned?
“After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
(Matthew 17:1-5)
We see here Jesus speaking to the writer of the Law, and to its most effective defender. That speaks to His authority. Also, there is no chance, at all, that the most Holy and Perfect LORD would say this statement, if Jesus were simply a good teacher.
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
(Matthew 25:31-46)
Jesus has authority to judge all men, including those who God deems righteous. That speaks for itself.
Jesus, alone of all men, lived a sinless life. This is borne out by a close look at how God created His Law, how even Jesus’ enemies weighed His actions, by the effects and results of Jesus’ words and deeds, and by the authority which is reserved for Christ Jesus. In my opinion, one can only pretend Jesus sinned, by denying Whom He Is.
The question about whether of not Jesus sinned has come up, as well as whether this matters in relation to His atonement for the world. In these days of Absolute Moral Relativism, the notion that Jesus Christ may actually have been exactly as the Gospel accounts describe Him, runs headlong into the humanist dogma, which thinks itself enlightened and tolerant, to grant the Son of God status as a ‘good teacher’, but not as the Lord God’s only begotten Son. So, a defense of the Lord’s perfection, once accepted as obvious as the corrupt nature of Man, is necessary.
There is an abundance of Scripture which refers to Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, much of the Old Testament is rejected by non-Christians in that context, and so for the purpose of this discussion I will leave aside the Old Testament passages which I believe specifically mention Jesus the Christ, and bear directly with New Testament passages when speaking of Jesus directly, and only refer to the Old Testament when addressing the Jewish position on sin.
To answer the question of whether Jesus sinned, requires a basic agreement on the meaning of ‘sin, especially as practiced in Jesus’ day. Accordingly, I have selected verses which bear on the general description of sin, and on the actions of the Jewish authorities in Jesus’ specific case.
First, the functional starting point – does it matter? To that, I reference Ezekiel 33:12, which reads:
“The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.”
So, if Jesus Christ had sinned, even though He was perfectly righteous, He would have been made unfit to be the Savior of the world in that moment. This is exactly why satan tried to tempt Him in the wilderness, and a point on which I may not yield.
So, what else does God have to say about sin before the coming of Christ? Quite a bit, actually. Consider what these verses say:
“The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men” (Isaiah 29:13)
The law is from God, not what men demand.
“He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)
To love God and act in that love, is to not sin at all.
“The day of the LORD is near
for all nations.
As you have done, it will be done to you;
your deeds will return upon your own head.” (Obadiah 1:15)
You get back what you do. Sin, therefore, must be to do a thing which is destructive and evil. To do good would only bring good back to yourself.
“Rend your heart
and not your garments.
Return to the LORD your God,
for he is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and abounding in love,
and he relents from sending calamity” (Joel 2:13)
God is not concerned with what happens on the outside, but what happens on the inside, in your heart.
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)
Again, we see plainly that God is concerned not with technicalities, but the heart and soul of a person.
“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
(Leviticus 19:18)
Even in the book most often quoted as onerous and burdensome, God speaks plainly about love and doing good.
Therefore, the notion of sin must be considered not by what is written in ink, but in what pleases and serves God.
Further, we have the example of how Jesus was treated in His own life. Consider the words and actions of the Pharisees and Levites in these situations:
“Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.”(Matthew 9:1-8)
See how the Pharisees are answered, and how by doing what is good Jesus rebukes them.
“While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."
But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons."
(Matthew 9:32-33)
See how Jesus does a blameless thing, and His enemies seek an insulting explanation. Who in this point pleases God more?
“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"
He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.”
(Matthew 12:1-14)
Jesus not only explains the law, but provides a historical context. Se how the Pharisees do not answer, but accept His truth.
“Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"
Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
(Matthew 15:1-11)
“Break the tradition”? See how cumbersome these men become, that even a habit they have become used to, is now considered a requirement!
“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.”
(Matthew 19:3-11)
Jesus again explains the law and more, shows us that some of the old law was not what God desired, but what man was willing to accept.
“Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
(Matthew 19:13-14)
Could Jesus be more plain? It is not about deeds against a standard, or knowledge of a code of rules, but the purity of heart.
Now, after all this, you would think that the Pharisees would have had a lengthy list of accusations to place against Jesus, but when they arrested Him, they couldn’t even agree on their stories:
“The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "
Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
”He is worthy of death," they answered.”
(Matthew 26:59-66)
Note that carefully. Not that Jesus broke any point of the law, not any of the Commandments, except that they claimed He blasphemed, and if Jesus is the Son of God then that charge was false.
So they take Jesus to Pilate, but once there, they no longer accuse Jesus of Blasphemy, but Sedition and Insurrection against the Caesar by claiming to be a king.
The matter is plain, from that perspective – even the Pharisees could not find a law Jesus had broken.
OK, now I sense the people who don’t accept the Bible as literally true, will protest that I am taking the accounts at their word, and that very possibly the Sanhedrin did in fact press Moses’ law against Jesus. To that, I answer look at what happened. Jesus was not stoned, as is the customary punishment for Blasphemy. He wasn’t even flogged by the Sanhedrin, which we know was an option through the events mentioned in the Book of Acts. Nope, the Sanhedrin sent Jesus off to Pilate and Herod. Why? Because they had no religious basis on which to kill him, and depended on the Secular government for that. So, on that basis, the sole conclusion available, is that the Sanhedrin could not indict Jesus convincingly on a charge of violating the law. IF they could, they could have discredited Him, which would have done exactly what they wanted.
Now, returning to the Person of Christ, what signs do we see that support His sinlessless? Consider these verses:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
(Matthew 5:17-18)
Jesus said this at the start of His ministry. Would His disciples have included this in the Gospel according to Matthew, if they believed He had broken the Law? Would Jesus have said this, if He was going to violate the Law?
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
(Matthew 11:27)
Jesus enjoys a special relationship with God the Father. Who could say this, except the one man who never sinned?
“After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
(Matthew 17:1-5)
We see here Jesus speaking to the writer of the Law, and to its most effective defender. That speaks to His authority. Also, there is no chance, at all, that the most Holy and Perfect LORD would say this statement, if Jesus were simply a good teacher.
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
(Matthew 25:31-46)
Jesus has authority to judge all men, including those who God deems righteous. That speaks for itself.
Jesus, alone of all men, lived a sinless life. This is borne out by a close look at how God created His Law, how even Jesus’ enemies weighed His actions, by the effects and results of Jesus’ words and deeds, and by the authority which is reserved for Christ Jesus. In my opinion, one can only pretend Jesus sinned, by denying Whom He Is.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The Story Has 2 Sides - Amanda and Medarex
In his best-seller, “Blog”, columnist and talk show host Hugh Hewitt explained why blogs are passing news analysts in popularity: “The public has the final say. There is no going back, only an endless effort to capture and keep audience based on credibility.” (pg 94). That credibility is the seed for the blogosphere’s growth and character. Sometimes it’s vital for blogs to band together to defend a fellow blogger. Sometimes, it’s necessary for one blog to step in to be sure the story remains balanced.
Tuesday afternoon, Hugh Hewitt posted the story of Amanda Twellman-Dieppa, who contacted him to ask for support in her quest to gain access to an experimental cancer drug. According to Amanda, she has cancer which has relapsed, and in her opinion only an experiemntal drug she calls “CD30” has any chance of saving her life, but she says the drug company, Medarex, refuses to allow her access to the drug, even though she says the Food and Drug Administration has promised special permission to ensure she can take the drug. Hewitt checked our her website, decided he found it credible, and says he tried to get Medarex’s side of the story. By airtime of his radio show, Hewitt had made up his mind to pick a side, and pushed his audience to press Medarex to release the drug. One of Hewitt’s callers pointed out that he had only presented one side of the story, which Hewitt rather angrily denied, saying “she’s dying, and we can’t wait.” The caller suggested that one day wait to get the other side wouldn’t hurt the matter, and could allow a balanced presentation. Hewitt was not interested in that option. Hugh's one of the good guys, but on this call I don't believe he has covered all the bases. So, I decided to look into the matter myself.
Hewitt’s website has links to Amanda’s website (which has become unavailable, probably due to high traffic), and the website for Medarex. This allowed me important reference information, for which I thank Mr. Hewitt.
Hewitt began with Amanda’s statement to him, which in part reads as follows:
“I am 22 years old and I have cancer. I was diagnosed when I was 16 years old, went through chemo and radiation and was in remission until I relapsed when I was 19 years old. I went through a grueling stem cell transplant and received my lifetime amount of radiation and once again went into remission until February 25, 2005.”
One thing which bothered me right off the bat, is that Amanda does not specify what sort of cancer she has in this statement. Since I was unable to access her website, it’s possible that this information is on her website, but neither Amanda nor Mr. Hewitt were specific about this point. This is a concern, because there are many types of cancers, some which move rapidly (like cancer of the liver) and some which grow comparatively slowly, some which can be treated with a number of options, and some which are difficult to treat.
Another point of concern showed up when I reviewed the information at Medarex. Medarex did not refer to a drug called “CD30”, but their 2004 Annual Report mentioned promising hope for a drug they called “MDX-60”, which is primarily being developed as a treatment for Hodgkin’s Disease, and the statement says the drug was especially effective in treating “relapsed CD-30 lymphomas”.
The National Institute of Health identifies “CD 30” not as a drug, but as a class of treatment, called “anti-CD 30 immunotoxins for the treatment of cancer”, specifically “a novel therapeutic agent to treat Hodgkin's disease and anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NCI has made a panel of recombinant immunotoxins specific for CD30 using Fvs of newly produced anti-CD30 monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) and a truncated mutant of Pseudomonas exotoxin. CD30 is highly expressed on both Hodgkin's disease and anaplastic large cell lymphoma. NCI is curently seeking cooperative partners to work with the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the development and clinical application of immunotoxins directed against CD 30 epitopes found on cells in Hodgkin's Lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma.”
Significantly, the NIH says that anti-CD 30 immunotoxins are in a “current state of development” known as “in-vitro demonstration of toxicity.”
Further, the NIH notes that in developing drugs for this purpose, companies working on the drug will operate under an agreement known as “CRADA” (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) . CRADA terms include:
* Term of the CRADA will be up to five (5) years
* No funding from the Government is available to Collaborator under a CRADA.
* Non-exclusive license option available for background rights. Exclusive license rights may be available in a specified field of use.
In plain english, the NIH expects drug labs to develop the drugs, but at their own cost and risk, and without a guarantee of an exclusive license, should a viable drug be discovered.
Looking deeper into Medarex, I found that Medarex began in 1987 as a New Jersey company, went public in 1991, and specializes in Monoclonal antibodies. Their specialties are “MDX-10” for melanoma treatment, and “MDX-60” for Hodgkin’s Disease (both entering or in “Phase II” of clinical trials in 2005)
22 “UltiMAb” products in clinical trials in 2004. Eight reached Phase II or III, meaning most of their work is in very early stages.
"MDX-60" is the product used in conjunction with “relapsed CD-30 lymphomas”, in Phase I and II trials. This is the product most likely referred to by Amanda Twellman-Dieppa.
"MDX-10" is already in “fast track” study in conjunction with the FDA, for treatment of metastatic melanoma, meaning that "MDX-60" has a back seat..
FDA assigned “Orphan Drug” designation for "MDX-60" in treatment of Hodgkins Disease. This means that using the drug for any other purpose can result in revocation of this designation, with significant tax penalties for the company.
Also, I found a “2005 Proxy Meeting Notice”, which shows company will have a meeting of the Shareholders on May 19. The notice specifies that any actions the company may take before the May 19 meeting, will be decided and approved at a prior meeting on March 22, 2005.
So, if you’re a director at Medarex, here’s what you see:
You're a relatively new, relatively small comany which has two major drugs in various phases of advanced research, but neither is in anything like near-release stages, certainly not for FDA submission. A woman and her family are demanding you release a drug still in “in-vitro” testing to them, and this request does not come from the FDA or the woman’s doctor, and there are no effective releases from liability, should something go wrong (like a patient facing death in a year, suddenly dying from an unexpected heart attack). There is no information about whether “MDX-60” is the only drug with a reasonable chance of success, nor in fact any empirical data to show “MDX-60” will be effective in the specific case. Further, release of the drug will be public record, so it’s success or failure will provide pivotal data to your competitors. Even if the drug does work, there is a risk that the extended use of the drug would result in increased tax costs, which the eventual sale of the drug would not cover. And finally, you have no authority to make a decision between March 22 and May 19, because of a blackout window in the Shareholders’ Meeting terms. In those conditions, what would you say to Mr. Hewitt, if you represented Medarex?
Maybe Medarex can find a way to make this work. Maybe there is some negotiating position with the FDA which can happen. But Hewitt’s assumption that Medarex doesn’t want to help Amanda, or that Medarex is operating out of greed, does not fairly present both sides. This article presents Medarex’s side, to give some balance to this story. It also reminds us that as bloggers, we have a strong and unending responsibility to seek the truth. It also, as a sidenote, illustrates some of the difficulties in drug reform initiatives: We need to focus on the patients, but never to the point of forgetting the needs of the companies which provide the miracle cures we now take for granted or worse, expect on our terms without delay or conditions.
UPDATE: The "Save Amanda" site is back up, but is very thin on facts. Amanda and her family still do not explain what sort of cancer she has, there is no medical support whatsoever, least of all to explain why MDX-60 is alleged to be the "only" drug which has any chance of successful treatment. I have also emailed Mr. Hewitt the notice of this article, so that he will have fair opportunity to respond.
UPDATE II: As it happens, I cross-posted over on Polipundit. Some of the more salient comments follow:
a4g reported (9:26 AM) that at the end of his show on Tuesday, Hugh spoke with Amanda’s father, who says that he has spoken with the President of Medarex, and found him very kind and sympathetic.
I pointed out (9:54 AM) that “the reason I am concerned about the absence of a doctor’s comments, is that we have nothing to indicate that MDX-60 will be more effective than other options. Amanda says MDX-60 is ‘it’, but given the level of its development, that seems an emotional assumption, rather than the judgment of a medical professional.
Next, what if MDX-60 kills her immediately, then it turns out another drug could have saved her? If Medarex ignores protocols here, there are all sorts of liability and performance issues that can fall on the company. What good would it do to give Amanda the untested drug, if the result not only does not save her life, but destroys the company and hurts countless other people, because the research is set back by the loss of the company? Don’t say it can’t happen, because it’s happened before.
Finally, there is a basic issue of fairness here. Hewitt put this up on his national radio show, but only addressed one side of the story. I genuinely hope that Amanda can receive the treatment that will save her life, but to coerce a private company to take risks, purely on an emotional argument with no empirical support at all, can hardly be called the right way to go about this.”
~B observed (9:58) this raises the question of whether it is acceptable for “dying patients to demand access to unproven drugs in an effort to extend and or save their lives at the risk of crashing the company developing the drug.”
Buckland (10:20) observed “The part I don’t like about this is the perception it leaves – if you want an unapproved treatment, the way to get it is to scream loudly and make accusations. Working within the system is for losers (and eventually dead ones).
The FDA puts some really stringent rules in place concerning the hurdles that a drug has to clear in order to come to the public. This is why it takes many years and successful trials to bring the drug to the public.
The drug has to be safe and effective. Those concerns have to be balanced. OxyContin is a great pain reliever, but the safety is less than optimal due to high addiction rates. However on balance it’s good. Such tradeoffs are made by companies and the FDA hundreds of times per year. There are exceptions, but on balance the system works well.
My guess is that the company will work out a way for Amanda to get the medicine, possibly through enrolling her in a trial of some kind. It may or may not do her any good, and it may or may not have side effects...
Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL) is extremely rare in people under 50, while Hodgkins Lymphoma is much more common in young people. However the fact that she had a marrow transplant hints that it is NHL, since that’s the only form of lymphoma that a transplant does any good for. It’s not an accepted treatment for Hodgkins Lymphoma.
Another possibility is that she has the more common Hodgkins Lymphoma and the family convinced the doctors to experiment with a marrow transplant (she calls it stem cell transplant), even though it has no history of working on Hodgkins Lymphoma. That would explain the public pressure to get the “wonder drug” now, and also explain why there’s no definitive statement on the type of cancer on the website.
My heart goes out to the family. It seems that they’re thrashing about, trying to find a cure for their daughter. Maybe I would do the same. However pushing for treatments that won’t help won’t do any good for anybody. And publicly pushing for drugs that aren’t ready for the public will tend to dry up the supply for those who really need them.”
I followed up again (10:46) with unanswered questions: “Why is MDX-60 the only option?
Why should a drug in early stages of testing be released to a patient with no compatibility vectors considered?
The page you referenced clearly (and in bold letters) claims Medarex is “CHOOSING PROFIT OVER LIFE” without a shred of evidence to back up that claim. Why do you ignore that issue?
There is not a single piece of medical opinion anywhere. There is nothing from her GP or any Lymphoma specialist, to support her demand for this specific treatment regimen. Why not?”
Buckland observed (11:04) “According to the Lymphoma Information Network , there are roughly 131,279 cases of Hodgkins Lymphoma in the US. All are fighting their own demons and those of the medical industry in order to do what’s necessary to survive. Each can tell a story of a disinterested doctor or a treatment that didn’t work as expected.
So if Hewitt found a new demon in the form of a drug company, so be it. And getting a new drug with unknown efficacy and side effects may be just what she needs. But if this in any way delays research on this or other drugs by diverting scarce resources to her above all of the other 131,278 cases then it’s a bad thing.
In the 1980’s the organ transplant world went through this. A reasonably fair system was set up for the allocation of scarce donor organs. However “resonably fair” is not at all fair if you are the one denied a life saving organ. So very sad cases mounted publicity campaigns, complete with sobbing Moms and beautiful children to get the needed organ.
And it worked. The cases that could mount the best publicity drive got the livers, no matter where the need was. Eventually the system corrected and went back to more of a dispassionate approach to these horrible choices.
There is a very good case that drugs as a whole go through too many trials before reaching the consumer. There’s also a case to be made that certain specialty drugs should be exempt from more (they are somewhat exempt now) of the rules and regulations. However I’m hard pressed to come up with a logical argument that the people who can get on the radio or build a website should go to the front of the line.”
Jim m noted (11:47) “A couple of thoughts…I have worked in the oncology/transplant industry for 14 years now. Stem cell transplants(Bone marrow is almost never used any more as the primary source of cells) are done for Hodgkins Lymphoma. It is rare. Most cases respond well to therapy and such aggressive therapy is not necessary.
The company’s reluctance is quite understandable. “Compassionate Use” exemptions from the FDA are common, however these are typically requested by physicians who are participating in a company sponsored study. The Medarex website indicates that MDX-60 is in Phase II trials, but does not specify whether or not these trials are active or complete. In any case is seems clear that Amanda’s physician is not participating in any Medarex trial. Also it would take longer than just a few days to get the drug to Amanda. While the company might e able to ship the drug, the hospital where she would be treated would have to have any treatment plan approved by their investigational review board and the physician and staff need to be trained in the drug’s use. These issues would delay administration of the theray significantly.
The idea that the company is being greedy is simply nuts. They are required by law to follow very strick regulations regarding the use of an unapproved drug. Improper release of a drug would bring severe penalties to the company and possibly delay the approval of the drug if trials are successful.
As to the notion that this is her only hope. Please go to www.clinicaltrials.gov and search for hodgkins lymphoma. You will find 101 open trials for this disease. Many are for advanced disease. This family as seized upon one opportunity among many and clearly has decided not to pursue the many other options that are currently available.”
These profound thoughts add great value to this matter.
Tuesday afternoon, Hugh Hewitt posted the story of Amanda Twellman-Dieppa, who contacted him to ask for support in her quest to gain access to an experimental cancer drug. According to Amanda, she has cancer which has relapsed, and in her opinion only an experiemntal drug she calls “CD30” has any chance of saving her life, but she says the drug company, Medarex, refuses to allow her access to the drug, even though she says the Food and Drug Administration has promised special permission to ensure she can take the drug. Hewitt checked our her website, decided he found it credible, and says he tried to get Medarex’s side of the story. By airtime of his radio show, Hewitt had made up his mind to pick a side, and pushed his audience to press Medarex to release the drug. One of Hewitt’s callers pointed out that he had only presented one side of the story, which Hewitt rather angrily denied, saying “she’s dying, and we can’t wait.” The caller suggested that one day wait to get the other side wouldn’t hurt the matter, and could allow a balanced presentation. Hewitt was not interested in that option. Hugh's one of the good guys, but on this call I don't believe he has covered all the bases. So, I decided to look into the matter myself.
Hewitt’s website has links to Amanda’s website (which has become unavailable, probably due to high traffic), and the website for Medarex. This allowed me important reference information, for which I thank Mr. Hewitt.
Hewitt began with Amanda’s statement to him, which in part reads as follows:
“I am 22 years old and I have cancer. I was diagnosed when I was 16 years old, went through chemo and radiation and was in remission until I relapsed when I was 19 years old. I went through a grueling stem cell transplant and received my lifetime amount of radiation and once again went into remission until February 25, 2005.”
One thing which bothered me right off the bat, is that Amanda does not specify what sort of cancer she has in this statement. Since I was unable to access her website, it’s possible that this information is on her website, but neither Amanda nor Mr. Hewitt were specific about this point. This is a concern, because there are many types of cancers, some which move rapidly (like cancer of the liver) and some which grow comparatively slowly, some which can be treated with a number of options, and some which are difficult to treat.
Another point of concern showed up when I reviewed the information at Medarex. Medarex did not refer to a drug called “CD30”, but their 2004 Annual Report mentioned promising hope for a drug they called “MDX-60”, which is primarily being developed as a treatment for Hodgkin’s Disease, and the statement says the drug was especially effective in treating “relapsed CD-30 lymphomas”.
The National Institute of Health identifies “CD 30” not as a drug, but as a class of treatment, called “anti-CD 30 immunotoxins for the treatment of cancer”, specifically “a novel therapeutic agent to treat Hodgkin's disease and anaplastic large cell lymphoma, NCI has made a panel of recombinant immunotoxins specific for CD30 using Fvs of newly produced anti-CD30 monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) and a truncated mutant of Pseudomonas exotoxin. CD30 is highly expressed on both Hodgkin's disease and anaplastic large cell lymphoma. NCI is curently seeking cooperative partners to work with the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the development and clinical application of immunotoxins directed against CD 30 epitopes found on cells in Hodgkin's Lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma.”
Significantly, the NIH says that anti-CD 30 immunotoxins are in a “current state of development” known as “in-vitro demonstration of toxicity.”
Further, the NIH notes that in developing drugs for this purpose, companies working on the drug will operate under an agreement known as “CRADA” (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) . CRADA terms include:
* Term of the CRADA will be up to five (5) years
* No funding from the Government is available to Collaborator under a CRADA.
* Non-exclusive license option available for background rights. Exclusive license rights may be available in a specified field of use.
In plain english, the NIH expects drug labs to develop the drugs, but at their own cost and risk, and without a guarantee of an exclusive license, should a viable drug be discovered.
Looking deeper into Medarex, I found that Medarex began in 1987 as a New Jersey company, went public in 1991, and specializes in Monoclonal antibodies. Their specialties are “MDX-10” for melanoma treatment, and “MDX-60” for Hodgkin’s Disease (both entering or in “Phase II” of clinical trials in 2005)
22 “UltiMAb” products in clinical trials in 2004. Eight reached Phase II or III, meaning most of their work is in very early stages.
"MDX-60" is the product used in conjunction with “relapsed CD-30 lymphomas”, in Phase I and II trials. This is the product most likely referred to by Amanda Twellman-Dieppa.
"MDX-10" is already in “fast track” study in conjunction with the FDA, for treatment of metastatic melanoma, meaning that "MDX-60" has a back seat..
FDA assigned “Orphan Drug” designation for "MDX-60" in treatment of Hodgkins Disease. This means that using the drug for any other purpose can result in revocation of this designation, with significant tax penalties for the company.
Also, I found a “2005 Proxy Meeting Notice”, which shows company will have a meeting of the Shareholders on May 19. The notice specifies that any actions the company may take before the May 19 meeting, will be decided and approved at a prior meeting on March 22, 2005.
So, if you’re a director at Medarex, here’s what you see:
You're a relatively new, relatively small comany which has two major drugs in various phases of advanced research, but neither is in anything like near-release stages, certainly not for FDA submission. A woman and her family are demanding you release a drug still in “in-vitro” testing to them, and this request does not come from the FDA or the woman’s doctor, and there are no effective releases from liability, should something go wrong (like a patient facing death in a year, suddenly dying from an unexpected heart attack). There is no information about whether “MDX-60” is the only drug with a reasonable chance of success, nor in fact any empirical data to show “MDX-60” will be effective in the specific case. Further, release of the drug will be public record, so it’s success or failure will provide pivotal data to your competitors. Even if the drug does work, there is a risk that the extended use of the drug would result in increased tax costs, which the eventual sale of the drug would not cover. And finally, you have no authority to make a decision between March 22 and May 19, because of a blackout window in the Shareholders’ Meeting terms. In those conditions, what would you say to Mr. Hewitt, if you represented Medarex?
Maybe Medarex can find a way to make this work. Maybe there is some negotiating position with the FDA which can happen. But Hewitt’s assumption that Medarex doesn’t want to help Amanda, or that Medarex is operating out of greed, does not fairly present both sides. This article presents Medarex’s side, to give some balance to this story. It also reminds us that as bloggers, we have a strong and unending responsibility to seek the truth. It also, as a sidenote, illustrates some of the difficulties in drug reform initiatives: We need to focus on the patients, but never to the point of forgetting the needs of the companies which provide the miracle cures we now take for granted or worse, expect on our terms without delay or conditions.
UPDATE: The "Save Amanda" site is back up, but is very thin on facts. Amanda and her family still do not explain what sort of cancer she has, there is no medical support whatsoever, least of all to explain why MDX-60 is alleged to be the "only" drug which has any chance of successful treatment. I have also emailed Mr. Hewitt the notice of this article, so that he will have fair opportunity to respond.
UPDATE II: As it happens, I cross-posted over on Polipundit. Some of the more salient comments follow:
a4g reported (9:26 AM) that at the end of his show on Tuesday, Hugh spoke with Amanda’s father, who says that he has spoken with the President of Medarex, and found him very kind and sympathetic.
I pointed out (9:54 AM) that “the reason I am concerned about the absence of a doctor’s comments, is that we have nothing to indicate that MDX-60 will be more effective than other options. Amanda says MDX-60 is ‘it’, but given the level of its development, that seems an emotional assumption, rather than the judgment of a medical professional.
Next, what if MDX-60 kills her immediately, then it turns out another drug could have saved her? If Medarex ignores protocols here, there are all sorts of liability and performance issues that can fall on the company. What good would it do to give Amanda the untested drug, if the result not only does not save her life, but destroys the company and hurts countless other people, because the research is set back by the loss of the company? Don’t say it can’t happen, because it’s happened before.
Finally, there is a basic issue of fairness here. Hewitt put this up on his national radio show, but only addressed one side of the story. I genuinely hope that Amanda can receive the treatment that will save her life, but to coerce a private company to take risks, purely on an emotional argument with no empirical support at all, can hardly be called the right way to go about this.”
~B observed (9:58) this raises the question of whether it is acceptable for “dying patients to demand access to unproven drugs in an effort to extend and or save their lives at the risk of crashing the company developing the drug.”
Buckland (10:20) observed “The part I don’t like about this is the perception it leaves – if you want an unapproved treatment, the way to get it is to scream loudly and make accusations. Working within the system is for losers (and eventually dead ones).
The FDA puts some really stringent rules in place concerning the hurdles that a drug has to clear in order to come to the public. This is why it takes many years and successful trials to bring the drug to the public.
The drug has to be safe and effective. Those concerns have to be balanced. OxyContin is a great pain reliever, but the safety is less than optimal due to high addiction rates. However on balance it’s good. Such tradeoffs are made by companies and the FDA hundreds of times per year. There are exceptions, but on balance the system works well.
My guess is that the company will work out a way for Amanda to get the medicine, possibly through enrolling her in a trial of some kind. It may or may not do her any good, and it may or may not have side effects...
Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL) is extremely rare in people under 50, while Hodgkins Lymphoma is much more common in young people. However the fact that she had a marrow transplant hints that it is NHL, since that’s the only form of lymphoma that a transplant does any good for. It’s not an accepted treatment for Hodgkins Lymphoma.
Another possibility is that she has the more common Hodgkins Lymphoma and the family convinced the doctors to experiment with a marrow transplant (she calls it stem cell transplant), even though it has no history of working on Hodgkins Lymphoma. That would explain the public pressure to get the “wonder drug” now, and also explain why there’s no definitive statement on the type of cancer on the website.
My heart goes out to the family. It seems that they’re thrashing about, trying to find a cure for their daughter. Maybe I would do the same. However pushing for treatments that won’t help won’t do any good for anybody. And publicly pushing for drugs that aren’t ready for the public will tend to dry up the supply for those who really need them.”
I followed up again (10:46) with unanswered questions: “Why is MDX-60 the only option?
Why should a drug in early stages of testing be released to a patient with no compatibility vectors considered?
The page you referenced clearly (and in bold letters) claims Medarex is “CHOOSING PROFIT OVER LIFE” without a shred of evidence to back up that claim. Why do you ignore that issue?
There is not a single piece of medical opinion anywhere. There is nothing from her GP or any Lymphoma specialist, to support her demand for this specific treatment regimen. Why not?”
Buckland observed (11:04) “According to the Lymphoma Information Network , there are roughly 131,279 cases of Hodgkins Lymphoma in the US. All are fighting their own demons and those of the medical industry in order to do what’s necessary to survive. Each can tell a story of a disinterested doctor or a treatment that didn’t work as expected.
So if Hewitt found a new demon in the form of a drug company, so be it. And getting a new drug with unknown efficacy and side effects may be just what she needs. But if this in any way delays research on this or other drugs by diverting scarce resources to her above all of the other 131,278 cases then it’s a bad thing.
In the 1980’s the organ transplant world went through this. A reasonably fair system was set up for the allocation of scarce donor organs. However “resonably fair” is not at all fair if you are the one denied a life saving organ. So very sad cases mounted publicity campaigns, complete with sobbing Moms and beautiful children to get the needed organ.
And it worked. The cases that could mount the best publicity drive got the livers, no matter where the need was. Eventually the system corrected and went back to more of a dispassionate approach to these horrible choices.
There is a very good case that drugs as a whole go through too many trials before reaching the consumer. There’s also a case to be made that certain specialty drugs should be exempt from more (they are somewhat exempt now) of the rules and regulations. However I’m hard pressed to come up with a logical argument that the people who can get on the radio or build a website should go to the front of the line.”
Jim m noted (11:47) “A couple of thoughts…I have worked in the oncology/transplant industry for 14 years now. Stem cell transplants(Bone marrow is almost never used any more as the primary source of cells) are done for Hodgkins Lymphoma. It is rare. Most cases respond well to therapy and such aggressive therapy is not necessary.
The company’s reluctance is quite understandable. “Compassionate Use” exemptions from the FDA are common, however these are typically requested by physicians who are participating in a company sponsored study. The Medarex website indicates that MDX-60 is in Phase II trials, but does not specify whether or not these trials are active or complete. In any case is seems clear that Amanda’s physician is not participating in any Medarex trial. Also it would take longer than just a few days to get the drug to Amanda. While the company might e able to ship the drug, the hospital where she would be treated would have to have any treatment plan approved by their investigational review board and the physician and staff need to be trained in the drug’s use. These issues would delay administration of the theray significantly.
The idea that the company is being greedy is simply nuts. They are required by law to follow very strick regulations regarding the use of an unapproved drug. Improper release of a drug would bring severe penalties to the company and possibly delay the approval of the drug if trials are successful.
As to the notion that this is her only hope. Please go to www.clinicaltrials.gov and search for hodgkins lymphoma. You will find 101 open trials for this disease. Many are for advanced disease. This family as seized upon one opportunity among many and clearly has decided not to pursue the many other options that are currently available.”
These profound thoughts add great value to this matter.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Heaven - Members Only?
...
Over at BelieffNet, I got into it with a member whom I will refer to as a Christian Exclusionist (CX). Now, I truly believe that everyone needs Christ Jesus as their Lord, but it just doesn’t make sense to threaten people with damnation. The simple fact, as I see it, is that the Holy Spirit moves us if we are going to accept Jesus, so there’s no good purpose in calling someone lost, just because it may not be their time yet. Worse, the CX was telling other Christians on the board that they were ‘heretics’ and ‘deceivers’, simply because they brought up Scripture indicating God might forgive everyone of their sins, and save the whole world.
This is a mystery from God, so far as I see it. What I mean is, we can see part of the truth, but not all, anymore than any person can tell the fate and resolution of every person of the earth. Some things we just have to accept on faith.
The CX presented these verses for his side:
John 14:6
John 8:24
John 3:3
Acts 4:12
2 Corinthians 6:1-3
I thought it would be enlightening to examine them in greater detail, to see their context and meaning:
In John 14:6, Jesus was speaking to His Disciples in the Upper Room, privately. This was not a saying to the crowd at large, but to men already promised as Christ’s disciples. Do you see the distinction, especially since this is a statement not made to the crowds in such words. Also, in this same chapter, Christ explained “In my Father’s house there are many rooms” (John 14:2). What might that saying mean? Also, Jesus said “it is the Father living in me, who is doing His work” (John 14:10). This means that what Jesus is saying, comes from the Father. This is critical to understanding how Christ may be relevant, after all, to people who lived and died without ever hearing the name. In that same chapter, Jesus also said about the Holy Spirit, “The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him” (John 14:17). Therefore, if anyone shows signs of the Holy Spirit, they must be right with the Father in their hearts, or else they could not have the Spirit! Further, Jesus in that same chapter explained “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.” (John 14:21) That is, the words of a doctrine are not the measure, but whether one does what is right.
In John 8, before verse 24, Jesus addressed the matter of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus knows her guilt, but instead of acquiescing to her death, He simply wrote on the ground, then said “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). When the men went away, Jesus asked the woman, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’
“No one, sir’ she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now, and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:10-11)
After this, the Pharisees, angry that Jesus did fall for their trap (see verse 6), tried to claim Jesus was speaking without authority. Jesus explained, “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” (John 8:15). The verse you cited (24), in that light, is quite a different thing, a warning to change but not a threat. Jesus was not speaking to people trying to do what was right, but warning the Pharisees that if you embrace sin, you cannot be free of it.
In John 3:3, the CX quoted Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, but stopped short of the full explanation. Jesus explained to Nicodemus, “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” (John 3:5). Jesus went on to further explain that “the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:6), meaning that the distinction is not part of this mundane, physical life at all, but a creation of a spiritual being. Jesus warned that “whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (John 3:18), not to threaten the non-Christian but to explain our need for Christ; after all, it would be fair to say that Peter did not believe at the moments he denied Christ, and that Thomas did not believe until he saw Christ risen from the dead, yet neither of those men was condemned for all time, as you seem to think. John the Baptist explained that salvation comes from God, as do all good things, saying “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven” (John 3:27), which is to say that we cannot choose to believe, but will believe as God makes it possible for us.
In Acts 4, Peter and John are seized by the Sadducees (Acts 4:1-3), and brought before the Sanhedrin. The verse (4:12) cited was part of their explanation for how they healed a crippled man. Note further that they specify that Salvation is found “in no one else”, and under “no other name under heaven” (Acts 4:12). They do not deny truth of justice and obedience, but simply explain the name of the Savior, to prove to the Sanhedrin that the Jesus put to death on the cross was and is the promised Messiah, the Anointed One who would be the servant through whom the Father would work Salvation (see also Acts 4:25).
Finally, I found the 2 Corinthians 6:1-3 citation interesting, for in that same chapter Paul wrote that a believer should act and speak “in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love” (2 Corinthians 6:6). This is a crucial element to the message.
So, a deeper look at the verses, shows that God acts with complete Sovereignty, that forgiveness and love are His hallmarks at all points, and that no one may act in love for God or their neighbor without the Holy Spirit’s presence. I note also, that the only Gospel account he cited was John. I wonder if one might consider the Beatitudes, or perhaps the faith of the Centurion? These too speak to God and Christ, in a gentler manner than some seem aware.
Over at BelieffNet, I got into it with a member whom I will refer to as a Christian Exclusionist (CX). Now, I truly believe that everyone needs Christ Jesus as their Lord, but it just doesn’t make sense to threaten people with damnation. The simple fact, as I see it, is that the Holy Spirit moves us if we are going to accept Jesus, so there’s no good purpose in calling someone lost, just because it may not be their time yet. Worse, the CX was telling other Christians on the board that they were ‘heretics’ and ‘deceivers’, simply because they brought up Scripture indicating God might forgive everyone of their sins, and save the whole world.
This is a mystery from God, so far as I see it. What I mean is, we can see part of the truth, but not all, anymore than any person can tell the fate and resolution of every person of the earth. Some things we just have to accept on faith.
The CX presented these verses for his side:
John 14:6
John 8:24
John 3:3
Acts 4:12
2 Corinthians 6:1-3
I thought it would be enlightening to examine them in greater detail, to see their context and meaning:
In John 14:6, Jesus was speaking to His Disciples in the Upper Room, privately. This was not a saying to the crowd at large, but to men already promised as Christ’s disciples. Do you see the distinction, especially since this is a statement not made to the crowds in such words. Also, in this same chapter, Christ explained “In my Father’s house there are many rooms” (John 14:2). What might that saying mean? Also, Jesus said “it is the Father living in me, who is doing His work” (John 14:10). This means that what Jesus is saying, comes from the Father. This is critical to understanding how Christ may be relevant, after all, to people who lived and died without ever hearing the name. In that same chapter, Jesus also said about the Holy Spirit, “The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him” (John 14:17). Therefore, if anyone shows signs of the Holy Spirit, they must be right with the Father in their hearts, or else they could not have the Spirit! Further, Jesus in that same chapter explained “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.” (John 14:21) That is, the words of a doctrine are not the measure, but whether one does what is right.
In John 8, before verse 24, Jesus addressed the matter of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus knows her guilt, but instead of acquiescing to her death, He simply wrote on the ground, then said “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). When the men went away, Jesus asked the woman, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’
“No one, sir’ she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now, and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:10-11)
After this, the Pharisees, angry that Jesus did fall for their trap (see verse 6), tried to claim Jesus was speaking without authority. Jesus explained, “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” (John 8:15). The verse you cited (24), in that light, is quite a different thing, a warning to change but not a threat. Jesus was not speaking to people trying to do what was right, but warning the Pharisees that if you embrace sin, you cannot be free of it.
In John 3:3, the CX quoted Jesus’ words to Nicodemus, but stopped short of the full explanation. Jesus explained to Nicodemus, “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” (John 3:5). Jesus went on to further explain that “the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:6), meaning that the distinction is not part of this mundane, physical life at all, but a creation of a spiritual being. Jesus warned that “whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (John 3:18), not to threaten the non-Christian but to explain our need for Christ; after all, it would be fair to say that Peter did not believe at the moments he denied Christ, and that Thomas did not believe until he saw Christ risen from the dead, yet neither of those men was condemned for all time, as you seem to think. John the Baptist explained that salvation comes from God, as do all good things, saying “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven” (John 3:27), which is to say that we cannot choose to believe, but will believe as God makes it possible for us.
In Acts 4, Peter and John are seized by the Sadducees (Acts 4:1-3), and brought before the Sanhedrin. The verse (4:12) cited was part of their explanation for how they healed a crippled man. Note further that they specify that Salvation is found “in no one else”, and under “no other name under heaven” (Acts 4:12). They do not deny truth of justice and obedience, but simply explain the name of the Savior, to prove to the Sanhedrin that the Jesus put to death on the cross was and is the promised Messiah, the Anointed One who would be the servant through whom the Father would work Salvation (see also Acts 4:25).
Finally, I found the 2 Corinthians 6:1-3 citation interesting, for in that same chapter Paul wrote that a believer should act and speak “in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love” (2 Corinthians 6:6). This is a crucial element to the message.
So, a deeper look at the verses, shows that God acts with complete Sovereignty, that forgiveness and love are His hallmarks at all points, and that no one may act in love for God or their neighbor without the Holy Spirit’s presence. I note also, that the only Gospel account he cited was John. I wonder if one might consider the Beatitudes, or perhaps the faith of the Centurion? These too speak to God and Christ, in a gentler manner than some seem aware.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Deliberate Ignorance
[]
President Bush has signed the Family Movie Act of 2005 into law, and Hollywood is outraged.
"Censorship!" screams Rob Reiner.
"A Nefarious and Sneaky Little Document" sneers the lefty blog Filmbrain.
Why? Is Bush preventing directors and producers from making films as they see fit?
Nope. He just wants Americans to be able to edit out the nudity, violence, profanity, and all those things most of us are sick of, but which Hollywood seems to think is absolutely necessary. Americans have said for decades that they want cleaner movies, and revenues from the top grossing films bears that out.
It speaks to the matter then, that Hollywood producers/directors not only think they have the right to make a film as they please (which they do), but that they also have the right to force people to watch whatever they put up there (they have no such right).
I have a very simple solution for Hollywood: Start making films the way people want to see them, and get rid of the trash, and there will be no market for companies and filters to remove the filth. How about you make films which attract people on the strength of the story, the acting, things like that?
Otherwise, we're gonna wash your film out before our kids see it.
President Bush has signed the Family Movie Act of 2005 into law, and Hollywood is outraged.
"Censorship!" screams Rob Reiner.
"A Nefarious and Sneaky Little Document" sneers the lefty blog Filmbrain.
Why? Is Bush preventing directors and producers from making films as they see fit?
Nope. He just wants Americans to be able to edit out the nudity, violence, profanity, and all those things most of us are sick of, but which Hollywood seems to think is absolutely necessary. Americans have said for decades that they want cleaner movies, and revenues from the top grossing films bears that out.
It speaks to the matter then, that Hollywood producers/directors not only think they have the right to make a film as they please (which they do), but that they also have the right to force people to watch whatever they put up there (they have no such right).
I have a very simple solution for Hollywood: Start making films the way people want to see them, and get rid of the trash, and there will be no market for companies and filters to remove the filth. How about you make films which attract people on the strength of the story, the acting, things like that?
Otherwise, we're gonna wash your film out before our kids see it.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Honor
[][][][]
The first human right is not usually considered among the rights: Honor. Yet it is a critical element to human life, to live with honor. In fact, whole cultures have based the right to life on honor. In Japan centuries ago, a Samurai who disgraced his name was expected by his community to kill himself. In ancient Greece, warriors carried huge bronze shields into battle, and if a warrior fled battle, he left his heavy shield behind, so their mothers and wives told the warriors to come home with their shields, or on them. Countless cultures have allowed duels on the matter of honor, even to the point of homocide on a point of personal image. Honor today is a more idealistic notion, but it still matters to many people; what parent does not want their child to live honorably, and to bring honor to the family?
Why would I regard honor as a right given to us humans? It comes down to the fuel of life. We need air, water, food, shelter, health, and so on, but even when we have all those things, sometimes we do not have everything we need. We still need a reason to strive, a reason to take on responsibilities and do the right thing when it is difficult, a reason to do something for someone else’s gain. That is where honor matters. Some cultures give rewards for honorable works, and it is generally true that governments, businesses, and communities consider honor in awarding jobs, promotions, and in enhancing their own reputations, since they too crave honor.
So, what is honor? Honor is more than meeting a need, but rather is that quality which makes a deed or word or thought better than without that quality. For instance, when men are working, each looking to his task, that is one thing, but a man who helps them work as a team and accomplish better results, is honorable for making that advantage happen. Also, a man who gives up something to his own cost, so that his comrades might gain a great victory, or perhaps prevent a great loss, acts in honor, like a man whose heroism saves his group from destruction. In this world, we consider teaching especially honorable, because a teacher performs a great service for little reward. We consider our military veterans honorable, because of their service and sacrifice to our nation and its ideals. But even in more ordinary lives, we still consider courtesy honorable, we consider charity honorable, and we consider growth honorable, whether it is exercise for our bodies, study for our minds, or improvement for our spirits.
Honor comes from God, and is one of the great rights of Humanity.
The first human right is not usually considered among the rights: Honor. Yet it is a critical element to human life, to live with honor. In fact, whole cultures have based the right to life on honor. In Japan centuries ago, a Samurai who disgraced his name was expected by his community to kill himself. In ancient Greece, warriors carried huge bronze shields into battle, and if a warrior fled battle, he left his heavy shield behind, so their mothers and wives told the warriors to come home with their shields, or on them. Countless cultures have allowed duels on the matter of honor, even to the point of homocide on a point of personal image. Honor today is a more idealistic notion, but it still matters to many people; what parent does not want their child to live honorably, and to bring honor to the family?
Why would I regard honor as a right given to us humans? It comes down to the fuel of life. We need air, water, food, shelter, health, and so on, but even when we have all those things, sometimes we do not have everything we need. We still need a reason to strive, a reason to take on responsibilities and do the right thing when it is difficult, a reason to do something for someone else’s gain. That is where honor matters. Some cultures give rewards for honorable works, and it is generally true that governments, businesses, and communities consider honor in awarding jobs, promotions, and in enhancing their own reputations, since they too crave honor.
So, what is honor? Honor is more than meeting a need, but rather is that quality which makes a deed or word or thought better than without that quality. For instance, when men are working, each looking to his task, that is one thing, but a man who helps them work as a team and accomplish better results, is honorable for making that advantage happen. Also, a man who gives up something to his own cost, so that his comrades might gain a great victory, or perhaps prevent a great loss, acts in honor, like a man whose heroism saves his group from destruction. In this world, we consider teaching especially honorable, because a teacher performs a great service for little reward. We consider our military veterans honorable, because of their service and sacrifice to our nation and its ideals. But even in more ordinary lives, we still consider courtesy honorable, we consider charity honorable, and we consider growth honorable, whether it is exercise for our bodies, study for our minds, or improvement for our spirits.
Honor comes from God, and is one of the great rights of Humanity.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Human Rights By God’s Grace
...
In my last post, I observed that rights belong to Almighty God by right and authority. The obvious follow-up question then, is what does that do to our rights as human beings?
I’ve read the Bible more than a dozen times all the way through, and there are books in the Bible I have read literally thousands of times. For all the claims otherwise, I have decided that God is consistently good and just at all times. The problem lies with human will and its consequences. As people presume to judge God by human perception, they fall prey to the illusion that God does wrong, or that His word cannot be trusted. Once this error is embraced, people fall to their own judgment for decisions, which fails to accomplish those things which need God, and opens the door for grievous harm.
In that last post, I referenced the Declaration of Independence. Here, it occurs to me to mention that God uses people to teach lessons, whether by prophets, by kings, or simply by serving His sovereign will. America serves God’s will for the most part, and in return is rewarded with prosperity, influence, and power. We are, accordingly, expected to serve God’s will to continue receiving these rewards, and serving God includes protecting the rights God has given to all men. We are the guardians of human rights, and we are the minions of justice. America is, unquestionably I think, the most influential power on the earth today, but that includes responsibility in the same degree as power. If we stop pursuing the rights of men and the protection of the right, we will lose our place to another, just as happened in the past.
Now, what are those rights of man? As I see it, there are four basic rights given to us:
The right to Honor, to Peace, to Freedom, and to to Justice. Everything we value is driven by these rights in action. I will write on each of these rights in subsequent posts.
In my last post, I observed that rights belong to Almighty God by right and authority. The obvious follow-up question then, is what does that do to our rights as human beings?
I’ve read the Bible more than a dozen times all the way through, and there are books in the Bible I have read literally thousands of times. For all the claims otherwise, I have decided that God is consistently good and just at all times. The problem lies with human will and its consequences. As people presume to judge God by human perception, they fall prey to the illusion that God does wrong, or that His word cannot be trusted. Once this error is embraced, people fall to their own judgment for decisions, which fails to accomplish those things which need God, and opens the door for grievous harm.
In that last post, I referenced the Declaration of Independence. Here, it occurs to me to mention that God uses people to teach lessons, whether by prophets, by kings, or simply by serving His sovereign will. America serves God’s will for the most part, and in return is rewarded with prosperity, influence, and power. We are, accordingly, expected to serve God’s will to continue receiving these rewards, and serving God includes protecting the rights God has given to all men. We are the guardians of human rights, and we are the minions of justice. America is, unquestionably I think, the most influential power on the earth today, but that includes responsibility in the same degree as power. If we stop pursuing the rights of men and the protection of the right, we will lose our place to another, just as happened in the past.
Now, what are those rights of man? As I see it, there are four basic rights given to us:
The right to Honor, to Peace, to Freedom, and to to Justice. Everything we value is driven by these rights in action. I will write on each of these rights in subsequent posts.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The Rights of God
<>
Along the way in debating religion, a lot of people find fault with God. Generally, they use their arguments as proxy; they either do not believe in God, and use their argument as some kind of straw-man against those who do believe, or else they believe in God, but only on their terms, and rather than defend their position with reason, try to discount other beliefs by heckling God as they pretend the others see Him. Neither course is valid, I think, but it does raise an interesting often ignored in these conversations; the rights of God.
Humans are innately selfish. The secular sort would like to claim that the worse behaviors and attitudes must be taught, but in fact it’s the good which has to be learned; children sometimes become the worst of monsters if they are not shown a better way. When Jesus spoke of the need to be like little children, it was because little children have learned from their parents how to be good, but have usually not yet strayed from what they know to be right. By the time they’re adults, people have become very good at lying, especially to themselves.
I love the Declaration of Independence, not least because the document lays out rights pretty directly; all men are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. Life, Liberty, Justice, Mercy, Hope, Honor, Love, all these things come from God. Indeed, by their very nature they could come from nowhere else, and so, all these things by right belong to God. That is, man does not have the right to deny these things to another human, but since they belong to God, they remain His rights in any dispute, not Man’s. This is not to say that God does not give His gifts freely, but receiving these gifts does not mean that Man may disparage God while claiming His grace.
Along the way in debating religion, a lot of people find fault with God. Generally, they use their arguments as proxy; they either do not believe in God, and use their argument as some kind of straw-man against those who do believe, or else they believe in God, but only on their terms, and rather than defend their position with reason, try to discount other beliefs by heckling God as they pretend the others see Him. Neither course is valid, I think, but it does raise an interesting often ignored in these conversations; the rights of God.
Humans are innately selfish. The secular sort would like to claim that the worse behaviors and attitudes must be taught, but in fact it’s the good which has to be learned; children sometimes become the worst of monsters if they are not shown a better way. When Jesus spoke of the need to be like little children, it was because little children have learned from their parents how to be good, but have usually not yet strayed from what they know to be right. By the time they’re adults, people have become very good at lying, especially to themselves.
I love the Declaration of Independence, not least because the document lays out rights pretty directly; all men are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. Life, Liberty, Justice, Mercy, Hope, Honor, Love, all these things come from God. Indeed, by their very nature they could come from nowhere else, and so, all these things by right belong to God. That is, man does not have the right to deny these things to another human, but since they belong to God, they remain His rights in any dispute, not Man’s. This is not to say that God does not give His gifts freely, but receiving these gifts does not mean that Man may disparage God while claiming His grace.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Final Days
+
Pope Benedict XVI held his first full mass as the new Pope, and the world, superficial as always, has moved on to other things. But I think it still matters to consider the significance of these changes we have seen in the Roman Catholic Church, especially as it might pertain to God’s will in the Final Days.
Non-believers often sneer at Christians for believing we are living in the last days of this world. 2nd Peter warns us, “They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4) , also “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. “ (2 Peter 3:8-9). Small wonder then, that so many would mock the Roman Catholic Church, the most visible and enduring of the denominations on this earth. Where we see stability, the mockers see intransigence. Where we see faithfulness, the mockers see a defiance against their ‘superior’ humanism. It is a hard thing, to be faithful in public to a faith so derided. On this point, Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals can see eye to eye, and points of debate between the two denominations fade to insignificance in the light of our common hope and faith through Jesus Christ.
These are the ‘Final Days’, because Christ has already come the first time, and accomplished what He set out to do. Now, like a good farmer, the Lord is merely waiting for the planting to bear fruit, for the harvest of righteousness on the Earth.
What this has to do with the new Pope, is the role we play as followers of Christ. And while there are many areas of doctrine where I do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church, I agree completely that the Pope, of all people, should represent the RCC as it is. He is the figurehead of the RCC, and if you believe the RCC dogma, the Vicar of Christ. For my end of the pew, there seem to be far too many Evangelicals willing to cater to the secular culture, to change their message to ‘package’ it for the masses, believing that the Gospel needs human improvements on the original message.
Seems to me, we ought to keep an eye on the basics:
1. Believe in Christ
2. Follow His example as best we are able
3. Explain what we believe gladly to anyone who asks
4. Don’t give up our ‘first love’
Time to be fruitful.
Pope Benedict XVI held his first full mass as the new Pope, and the world, superficial as always, has moved on to other things. But I think it still matters to consider the significance of these changes we have seen in the Roman Catholic Church, especially as it might pertain to God’s will in the Final Days.
Non-believers often sneer at Christians for believing we are living in the last days of this world. 2nd Peter warns us, “They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4) , also “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. “ (2 Peter 3:8-9). Small wonder then, that so many would mock the Roman Catholic Church, the most visible and enduring of the denominations on this earth. Where we see stability, the mockers see intransigence. Where we see faithfulness, the mockers see a defiance against their ‘superior’ humanism. It is a hard thing, to be faithful in public to a faith so derided. On this point, Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals can see eye to eye, and points of debate between the two denominations fade to insignificance in the light of our common hope and faith through Jesus Christ.
These are the ‘Final Days’, because Christ has already come the first time, and accomplished what He set out to do. Now, like a good farmer, the Lord is merely waiting for the planting to bear fruit, for the harvest of righteousness on the Earth.
What this has to do with the new Pope, is the role we play as followers of Christ. And while there are many areas of doctrine where I do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church, I agree completely that the Pope, of all people, should represent the RCC as it is. He is the figurehead of the RCC, and if you believe the RCC dogma, the Vicar of Christ. For my end of the pew, there seem to be far too many Evangelicals willing to cater to the secular culture, to change their message to ‘package’ it for the masses, believing that the Gospel needs human improvements on the original message.
Seems to me, we ought to keep an eye on the basics:
1. Believe in Christ
2. Follow His example as best we are able
3. Explain what we believe gladly to anyone who asks
4. Don’t give up our ‘first love’
Time to be fruitful.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Counter-Terrorist Agent Arrests Democrat Leadership
.
Hollywood (Fox) - Jack Bauer, the lead actor in a fictional task force assigned to attack terrorists and defeat their plans, took over the Democratic Party Caucus, which was meeting with leading actors in Hollywood for the purpose of raising funds, morale, and munitions.
Held in custody by Bauer were Senators Reid, Clinton, and Baucus, as well as attempted demagogues Martin Sheen, Rosie O’Donnell, and Michael “Make Me Money” Moore. Authorities were uncertain of Bauer’s authority to hold the actors and pretenders, as an unnamed FBI source explained:
“Most of these Leftists types are no longer living in the real world, so a fictional government agent would hold jurisidction in such a case. No one has seen any indication that Senator Reid is living or working in the real world, so someone from fiction had to go get him.”
Bauer explained the matter in rather blunt terms:
“These people want to destroy America and all it stands for, and I’m not going to let that happen.”
Hollywood (Fox) - Jack Bauer, the lead actor in a fictional task force assigned to attack terrorists and defeat their plans, took over the Democratic Party Caucus, which was meeting with leading actors in Hollywood for the purpose of raising funds, morale, and munitions.
Held in custody by Bauer were Senators Reid, Clinton, and Baucus, as well as attempted demagogues Martin Sheen, Rosie O’Donnell, and Michael “Make Me Money” Moore. Authorities were uncertain of Bauer’s authority to hold the actors and pretenders, as an unnamed FBI source explained:
“Most of these Leftists types are no longer living in the real world, so a fictional government agent would hold jurisidction in such a case. No one has seen any indication that Senator Reid is living or working in the real world, so someone from fiction had to go get him.”
Bauer explained the matter in rather blunt terms:
“These people want to destroy America and all it stands for, and I’m not going to let that happen.”
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Jedi
....
I saw “The Empire Strikes Back” again today, and it took me back. Partly because 1979 was a long time ago, and who doesn’t change from their teenaged years? But I also remember how this movie inspired me. Science Fiction doesn’t usually do that; heh, movies don’t usually inspire me, but TESB did just that. And all because of a muppet.
“The Empire Strikes Back” is the best of the Star Wars movies, and that includes the Episode III coming out this summer. That’s because TESB didn’t rely on special effects or star power to make its story work; it had decent acting, a good plot, relative suspense, and a great theme using ‘The Force’. The first three (now renumbered ‘Episodes 4, 5, and 6’) movies showed the force as a moral element, and a personal choice; the next three (‘Episodes 1, 2, and 3’) treat it as little more than a chemical component in the blood stream. For all the financial and marketing success, George Lucas blew this call. What could have been a true epic, lost its message. But in TESB, the message was still true and valid.
Back to that muppet. Yoda the Jedi Master spoke of choosing to do better than just live, to be a part of directed goodness. We could use Jedis today, and I don’t mean light sabers and acrobatic stunts. A man who orders his life in pursuit of the good and productive, is a man of honor.
I saw “The Empire Strikes Back” again today, and it took me back. Partly because 1979 was a long time ago, and who doesn’t change from their teenaged years? But I also remember how this movie inspired me. Science Fiction doesn’t usually do that; heh, movies don’t usually inspire me, but TESB did just that. And all because of a muppet.
“The Empire Strikes Back” is the best of the Star Wars movies, and that includes the Episode III coming out this summer. That’s because TESB didn’t rely on special effects or star power to make its story work; it had decent acting, a good plot, relative suspense, and a great theme using ‘The Force’. The first three (now renumbered ‘Episodes 4, 5, and 6’) movies showed the force as a moral element, and a personal choice; the next three (‘Episodes 1, 2, and 3’) treat it as little more than a chemical component in the blood stream. For all the financial and marketing success, George Lucas blew this call. What could have been a true epic, lost its message. But in TESB, the message was still true and valid.
Back to that muppet. Yoda the Jedi Master spoke of choosing to do better than just live, to be a part of directed goodness. We could use Jedis today, and I don’t mean light sabers and acrobatic stunts. A man who orders his life in pursuit of the good and productive, is a man of honor.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
What Makes A Parent?
==
The State Legislature of Texas is considering a first-of-its-kind bill, which would bar homosexuals from becoming Foster parents. The bill is controversial, with strong support and opposition. As the bill nears a deciding vote, it seems appropriate to weigh the real choices.
At the foundation, this issue is about children. The bill, it may be said, was intended to protect children from immoral influence, which makes sense if you accept the contention that homosexuality is immoral. However, even if homosexuality is considered immoral, we must weigh the effect of a decision either way.
Consider alcohol. The Congress established Prohibition during the 1920s, on the evidence that drunkness was hurting families, business, and simply killing people and creating serious health problems. Yet, the Amendment of Prohibition was repealed, and no one is barred as an adoptive parent, much less a Foster parent, on the question of whether they drink. If a parent has problems with excessive drinking, they can lose their custody, but drinking alone, whether or not it is immoral, does not disqualify a person as a parent.
Consider tobacco. There is a loud debate about the dangers of second-hand smoke, but there is no real doubt that smoking is one of the worst things a person can do for their health. Yet, it remains a plain fact that a person who smokes may make a fine parent, and there is no proscription against smokers becoming Foster parents.
On, then, to sexual behavior. It’s simple common sense to protect pre-pubescent children from sexual behavior of any kind. But that is just as true in heterosexual situations, as it would be in any possible homosexual situation. That is, any parent who engages in sexual behavior in the presence of children is doing wrong, regardless of the nature of that behavior. The line is clear, and any adult is restricted in his/her behavior by the presence of children.
What I’m saying is this: If one possible Foster parent is homosexual, a drinker, and smoker, but who does none of those things in the presence of chidren, they may be considered a better fit than someone who is heterosexual, but who allows children access to alcohol, tobacco, or who confronts children with sexual behavior, even heterosexual behavior. The effect in question is what the children are taught, not any behavior to which the children have no exposure.
So, I have to say I oppose this bill. If the bill prohibits behavior which endangers children, I’m all for that, but a sexual proclivity does not meet that level of threat. Homosexuals should only be barred from becoming Foster parents, if they expose children to sexual conduct, the same as Heterosexuals.
The State Legislature of Texas is considering a first-of-its-kind bill, which would bar homosexuals from becoming Foster parents. The bill is controversial, with strong support and opposition. As the bill nears a deciding vote, it seems appropriate to weigh the real choices.
At the foundation, this issue is about children. The bill, it may be said, was intended to protect children from immoral influence, which makes sense if you accept the contention that homosexuality is immoral. However, even if homosexuality is considered immoral, we must weigh the effect of a decision either way.
Consider alcohol. The Congress established Prohibition during the 1920s, on the evidence that drunkness was hurting families, business, and simply killing people and creating serious health problems. Yet, the Amendment of Prohibition was repealed, and no one is barred as an adoptive parent, much less a Foster parent, on the question of whether they drink. If a parent has problems with excessive drinking, they can lose their custody, but drinking alone, whether or not it is immoral, does not disqualify a person as a parent.
Consider tobacco. There is a loud debate about the dangers of second-hand smoke, but there is no real doubt that smoking is one of the worst things a person can do for their health. Yet, it remains a plain fact that a person who smokes may make a fine parent, and there is no proscription against smokers becoming Foster parents.
On, then, to sexual behavior. It’s simple common sense to protect pre-pubescent children from sexual behavior of any kind. But that is just as true in heterosexual situations, as it would be in any possible homosexual situation. That is, any parent who engages in sexual behavior in the presence of children is doing wrong, regardless of the nature of that behavior. The line is clear, and any adult is restricted in his/her behavior by the presence of children.
What I’m saying is this: If one possible Foster parent is homosexual, a drinker, and smoker, but who does none of those things in the presence of chidren, they may be considered a better fit than someone who is heterosexual, but who allows children access to alcohol, tobacco, or who confronts children with sexual behavior, even heterosexual behavior. The effect in question is what the children are taught, not any behavior to which the children have no exposure.
So, I have to say I oppose this bill. If the bill prohibits behavior which endangers children, I’m all for that, but a sexual proclivity does not meet that level of threat. Homosexuals should only be barred from becoming Foster parents, if they expose children to sexual conduct, the same as Heterosexuals.
Friday, April 22, 2005
A Productive Day
+
I may not have mentioned it, but I declared war on France. Me, myself, all by my lonesome, but it’s going rather well, if today is any indicator.
Now, before I go into what happened today, I want to go over a few points of importance about individuals going to war against nations. Generally, this is a very bad idea, if only because of the numbers. Also, most governments serve at least a few valuable services, which the war would harm. And in other cases, there is no value or purpose to be accomplished by warring against the nation. Fortunately, with the selection of France as your adversary, none of these is a problem. There are other such nations, but France is uniquely suitable for personal warfare, with the perfect blend of history, arrogance, and cowardice.
One day, I sent a diplomatic note to the French Embassy, out of pique at one of their daily crimes against Reason. I made sure to write in Pig-Latin. After all, the French don’t seem to understand English, I am not about to write in French, and Pig-Latin has a long and colorful history. As I expected, the French ignored my note.
A week later, I followed up with another note, also in Pig-Latin, but this time I dropped the envelope in a toilet before sending it off, which fooled the front desk into thinking it was European in origin. I demanded to know why the first letter had been ignored, threatening tariffs and to exclude the Ambassador from the spring dinner parties. Accordingly, the French responded with wine, cheese, and knighthood in the Croix d’Guerre.
I knew better than to eat or drink anything from France, so the next week I sent an ultimatum. This time, my outraged piggy asked why the French had not addressed the critical issue of acceptable coffee and beef in their restaurants. The French invited me to a Summit, and gave me majority ownership of several five-star restaurants, which I sold to Jack-In-The-Box.
Today, the French responded in outrage. I think it was the “Frog Burger Special” and the “Jacques Souffle” I ran over the weekend. Anyway, I received a demand from the French Ambassador to see him at the Embassy. Instead, I had a friend inform the Ambassador that this would not be a good time.
“And why is that?” demanded the striped-pants pansy.
“He’s consolidating the takeover of Reins, Lyon, and Orleans. He owns them now, didn’t you know?” replied my bud.
So, to make a long story short, we negotiated the sale of those cities back to France.
Next week, I’m taking over Paris.
I may not have mentioned it, but I declared war on France. Me, myself, all by my lonesome, but it’s going rather well, if today is any indicator.
Now, before I go into what happened today, I want to go over a few points of importance about individuals going to war against nations. Generally, this is a very bad idea, if only because of the numbers. Also, most governments serve at least a few valuable services, which the war would harm. And in other cases, there is no value or purpose to be accomplished by warring against the nation. Fortunately, with the selection of France as your adversary, none of these is a problem. There are other such nations, but France is uniquely suitable for personal warfare, with the perfect blend of history, arrogance, and cowardice.
One day, I sent a diplomatic note to the French Embassy, out of pique at one of their daily crimes against Reason. I made sure to write in Pig-Latin. After all, the French don’t seem to understand English, I am not about to write in French, and Pig-Latin has a long and colorful history. As I expected, the French ignored my note.
A week later, I followed up with another note, also in Pig-Latin, but this time I dropped the envelope in a toilet before sending it off, which fooled the front desk into thinking it was European in origin. I demanded to know why the first letter had been ignored, threatening tariffs and to exclude the Ambassador from the spring dinner parties. Accordingly, the French responded with wine, cheese, and knighthood in the Croix d’Guerre.
I knew better than to eat or drink anything from France, so the next week I sent an ultimatum. This time, my outraged piggy asked why the French had not addressed the critical issue of acceptable coffee and beef in their restaurants. The French invited me to a Summit, and gave me majority ownership of several five-star restaurants, which I sold to Jack-In-The-Box.
Today, the French responded in outrage. I think it was the “Frog Burger Special” and the “Jacques Souffle” I ran over the weekend. Anyway, I received a demand from the French Ambassador to see him at the Embassy. Instead, I had a friend inform the Ambassador that this would not be a good time.
“And why is that?” demanded the striped-pants pansy.
“He’s consolidating the takeover of Reins, Lyon, and Orleans. He owns them now, didn’t you know?” replied my bud.
So, to make a long story short, we negotiated the sale of those cities back to France.
Next week, I’m taking over Paris.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
The Schiavo Post-Mortem
[][]
The University of Miami has released some interesting court papers related to the Terri Schiavo murder, although they are difficult to find, and even more difficult to sort out. The three papers are pdf files, and can be found at the following addresses:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/DCF%20Abuse%20Investigations%20part%201.pdf
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/DCF%20Abuse%20Investigations%20part%202.pdf
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/DCF%20Abuse%20Investigations%20part%203.pdf
If you click on these links, however, what may happen is you will given a “404 Error” screen, telling you the documents cannot be found, and offering a search screen. If you search “Schiavo DCF Abuse” on the U-Miami screen, however, these documents will then be presented and available. I don’t know why the link works that way, but it did for me.
Anyone looking for proof to support either the validity or criminality of anyone in the case will be disappointed, as these documents do not provide anything a court would accept as proof. However, the 45 pages in the report do illuminate the debate, and present interesting points of reference, and some confirmation of essential facts in the background of the case. The context presented by these facts is chilling.
Here are the essentials:
BASELESS CLAIMS
1. Michael Schiavo accused the Schindlers of exploiting Terri, by making a video of her at the hospice for the purpose of selling it at $100 per copy. Investigation revealed there were four videos, there made in the normal process of doctors’ evaluations (brought by the Schindlers, not by the hospice of Michael Schiavo, who have produced no public records from any evaluations by medical doctors on their contentions) , and a video extracted from old film. The videos were available for free, although the Schindlers accepted donations to provide a legal defense for Terri.
2. The Schindlers accused Michael Schiavo of causing bone fractures. Examination by doctors revealed the fractures were consistent with compression fractures caused by degenerative bone loss from long periods without exercise.
UNRESOLVED CLAIMS
1. The Schindlers accused Michael of withholding food and/or water, even when the feeding tube was in place. The hospice has claimed they investigated, but did not categorically confirm or deny the allegations
2. The Schindlers claimed that on five separate occasions, Michael visited Terri and demanded he be left alone with her, after which time Terri was sick, which the Schindlers claim was caused by something Michael did. The hospice never addressed this specific 2003 allegation.
3. A nurse from the hospice has claimed that Michael Schiavo repeatedly demanded to know “Is the b---h ever going to die?” and similar statements. The hospice stated there was no support for these claims, but did not formally interview the relevant staff or ask for corroborating evidence from any source.
4. The Schindlers claimed that Terri was, in fact, responsive to her surroundings. The hospice denied this claim, but admitted that she did open and close her eyes, move at times, and made sounds.
SUPPORTED CLAIMS
1. The Schindlers claimed that Michael Schiavo was not paying for Terri’s care. The hospice did not directly address the question of whether Terri’s bills were being paid (claiming the financial matters were being handled by courts), but on several occasions confirmed that Michael Schiavo was not responsible for payments to the hospice.
2. The Schindlers claim that Terri lost teeth on at least two occasions, due to neglect. The hospice denied any neglect, but admitted several teeth were “darkened”, and admitted the tooth loss on two occasions.
3. The Schindlers claimed Terri had an untreated yeast infection, and that Terri had not had a GYN exam while at the hospice. The hospice did not respond to the yeast infection allegation, but admitted that Terri Schiavo never had a GYN exam while at the hospice.
4. The Schindlers claimed Michael Schiavo controlled access to Terri, and restricted or prohibited family visits. The hospice admitted this was correct.
5. The Schindlers claimed that Michael Schiavo had demanded that Terri not be given antibiotics for infections. The hospice did not address the question of whether thy had denied Terri antibiotics, but admitted that on 2 previous occasions at other hospices, Michael had demanded antibiotics not be given to Terri, and had been told that antibiotics would be administered in treatment of infection, and if he did not like it, he could move Terri to another hospice, which is what happened.
6. The Schindlers claimed Terri had bed sores from neglect. The hospice denied neglect, but admitted treating Terri for “stage two” bed sores.
7. The Schindlers claimed someone had injected Terri with an unknown substance. The hospice confirmed what appeared to be puncture marks on Terri’s arm, along with scratches on the other arm, and found a purple “needle cap” in the room which was not from the hospice. Strangely, the hospice interviewed Mrs. Schindler about the cap, but did not interview Michael Schiavo about the cap, although nurse reports indicate he was the last person alone with Terri before the puncture marks and needle cap were found.
STRANGE EVIDENCE
1. The hospice repeatedly claimed that Terri Schiavo was unable to feel pain, but admitted that on each occasion where the feeding tube was removed, “morphine, ativan, tylenol, and compazine” were all administered, which is only done to alleviate pain and suffering
2. The hospice noted that Michael Schiavo’s stated assets were $29,000 in October 1992, $139,000 in April 1996, and $776,000 in July 2002, after which time his financial assets were sealed by Judge Greer.
3. There were nine reports of “Collateral Communication” made as part of hospice investigations into allegations. Only two allegations, the exploitation claim made by Michael against the Schindlers and the police involvement in the unexplained injections, received any sort of follow-up or witness corroboration. In seven of nine cases, the hospice made no attempt to verify claims or obtain witness statements.
The details of relevant documents are noted here, in chronological order. Decide for yourself:
Page; Description; Details; Date (Y.MM.DD)
3.11 Abuse Report Hospice does not want to feed Mrs. Schiavo 1.04.25
3.11 Supplemental Information Report Tube feeding discontinued, hospice will not explain 1.04.26
3.12 Collateral Contacts No actions taken 04/26/2001 to 05/25/2001 1.05.25
3.13 Investigative Decision Summary Hospice admits it refused to attempt oral feeding. Hospice admits Terri opens her eyes and makes sounds, Hospice confirms Michael Schiavo controls Visitor List and took brother and sister off that list permanently 1.05.25
3.11 Additional Investigation Report Husband restricting family visits, denying antibiotic treatment 1.06.07
3.08 Abuse Report husband not spending any money on care 1.08.17
3.09 Collateral Contacts 3 followups, 1 with Social Services and 2 with staff 1.08.22
3.09 Investigative Decision Summary No indications, hospice notes payment issues are being handled by the court, no details cited, except to note the order to remove the feeding tube stayed until October 2001 1.08.22
3.05 Abuse Report 2 teeth are black from neglect. No GYN exam in years 1.11.07
3.06 Collateral Contacts No actions taken 11/07/2001 to 1/2/2002 2.01.02
3.06 Investigative Decision Summary Hospice admits Terry "reacts to external stimuli on a limited basis" Hospice concedes teeth are black, suggests silver filling is cause but claims "there are no indications that she needs dental work". 2.01.03
3.07 Investigative Decision Summary hospice confirms "filling may have fallen out" from teeth, but claims "it is not likely that she will suffer extensive tooth decay". Hospice admits there was an "abnormal discharge", but no GYN exam was performed. Hospice dismisses all other allegations as rising from "other issues relating to the guardian during the course of the investigation but they are the subject of court proceedings", admitting "these issues have not been investigated" 2.01.04
3.02 Allegation Detail Schiavo responsive, but lack of PT preventing improvement 3.08.19
3.02 Allegation Detail Husband denying antibiotics for infection, also denying fluids 3.08.19
3.03 Allegation Detail garbled, text unclear 3.08.20
3.03 Allegation Detail Theresa has penumonia, kidney stones, sebesis, hospice not treating for any of these conditions 3.08.29
3.03 Collateral Contacts 9 followups, no individuals identified 3.09.29
3.04 Investigative Decision Summary No evidence or information found, hospice admits Theresa making "grunting" sounds, eyes open at times closed at others, investigator cites lawyer for Michael and for hospice, but no medical doctors or nurses, although non-specific reference to "medical reports from the agency" are written. 3.10.08
2.05 Abuse Report Husband has forbidden anyone to feed Ms. Schiavo, accusation that Michael injected Ms. Schiavo with Insulin, claim that nurse heard Michael asked "Is the bitch ever going to die?" and "When will the bitch die because I will be rich?". Complaint 10/14/2003 3.10.14
2.12 Collateral Contacts No action taken, 10/14/2003 to 12/09/2003 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report "Supplemental report. No new information" 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report Supplement. Same complaint 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report Rehabilitative care concern. 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report Claim that husband intends to have feeding tube removed. 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report garbled, same complaint but portion unreadable because of document smudge 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Michael accused of refusing to allow his wife antibiotics. 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Claim repeated that Michael wants Terri dead, new fiance and child noted 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report "Supplemental report. No new information" 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report "Supplemental report. Same allegations" 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Parental visits prevented., Michael also attempting to have feeding tube removed. 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Feeding tube alleged to be removed, and/or moved to another hospital. Michael's intention to marry another woman commented 3.10.15
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Feeding tube alleged to be removed, remaining text garbled 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Feeding tube removed, family outraged 3.10.16
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.16
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.16
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.16
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Text garbled 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.19
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Terri Schiavo assigned 'AKA', no details 3.10.21
2.08 Supplemental Information Report 6th day without food or water 3.10.21
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.21
2.17 Abuse Report "She is becoming dehydrated because no one is allowed to wet her mouth with a wet cloth" 3.10.24
2.08 Supplemental Information Report No rehabilitation treatment of any kind since 1998' claimed 3.10.24
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Visit by a priest denied by Mr. Schiavo
3.10.28
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Feeding tube reinserted Oct 22, husband angry 3.11.01
2.09 Supplemental Information Report No new information 3.11.01
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Michael restricts visits, prohibits family, demanded 'DNR' order be placed on Terri's chart. Alleged to have opposed treating Terri for an infection. 3.11.01
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Alleged Michael injected Terri with Insulin 3.11.02
2.16 Abuse Report Parents allege that "five times after he [Michael] was in her room, he had the other staff members leave. Terry would get sick after he leave [sic] the room. It is believed that Terry's [sic] husband did something to cause her sickness. 3.11.03
2.16 Abuse Report "She has not received any dental treatment for the past 3 years" 3.11.03
2.17 Abuse Report "Mr. Schiavo has refused to treat Theresa's yeast infection" 3.11.03
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.11.03
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Parents complain Ms. Schiavo's treatment is "fourteen to sixteen violations of Florida Statute regarding adults" 3.11.03
2.16 Abuse Report Off feeding tube for 48 hours+ 3.11.04
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Parents claim mention of "hand prints around her neck" 3.11.04
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Parents claim rehabilitation can improve medical treatment 3.11.04
2.10 Supplemental Information Report SSDI payments also going to Michael Schiavo 3.11.04
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Ms. Schiavo has been taken off food and water twice 3.11.05
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Hospice charges not paid by Schiavo, untreated urinary tract infection, bone scan indicates back problem, Schiavo refused treatment 3.11.05
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Hospice charges unpaid 3.11.05
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.11.08
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Parents claim Michael Schiavo received $2 million from malpractice suit, but spent money only on lawyer to demand feeding tube be removed 3.11.12
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Move to Hospice was w/o Court knmowledge or approval 3.11.14
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Family prevented from visiting 3.11.17
2.16 Abuse Report No PT 3.11.18
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.11.19
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.11.20
2.01 Call History Abuse Report plus Supplemental Information Report, by Mr/Mrs Schindler 12/10/2003, update 01/02/2004 3.12.10
2.02 Collateral Contacts No Action 12/10/2003 - 01/02/2004 3.12.10
2.18 Collateral Contacts No action taken, 10/24/2003 to 12/10/2003 3.12.10
2.14 Contact Followup Summary shows for six major complaints, 2 contacts were made, no personal interviews or witness testimony of any kind, 12/10/2003 3.12.10
2.12 Investigative Decision Summary Financial Exploitation by husband alleged by parents, 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Bone Scan reveals "Heterotrophic Ossification", degenerative bone loss, not uncommon for condition, no indication of abuse or trauma. Claims against spouse statements could not be verified, no witnesses, Dr. Gambone "stated that a routine dental exam and xrays would cause major distress to Mrs. Schiavo and would require extraordinary measures such as
sedation" 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Dr. Gambone admits there have been no GYN exams at hospice 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Hospice admits there were two incidents of Michael requesting no antibiotics be given to Ms. Schiavo in 1993 and 1996, implies that reason for move to Woodside was because Sabal Palms and Palm Gardens refused to deny medication. Report cites that in 1996, antibiotics were being given for an infection, that Michael demanded they stop treatment of the infect. The report then states "the facility refused to stop after the spouse requested it, and if he did not agree he could relocate the patient", which is what happened. 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Hospice admits no evaluation for possible PT since 1998 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Report notes that Michael Schiavo had stated assets of $29,000 in Oct 1992, $139,000 in Apr 1996, $776,254.69 in Jul 2002 after which the information was sealed by Judge Greer 3.12.11
2.19 Abuse Report Hospice report acknowledges feeding tube removal order signed by Greer on 2/11/2000, which establishes context for all future hospice decisions. Confirms additional orders by Greer on 9/17/2003, orders wriiten by Doctor Gambone on 10/15/2003 Hospice admits administering "morphine, ativan, tylenol, and compazine" when the feeding tube was removed. Governor Bush ordered Schiavo's tube reinserted on 10/21/2003, patient moved to Morton Plant hospital, indicating hospice was not willing to perform the reinsertion. Hospice confirms that Michael Schiavo controlled visitor access, and had prevented the family from visiting on "occasions". Hospice admits Schiavo has "round the clock police protection", both at her room and at the entrance to the facility. 3.12.12
3.01 Abuse Report Findings denied any evidence of abuse. 3.12.12
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 4.01.02
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 4.01.02
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 4.01.02
2.02 Investigative Decision Summary Parents complained Ms. Schiavo has untreated infection, response by hospice based completely on Michael Schiavo's claim that there is no infection. 4.01.27
1.09 Allegation Detail Tooth missing, no explanation by staff. No PT, no social stimulation 03/27/2004 4.03.27
1.10 Allegation Detail Bed sore, security guard observing parents when they visit, no bathing complaint 03/27/2004 4.03.27
1.10 Allegation Detail Debubitus ulcer on buttocks, no PT, parents denied access 03/27/2004 4.03.27
1.10 Allegation Detail Bedsores on buttocks, no bathing, insufficient food and water complaint 03/27/2004 4.03.27
1.09 Call History 12 calls, Abuse Report plus 5 Additional Information Reports and 6 Supplemental Information Reports, dates range from 03/27/2004 to 04/20/2004 4.03.27
1.09 Allegation Detail Bed Sore, no bathing complaint 03/28/2004 4.03.28
1.10 Allegation Detail Missing a tooth, no explanation, in room 24 hrs/day, unexplained vomiting, ulcer on buttocks 03/29/2004 4.03.29
1.10 Allegation Detail Red marks, appear to be puncture wounds on arm, appear to be needle marks, needle cap found not related to facility complaint 03/30/2004 4.03.30
1.10 Allegation Detail Unexplained puncture marks on arm, complaint 03/30/2004 4.03.30
1.10 Allegation Detail Second tooth lost, untreated bed sores, unexplained needle marks on arm complaint 03/30/2004 4.03.30
1.11 Allegation Detail Complaint about general lack of care 04/02/2004 4.04.02
1.06 Call History Abuse Reported to Hospice 4/02/04 by Michael Schiavo 4.04.02
1.05 Prior Report History no details 4.04.02
1.11 Allegation Detail Ms. Schiavo "being killed by a lack of correct justice" 04/03/2004 4.04.03
1.11 Allegation Detail Unexplained facial injury, no explanation 04/03/2004 4.04.03
1.12 Collateral Contacts No action taken 05/11/2004 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Seven prior cases of alleged maltreatment, including claims of inadequate food, ,edical neglect, physical injury, asphyxiation/suffocation/drowning, bone fracture, inappropriate/excessive isolation, mental and/or physiological injury, confinement, bizarre punishment, malnutrition/dehydration, exploitation; concurrent exploitation claim against parents under investigation 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Stage Two decubitus ulcer confirmed 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 New bed purchased (tacit admission of neglect) 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Small red dots on upper left arm, outer aspect confirmed 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 scratches to right forearm, inner aspect confirmed 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 new bed raises head when feeding tube in place (tacit admission former bed left patient flat) 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Purple needle cap confirmed, no explanation, police contacted 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Police contacted regarding needle marks and arm scratches 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 CNA Reported feeding tube "pulled tight across and down her side" no explanation 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 "Crimes against Persons" unit assigned by police to investigate 4.05.11
1.13 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Police interviewed mother, because she had a purse when she visited Schiavo. However, mother was never alone with Schiavo. Michael, who is left alone with Ms. Schiavo, and who controls the Approved Visitor list, was not interviewed by police on this matter. 4.05.11
1.08 Abuse Report Discovered video was free, contributions accepted. Vidoe is 4 minutes, and is excerpted from previous videos, videos taken by Doctors (Maxfield, Hamnesfahr, Crawford), no money went to the Schindlers. Complaint dismissed 4.05.25
1.08 Abuse Report Michael claimed that Schindlers were advertising through a 10-page solicitation letter on a website, the sale of a video of Terri Schiavo for $100 a copy, for the purpose of raising money for Terri's legal defense 4.05.25
1.07 Collateral Contacts No action taken 5/25/2004 4.05.25
1.07 Investigation Completed 05/25/2004 Clearwater Police providing 24 hour supervision outside room 4.05.25
(hat tip to Paul Deignan, who pointed out the pdf reports)
The University of Miami has released some interesting court papers related to the Terri Schiavo murder, although they are difficult to find, and even more difficult to sort out. The three papers are pdf files, and can be found at the following addresses:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/DCF%20Abuse%20Investigations%20part%201.pdf
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/DCF%20Abuse%20Investigations%20part%202.pdf
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/DCF%20Abuse%20Investigations%20part%203.pdf
If you click on these links, however, what may happen is you will given a “404 Error” screen, telling you the documents cannot be found, and offering a search screen. If you search “Schiavo DCF Abuse” on the U-Miami screen, however, these documents will then be presented and available. I don’t know why the link works that way, but it did for me.
Anyone looking for proof to support either the validity or criminality of anyone in the case will be disappointed, as these documents do not provide anything a court would accept as proof. However, the 45 pages in the report do illuminate the debate, and present interesting points of reference, and some confirmation of essential facts in the background of the case. The context presented by these facts is chilling.
Here are the essentials:
BASELESS CLAIMS
1. Michael Schiavo accused the Schindlers of exploiting Terri, by making a video of her at the hospice for the purpose of selling it at $100 per copy. Investigation revealed there were four videos, there made in the normal process of doctors’ evaluations (brought by the Schindlers, not by the hospice of Michael Schiavo, who have produced no public records from any evaluations by medical doctors on their contentions) , and a video extracted from old film. The videos were available for free, although the Schindlers accepted donations to provide a legal defense for Terri.
2. The Schindlers accused Michael Schiavo of causing bone fractures. Examination by doctors revealed the fractures were consistent with compression fractures caused by degenerative bone loss from long periods without exercise.
UNRESOLVED CLAIMS
1. The Schindlers accused Michael of withholding food and/or water, even when the feeding tube was in place. The hospice has claimed they investigated, but did not categorically confirm or deny the allegations
2. The Schindlers claimed that on five separate occasions, Michael visited Terri and demanded he be left alone with her, after which time Terri was sick, which the Schindlers claim was caused by something Michael did. The hospice never addressed this specific 2003 allegation.
3. A nurse from the hospice has claimed that Michael Schiavo repeatedly demanded to know “Is the b---h ever going to die?” and similar statements. The hospice stated there was no support for these claims, but did not formally interview the relevant staff or ask for corroborating evidence from any source.
4. The Schindlers claimed that Terri was, in fact, responsive to her surroundings. The hospice denied this claim, but admitted that she did open and close her eyes, move at times, and made sounds.
SUPPORTED CLAIMS
1. The Schindlers claimed that Michael Schiavo was not paying for Terri’s care. The hospice did not directly address the question of whether Terri’s bills were being paid (claiming the financial matters were being handled by courts), but on several occasions confirmed that Michael Schiavo was not responsible for payments to the hospice.
2. The Schindlers claim that Terri lost teeth on at least two occasions, due to neglect. The hospice denied any neglect, but admitted several teeth were “darkened”, and admitted the tooth loss on two occasions.
3. The Schindlers claimed Terri had an untreated yeast infection, and that Terri had not had a GYN exam while at the hospice. The hospice did not respond to the yeast infection allegation, but admitted that Terri Schiavo never had a GYN exam while at the hospice.
4. The Schindlers claimed Michael Schiavo controlled access to Terri, and restricted or prohibited family visits. The hospice admitted this was correct.
5. The Schindlers claimed that Michael Schiavo had demanded that Terri not be given antibiotics for infections. The hospice did not address the question of whether thy had denied Terri antibiotics, but admitted that on 2 previous occasions at other hospices, Michael had demanded antibiotics not be given to Terri, and had been told that antibiotics would be administered in treatment of infection, and if he did not like it, he could move Terri to another hospice, which is what happened.
6. The Schindlers claimed Terri had bed sores from neglect. The hospice denied neglect, but admitted treating Terri for “stage two” bed sores.
7. The Schindlers claimed someone had injected Terri with an unknown substance. The hospice confirmed what appeared to be puncture marks on Terri’s arm, along with scratches on the other arm, and found a purple “needle cap” in the room which was not from the hospice. Strangely, the hospice interviewed Mrs. Schindler about the cap, but did not interview Michael Schiavo about the cap, although nurse reports indicate he was the last person alone with Terri before the puncture marks and needle cap were found.
STRANGE EVIDENCE
1. The hospice repeatedly claimed that Terri Schiavo was unable to feel pain, but admitted that on each occasion where the feeding tube was removed, “morphine, ativan, tylenol, and compazine” were all administered, which is only done to alleviate pain and suffering
2. The hospice noted that Michael Schiavo’s stated assets were $29,000 in October 1992, $139,000 in April 1996, and $776,000 in July 2002, after which time his financial assets were sealed by Judge Greer.
3. There were nine reports of “Collateral Communication” made as part of hospice investigations into allegations. Only two allegations, the exploitation claim made by Michael against the Schindlers and the police involvement in the unexplained injections, received any sort of follow-up or witness corroboration. In seven of nine cases, the hospice made no attempt to verify claims or obtain witness statements.
The details of relevant documents are noted here, in chronological order. Decide for yourself:
Page; Description; Details; Date (Y.MM.DD)
3.11 Abuse Report Hospice does not want to feed Mrs. Schiavo 1.04.25
3.11 Supplemental Information Report Tube feeding discontinued, hospice will not explain 1.04.26
3.12 Collateral Contacts No actions taken 04/26/2001 to 05/25/2001 1.05.25
3.13 Investigative Decision Summary Hospice admits it refused to attempt oral feeding. Hospice admits Terri opens her eyes and makes sounds, Hospice confirms Michael Schiavo controls Visitor List and took brother and sister off that list permanently 1.05.25
3.11 Additional Investigation Report Husband restricting family visits, denying antibiotic treatment 1.06.07
3.08 Abuse Report husband not spending any money on care 1.08.17
3.09 Collateral Contacts 3 followups, 1 with Social Services and 2 with staff 1.08.22
3.09 Investigative Decision Summary No indications, hospice notes payment issues are being handled by the court, no details cited, except to note the order to remove the feeding tube stayed until October 2001 1.08.22
3.05 Abuse Report 2 teeth are black from neglect. No GYN exam in years 1.11.07
3.06 Collateral Contacts No actions taken 11/07/2001 to 1/2/2002 2.01.02
3.06 Investigative Decision Summary Hospice admits Terry "reacts to external stimuli on a limited basis" Hospice concedes teeth are black, suggests silver filling is cause but claims "there are no indications that she needs dental work". 2.01.03
3.07 Investigative Decision Summary hospice confirms "filling may have fallen out" from teeth, but claims "it is not likely that she will suffer extensive tooth decay". Hospice admits there was an "abnormal discharge", but no GYN exam was performed. Hospice dismisses all other allegations as rising from "other issues relating to the guardian during the course of the investigation but they are the subject of court proceedings", admitting "these issues have not been investigated" 2.01.04
3.02 Allegation Detail Schiavo responsive, but lack of PT preventing improvement 3.08.19
3.02 Allegation Detail Husband denying antibiotics for infection, also denying fluids 3.08.19
3.03 Allegation Detail garbled, text unclear 3.08.20
3.03 Allegation Detail Theresa has penumonia, kidney stones, sebesis, hospice not treating for any of these conditions 3.08.29
3.03 Collateral Contacts 9 followups, no individuals identified 3.09.29
3.04 Investigative Decision Summary No evidence or information found, hospice admits Theresa making "grunting" sounds, eyes open at times closed at others, investigator cites lawyer for Michael and for hospice, but no medical doctors or nurses, although non-specific reference to "medical reports from the agency" are written. 3.10.08
2.05 Abuse Report Husband has forbidden anyone to feed Ms. Schiavo, accusation that Michael injected Ms. Schiavo with Insulin, claim that nurse heard Michael asked "Is the bitch ever going to die?" and "When will the bitch die because I will be rich?". Complaint 10/14/2003 3.10.14
2.12 Collateral Contacts No action taken, 10/14/2003 to 12/09/2003 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report "Supplemental report. No new information" 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report Supplement. Same complaint 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report Rehabilitative care concern. 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report Claim that husband intends to have feeding tube removed. 3.10.14
2.05 Supplemental Information Report garbled, same complaint but portion unreadable because of document smudge 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Michael accused of refusing to allow his wife antibiotics. 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Claim repeated that Michael wants Terri dead, new fiance and child noted 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report "Supplemental report. No new information" 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report "Supplemental report. Same allegations" 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Parental visits prevented., Michael also attempting to have feeding tube removed. 3.10.14
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Feeding tube alleged to be removed, and/or moved to another hospital. Michael's intention to marry another woman commented 3.10.15
2.06 Supplemental Information Report Feeding tube alleged to be removed, remaining text garbled 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.15
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Feeding tube removed, family outraged 3.10.16
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.16
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.16
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.16
2.07 Supplemental Information Report Text garbled 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.17
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.19
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Terri Schiavo assigned 'AKA', no details 3.10.21
2.08 Supplemental Information Report 6th day without food or water 3.10.21
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.10.21
2.17 Abuse Report "She is becoming dehydrated because no one is allowed to wet her mouth with a wet cloth" 3.10.24
2.08 Supplemental Information Report No rehabilitation treatment of any kind since 1998' claimed 3.10.24
2.08 Supplemental Information Report Visit by a priest denied by Mr. Schiavo
3.10.28
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Feeding tube reinserted Oct 22, husband angry 3.11.01
2.09 Supplemental Information Report No new information 3.11.01
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Michael restricts visits, prohibits family, demanded 'DNR' order be placed on Terri's chart. Alleged to have opposed treating Terri for an infection. 3.11.01
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Alleged Michael injected Terri with Insulin 3.11.02
2.16 Abuse Report Parents allege that "five times after he [Michael] was in her room, he had the other staff members leave. Terry would get sick after he leave [sic] the room. It is believed that Terry's [sic] husband did something to cause her sickness. 3.11.03
2.16 Abuse Report "She has not received any dental treatment for the past 3 years" 3.11.03
2.17 Abuse Report "Mr. Schiavo has refused to treat Theresa's yeast infection" 3.11.03
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.11.03
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Parents complain Ms. Schiavo's treatment is "fourteen to sixteen violations of Florida Statute regarding adults" 3.11.03
2.16 Abuse Report Off feeding tube for 48 hours+ 3.11.04
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Parents claim mention of "hand prints around her neck" 3.11.04
2.09 Supplemental Information Report Parents claim rehabilitation can improve medical treatment 3.11.04
2.10 Supplemental Information Report SSDI payments also going to Michael Schiavo 3.11.04
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Ms. Schiavo has been taken off food and water twice 3.11.05
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Hospice charges not paid by Schiavo, untreated urinary tract infection, bone scan indicates back problem, Schiavo refused treatment 3.11.05
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Hospice charges unpaid 3.11.05
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.11.08
2.10 Supplemental Information Report Parents claim Michael Schiavo received $2 million from malpractice suit, but spent money only on lawyer to demand feeding tube be removed 3.11.12
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Move to Hospice was w/o Court knmowledge or approval 3.11.14
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Family prevented from visiting 3.11.17
2.16 Abuse Report No PT 3.11.18
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.11.19
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 3.11.20
2.01 Call History Abuse Report plus Supplemental Information Report, by Mr/Mrs Schindler 12/10/2003, update 01/02/2004 3.12.10
2.02 Collateral Contacts No Action 12/10/2003 - 01/02/2004 3.12.10
2.18 Collateral Contacts No action taken, 10/24/2003 to 12/10/2003 3.12.10
2.14 Contact Followup Summary shows for six major complaints, 2 contacts were made, no personal interviews or witness testimony of any kind, 12/10/2003 3.12.10
2.12 Investigative Decision Summary Financial Exploitation by husband alleged by parents, 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Bone Scan reveals "Heterotrophic Ossification", degenerative bone loss, not uncommon for condition, no indication of abuse or trauma. Claims against spouse statements could not be verified, no witnesses, Dr. Gambone "stated that a routine dental exam and xrays would cause major distress to Mrs. Schiavo and would require extraordinary measures such as
sedation" 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Dr. Gambone admits there have been no GYN exams at hospice 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Hospice admits there were two incidents of Michael requesting no antibiotics be given to Ms. Schiavo in 1993 and 1996, implies that reason for move to Woodside was because Sabal Palms and Palm Gardens refused to deny medication. Report cites that in 1996, antibiotics were being given for an infection, that Michael demanded they stop treatment of the infect. The report then states "the facility refused to stop after the spouse requested it, and if he did not agree he could relocate the patient", which is what happened. 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Hospice admits no evaluation for possible PT since 1998 3.12.11
2.13 Investigative Decision Summary Report notes that Michael Schiavo had stated assets of $29,000 in Oct 1992, $139,000 in Apr 1996, $776,254.69 in Jul 2002 after which the information was sealed by Judge Greer 3.12.11
2.19 Abuse Report Hospice report acknowledges feeding tube removal order signed by Greer on 2/11/2000, which establishes context for all future hospice decisions. Confirms additional orders by Greer on 9/17/2003, orders wriiten by Doctor Gambone on 10/15/2003 Hospice admits administering "morphine, ativan, tylenol, and compazine" when the feeding tube was removed. Governor Bush ordered Schiavo's tube reinserted on 10/21/2003, patient moved to Morton Plant hospital, indicating hospice was not willing to perform the reinsertion. Hospice confirms that Michael Schiavo controlled visitor access, and had prevented the family from visiting on "occasions". Hospice admits Schiavo has "round the clock police protection", both at her room and at the entrance to the facility. 3.12.12
3.01 Abuse Report Findings denied any evidence of abuse. 3.12.12
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 4.01.02
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 4.01.02
2.11 Supplemental Information Report Complaint repeated, no new information 4.01.02
2.02 Investigative Decision Summary Parents complained Ms. Schiavo has untreated infection, response by hospice based completely on Michael Schiavo's claim that there is no infection. 4.01.27
1.09 Allegation Detail Tooth missing, no explanation by staff. No PT, no social stimulation 03/27/2004 4.03.27
1.10 Allegation Detail Bed sore, security guard observing parents when they visit, no bathing complaint 03/27/2004 4.03.27
1.10 Allegation Detail Debubitus ulcer on buttocks, no PT, parents denied access 03/27/2004 4.03.27
1.10 Allegation Detail Bedsores on buttocks, no bathing, insufficient food and water complaint 03/27/2004 4.03.27
1.09 Call History 12 calls, Abuse Report plus 5 Additional Information Reports and 6 Supplemental Information Reports, dates range from 03/27/2004 to 04/20/2004 4.03.27
1.09 Allegation Detail Bed Sore, no bathing complaint 03/28/2004 4.03.28
1.10 Allegation Detail Missing a tooth, no explanation, in room 24 hrs/day, unexplained vomiting, ulcer on buttocks 03/29/2004 4.03.29
1.10 Allegation Detail Red marks, appear to be puncture wounds on arm, appear to be needle marks, needle cap found not related to facility complaint 03/30/2004 4.03.30
1.10 Allegation Detail Unexplained puncture marks on arm, complaint 03/30/2004 4.03.30
1.10 Allegation Detail Second tooth lost, untreated bed sores, unexplained needle marks on arm complaint 03/30/2004 4.03.30
1.11 Allegation Detail Complaint about general lack of care 04/02/2004 4.04.02
1.06 Call History Abuse Reported to Hospice 4/02/04 by Michael Schiavo 4.04.02
1.05 Prior Report History no details 4.04.02
1.11 Allegation Detail Ms. Schiavo "being killed by a lack of correct justice" 04/03/2004 4.04.03
1.11 Allegation Detail Unexplained facial injury, no explanation 04/03/2004 4.04.03
1.12 Collateral Contacts No action taken 05/11/2004 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Seven prior cases of alleged maltreatment, including claims of inadequate food, ,edical neglect, physical injury, asphyxiation/suffocation/drowning, bone fracture, inappropriate/excessive isolation, mental and/or physiological injury, confinement, bizarre punishment, malnutrition/dehydration, exploitation; concurrent exploitation claim against parents under investigation 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Stage Two decubitus ulcer confirmed 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 New bed purchased (tacit admission of neglect) 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Small red dots on upper left arm, outer aspect confirmed 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 scratches to right forearm, inner aspect confirmed 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 new bed raises head when feeding tube in place (tacit admission former bed left patient flat) 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Purple needle cap confirmed, no explanation, police contacted 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Police contacted regarding needle marks and arm scratches 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 CNA Reported feeding tube "pulled tight across and down her side" no explanation 4.05.11
1.12 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 "Crimes against Persons" unit assigned by police to investigate 4.05.11
1.13 Investigation Completed 05/11/2004 Police interviewed mother, because she had a purse when she visited Schiavo. However, mother was never alone with Schiavo. Michael, who is left alone with Ms. Schiavo, and who controls the Approved Visitor list, was not interviewed by police on this matter. 4.05.11
1.08 Abuse Report Discovered video was free, contributions accepted. Vidoe is 4 minutes, and is excerpted from previous videos, videos taken by Doctors (Maxfield, Hamnesfahr, Crawford), no money went to the Schindlers. Complaint dismissed 4.05.25
1.08 Abuse Report Michael claimed that Schindlers were advertising through a 10-page solicitation letter on a website, the sale of a video of Terri Schiavo for $100 a copy, for the purpose of raising money for Terri's legal defense 4.05.25
1.07 Collateral Contacts No action taken 5/25/2004 4.05.25
1.07 Investigation Completed 05/25/2004 Clearwater Police providing 24 hour supervision outside room 4.05.25
(hat tip to Paul Deignan, who pointed out the pdf reports)
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Stones
~~~
I’ve been amusing myself in the peculiar world of ‘hidden message’ theories. You know, where this group or that claims to hold certain knowledge, secrets if you will, that the ordinary person doesn’t get. To me of course, the lack of wisdom largely comes down to simply not paying attention to what God plainly tells us, but it is amusing for all of that to read some of the theories. What especially gets my attention, is when someone makes interesting observations, the sort of things that, while they don’t sell me on elitist claims to influence and position, still can illuminate a matter, showing a different perspective, like trying a new seasoning in a recipe.
Anyway, along the course of this intellectual buffet, I began to notice a strange iconism to humans. I was reading about this stone, which is supposed to reside somewhere in one of the palaces in England, sometimes called the Stone of Destiny, sometimes Jacob’s Pillow. Legend has it, that the Jacob of the Bible rested his head on that stone as he slept (don’t ask me why a stone should be considered a good pillow), and that same stone has been carried around for literally thousands of years, that Moses hit this rock to make water in the desert, that this is the rock on which Solomon was proclaimed king, and so on through history. If true, that would explain why English kings and queens are crowned while sitting on this stone. Talk about your lucky rock!
The Muslims are another case. Islam distinguished itself from other religions in the Arab world, by a strict prohibition against any sort of idolatry. That, in fact, is why there are no pictures of Mohamed, not to mention Allah. So, it seems strange to consider that Muslims are expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, where it happens there is a mosque housing a large black stone. The rock was worshipped as an idol in Mohamed’s day, and for some reason is still important to Muslims, called the Ka’aba. Another rock important to Muslims is the Mosque of the Rock in Jerusalem, from where it is claimed Mohamed walked from Makkah to Jerusalem, and to the furthest reaches of heaven, all in a single night journey.
Don’t get too condesecending, though, if you want to laugh at that. Americans are taught to revere Plymouth Rock, our most famous monuments are carved from rock, and it’s a long-standing tradition that when a man is ready to commit to his love, he gives her a rock to wear – a shiny, really expensive rock, that serves no apparent purpose except to signal his love for her, and to keep jewelers employed.
Hmm..
I’ve been amusing myself in the peculiar world of ‘hidden message’ theories. You know, where this group or that claims to hold certain knowledge, secrets if you will, that the ordinary person doesn’t get. To me of course, the lack of wisdom largely comes down to simply not paying attention to what God plainly tells us, but it is amusing for all of that to read some of the theories. What especially gets my attention, is when someone makes interesting observations, the sort of things that, while they don’t sell me on elitist claims to influence and position, still can illuminate a matter, showing a different perspective, like trying a new seasoning in a recipe.
Anyway, along the course of this intellectual buffet, I began to notice a strange iconism to humans. I was reading about this stone, which is supposed to reside somewhere in one of the palaces in England, sometimes called the Stone of Destiny, sometimes Jacob’s Pillow. Legend has it, that the Jacob of the Bible rested his head on that stone as he slept (don’t ask me why a stone should be considered a good pillow), and that same stone has been carried around for literally thousands of years, that Moses hit this rock to make water in the desert, that this is the rock on which Solomon was proclaimed king, and so on through history. If true, that would explain why English kings and queens are crowned while sitting on this stone. Talk about your lucky rock!
The Muslims are another case. Islam distinguished itself from other religions in the Arab world, by a strict prohibition against any sort of idolatry. That, in fact, is why there are no pictures of Mohamed, not to mention Allah. So, it seems strange to consider that Muslims are expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, where it happens there is a mosque housing a large black stone. The rock was worshipped as an idol in Mohamed’s day, and for some reason is still important to Muslims, called the Ka’aba. Another rock important to Muslims is the Mosque of the Rock in Jerusalem, from where it is claimed Mohamed walked from Makkah to Jerusalem, and to the furthest reaches of heaven, all in a single night journey.
Don’t get too condesecending, though, if you want to laugh at that. Americans are taught to revere Plymouth Rock, our most famous monuments are carved from rock, and it’s a long-standing tradition that when a man is ready to commit to his love, he gives her a rock to wear – a shiny, really expensive rock, that serves no apparent purpose except to signal his love for her, and to keep jewelers employed.
Hmm..
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The Trials of Democracy
Ten years ago today, the Murrah Federal Building was destroyed in a crime of violence and insanity. At the time, it sent the Federal government in the direction of domestic terrorism, but there were lessons which might have been learned in dealing with international terrorists as well. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration, especially as commanded by Attorney General Janet Reno, was much on show and very, very weak on results; to this day, there is reasonable concern about whether all of the conspirators and participants in the Oklahoma City Bombing have been brought to justice, or whether the attack was handled with so much politicization, that other groups saw opportunity instead of deterrence.
To be sure, the FBI undertook heavy lifting to weed out the most dangerous of domestic groups, working as much on prevention and cooperation with local law enforcement, as they did in pursuing known groups of violence. Under Director Freeh, the FBI greatly reduced threats from a number of fanatical groups, like the Bandidos motorcycle gang, the Montana Militia, and Ervil Lebaron’s deranged Mormon splinter sect. However, Reno’s desire for political capital wasted some of the gains by closing out cases before they were fully resolved, allowing some groups to escape capture, and others to learn the methods and priorities of the Clinton Administration. One significant lesson, was that resources were pulled from Foreign Terrorism offices to accommodate Domestic Terrorism programs, rather than maintaining both.
There will be future domestic terrorists. The free nature of our society, matched with the diversity of opinion and the political correctness which demands threats only be addressed under ‘acceptable’ oversight, makes this inevitable. But we are by no means prohibited against learning from the past.
To be sure, the FBI undertook heavy lifting to weed out the most dangerous of domestic groups, working as much on prevention and cooperation with local law enforcement, as they did in pursuing known groups of violence. Under Director Freeh, the FBI greatly reduced threats from a number of fanatical groups, like the Bandidos motorcycle gang, the Montana Militia, and Ervil Lebaron’s deranged Mormon splinter sect. However, Reno’s desire for political capital wasted some of the gains by closing out cases before they were fully resolved, allowing some groups to escape capture, and others to learn the methods and priorities of the Clinton Administration. One significant lesson, was that resources were pulled from Foreign Terrorism offices to accommodate Domestic Terrorism programs, rather than maintaining both.
There will be future domestic terrorists. The free nature of our society, matched with the diversity of opinion and the political correctness which demands threats only be addressed under ‘acceptable’ oversight, makes this inevitable. But we are by no means prohibited against learning from the past.
Computer Error Leads to False Alarm in Rome
..+..
+++
..+..
..+..
Vatican Conclave - The Vatican intended to ensure that the Conclave to select the next Pope, would have secrecy enforced by the latest technology, but that technology almost led to a surprise Pontiff.
White smoke poured from the Conclave chimney today, bringing cheers from crowds of hopeful Catholics. But a little while later, the smoke turned black.
Sources within the Conclave were unwilling to speak at first, but after it became obvious they needed to explain the mix in smoke, a Vatican spokesman explained that the first ballot, rather than using scrip, was by computer, and Whitey Herzog, the former Manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, was selected to be the next Pontiff.
“It’s not as strange as it sounds.” the source protested, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Whitey is a Cardinal, he’s got a lot of experience, he’s been pretty successful and is also very popular.
“However, Mr. Herzog declined, so we had to send out the black smoke.”
Vatican officials could not confirm that the Vatican, considering installing a black pope, is considering Ozzie Smith on the next ballot.
+++
..+..
..+..
Vatican Conclave - The Vatican intended to ensure that the Conclave to select the next Pope, would have secrecy enforced by the latest technology, but that technology almost led to a surprise Pontiff.
White smoke poured from the Conclave chimney today, bringing cheers from crowds of hopeful Catholics. But a little while later, the smoke turned black.
Sources within the Conclave were unwilling to speak at first, but after it became obvious they needed to explain the mix in smoke, a Vatican spokesman explained that the first ballot, rather than using scrip, was by computer, and Whitey Herzog, the former Manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, was selected to be the next Pontiff.
“It’s not as strange as it sounds.” the source protested, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Whitey is a Cardinal, he’s got a lot of experience, he’s been pretty successful and is also very popular.
“However, Mr. Herzog declined, so we had to send out the black smoke.”
Vatican officials could not confirm that the Vatican, considering installing a black pope, is considering Ozzie Smith on the next ballot.
Monday, April 18, 2005
South Park Conservatives : Why “Liberal Loser” is an accurate assessment of the Left
..
~
Politics is often considered to be cyclical. When asked why he opposed changing the Senate rules to end the Democrats’ tactic of filibustering to prevent votes on Judicial Nominees, John McCain said that he was thinking about the future, when the Republicans no longer controlled the Senate. That statement is an indicator of how little politicians understand the seismic shift in politics, as a new generation of Conservatives heavily outpowers the dwindling force of Liberalism in the United States. Evidence for this shift can be found in Brian C. Anderson’s soon-to-be-blockbuster-bestseller, South Park Conservatives : The Revolt against Liberal Media Bias
At first glance, SPC starts like any conservative examination of the cultural landscape. But where others have pointed out the need for change, and had some fun showing the hypocrisy and indefensibility of Liberal arguments and positions, Anderson shows strong reasons to believe the Conservatives are winning.
Key examples:
* Anderson observes that the “Limbaugh armada helped the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans win Congress in 1994, the first time in half a century that the GOP had taken control”
* Anderson notes the shift in media attention, citing that “FOX’s ratings, already climbing since the station debuted in 1996, really began to rocket upward after the terrorist attack and blasted into orbit with Operation Iraqi Freedom. ”In the Iraqi war,” Dick Morris explains, “the viewing audience truly saw how incredibly biased the other networks were”. “By June 2003, FOX was winning a whopping 51 percent of the prime-time cable-news audience ... During the second ratings quarter of 2004, FOX owned nine of the top ten highest-rated cable news shows.”
* Anderson hits on a critical element in the shift - in addition to Conservative support, there is now a clear and active anti-Liberal element, exemplified by the hit show “South Park”. One reason for this, Anderson explains, is because “South Park regularly mocks left-wing celebrities who feel entitles to pontificate on how the nation should be run.” In other words, the Left’s own habit of claiming authority where they don’t even know the facts (or care) is coming back to bite them.
* Anderson uses the Liberal hate site Democratic Underground as a barometer for rising Liberal hysteria. They are beginning to realize their grip on control of the media, along with the culture and direction of the country, are slipping.
One of my favorite parts of the book, is when Anderson explains the conversion of comedian Dennis Miller to the cause of Conservatism. The chief reason: George W. Bush. Even as RINO’s pretend that Bush is somehow hurting the cause of the GOP, Dennis is unashamedly proud of the President. “In this messed-up world, I like seeing my president pray” explains Miller, who says Bush made him “proud to be an American again.”
Anderson also notes the rise of Conservative titles in book publishing, along with a number of Conservative publishing house, like Regnery, which printed SPC.
Buy the book. It’s fun, enlightening, and it will charge you up. Unless you’re a liberal.
~
Politics is often considered to be cyclical. When asked why he opposed changing the Senate rules to end the Democrats’ tactic of filibustering to prevent votes on Judicial Nominees, John McCain said that he was thinking about the future, when the Republicans no longer controlled the Senate. That statement is an indicator of how little politicians understand the seismic shift in politics, as a new generation of Conservatives heavily outpowers the dwindling force of Liberalism in the United States. Evidence for this shift can be found in Brian C. Anderson’s soon-to-be-blockbuster-bestseller, South Park Conservatives : The Revolt against Liberal Media Bias
At first glance, SPC starts like any conservative examination of the cultural landscape. But where others have pointed out the need for change, and had some fun showing the hypocrisy and indefensibility of Liberal arguments and positions, Anderson shows strong reasons to believe the Conservatives are winning.
Key examples:
* Anderson observes that the “Limbaugh armada helped the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans win Congress in 1994, the first time in half a century that the GOP had taken control”
* Anderson notes the shift in media attention, citing that “FOX’s ratings, already climbing since the station debuted in 1996, really began to rocket upward after the terrorist attack and blasted into orbit with Operation Iraqi Freedom. ”In the Iraqi war,” Dick Morris explains, “the viewing audience truly saw how incredibly biased the other networks were”. “By June 2003, FOX was winning a whopping 51 percent of the prime-time cable-news audience ... During the second ratings quarter of 2004, FOX owned nine of the top ten highest-rated cable news shows.”
* Anderson hits on a critical element in the shift - in addition to Conservative support, there is now a clear and active anti-Liberal element, exemplified by the hit show “South Park”. One reason for this, Anderson explains, is because “South Park regularly mocks left-wing celebrities who feel entitles to pontificate on how the nation should be run.” In other words, the Left’s own habit of claiming authority where they don’t even know the facts (or care) is coming back to bite them.
* Anderson uses the Liberal hate site Democratic Underground as a barometer for rising Liberal hysteria. They are beginning to realize their grip on control of the media, along with the culture and direction of the country, are slipping.
One of my favorite parts of the book, is when Anderson explains the conversion of comedian Dennis Miller to the cause of Conservatism. The chief reason: George W. Bush. Even as RINO’s pretend that Bush is somehow hurting the cause of the GOP, Dennis is unashamedly proud of the President. “In this messed-up world, I like seeing my president pray” explains Miller, who says Bush made him “proud to be an American again.”
Anderson also notes the rise of Conservative titles in book publishing, along with a number of Conservative publishing house, like Regnery, which printed SPC.
Buy the book. It’s fun, enlightening, and it will charge you up. Unless you’re a liberal.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
The Schiavo Phenomenon and History
[][]
The murder of Terri Schiavo is an established fact, the points long discussed.
Mae Magouirk, an 85 year old woman of Lagrange, Georgia, took the trouble to make clear her wishes to continue receiving food and water, through a living will. Now, a relative with no legal standing has convinced a judge to murder her, anyway.
Steven D Levitt, a delusional economist, now argues that Abortion cut crime, an argument the New York Times finds worth advocating, regardless of the actual facts, which are evident in a simple consideration of modern cases like the Peterson murder, the "Railway Murder" serial killings, or Columbine High School.
It goes all the way back to 1859, when Charles Darwin wrote a book, now famously used to bolster the now-mainline theory of human existence. The entire title is noteworthy, however:
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” [emphasis mine]
Yep. The book which became the basis for Evolution’s support in Science, was based on the claim that certain races were superior. While Darwin is careful to cite botanical examples, moving to insects and avian samples, he mixes them together in a rhetorical stew with little empirical evidence; his work reads like a dull novel, but for all its mendacity a clearly racist and sexist theme is clear.
Francis Galton (1822-1911) took the next step, which he initially called “deliberate social intervention”, but which became better known as the theory of Eugenics. Eugenics included the advocacy that only certain races should be allowed to have children, and “inferior” types, including people with physical or mental handicaps. Galton explained his theory as the “logical application of evolution to the human race.”
In 1904 the first Chair for a professorship in Eugenics was instituted at University College, London. The Galton Laboratory for National Eugenics was founded in 1907. In 1910, the Eugenic Record Office was founded in the United States. These groups pursued political influence for the purpose of advancing eugenics policies.
In 1931, Dr. Charles Killick Millard,president of the Society of Medical Officers of Health, brought up the question of voluntary euthanasia, and proposed a suitable law.
“Project T4” was instituted in 1938 in Germany, initially as a plan to collect information on candidates for euthanasia. The committee in charge of the project was officially named the “Realms Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to Heridity”, and many of its members were put in charge of “Final Solution” camp implementations, as the hospitals used the same gas-showers and crematorium process as became infamous years later at the concentration camps.
Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, was oustpoken in her opinions.
In her book, Women and the New Race (1920), she wrote “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
In her book, Pivot of Civilization, she wrote that immigrants and the indigent were “human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."
Her purpose in advancing Abortion, in the magazine Birth Control Review (1921), she was “to create a race of thoroughbreds”
In her book, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, Sanger is quoted as saying “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”
Planned Parenthood has never renounced those opinions as being conflict with their own plans and goals.
What happened to Terri Schiavo in Florida, and is now happening now to Mae Magouirk in Georgia, was set in motion long ago, on a deliberate course which ultimate objective has been hidden from national discussion. It is now time to be quite clear, that one either chooses the presumption of Life as a fundamental right, with no racial, gender, age, physical/mental condition or cultural prejudices allowed in the decision, or one chooses to murder the inconvenient, as the Eugenists and Planned Parenthood have argued for more than a century.
The murder of Terri Schiavo is an established fact, the points long discussed.
Mae Magouirk, an 85 year old woman of Lagrange, Georgia, took the trouble to make clear her wishes to continue receiving food and water, through a living will. Now, a relative with no legal standing has convinced a judge to murder her, anyway.
Steven D Levitt, a delusional economist, now argues that Abortion cut crime, an argument the New York Times finds worth advocating, regardless of the actual facts, which are evident in a simple consideration of modern cases like the Peterson murder, the "Railway Murder" serial killings, or Columbine High School.
It goes all the way back to 1859, when Charles Darwin wrote a book, now famously used to bolster the now-mainline theory of human existence. The entire title is noteworthy, however:
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” [emphasis mine]
Yep. The book which became the basis for Evolution’s support in Science, was based on the claim that certain races were superior. While Darwin is careful to cite botanical examples, moving to insects and avian samples, he mixes them together in a rhetorical stew with little empirical evidence; his work reads like a dull novel, but for all its mendacity a clearly racist and sexist theme is clear.
Francis Galton (1822-1911) took the next step, which he initially called “deliberate social intervention”, but which became better known as the theory of Eugenics. Eugenics included the advocacy that only certain races should be allowed to have children, and “inferior” types, including people with physical or mental handicaps. Galton explained his theory as the “logical application of evolution to the human race.”
In 1904 the first Chair for a professorship in Eugenics was instituted at University College, London. The Galton Laboratory for National Eugenics was founded in 1907. In 1910, the Eugenic Record Office was founded in the United States. These groups pursued political influence for the purpose of advancing eugenics policies.
In 1931, Dr. Charles Killick Millard,president of the Society of Medical Officers of Health, brought up the question of voluntary euthanasia, and proposed a suitable law.
“Project T4” was instituted in 1938 in Germany, initially as a plan to collect information on candidates for euthanasia. The committee in charge of the project was officially named the “Realms Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to Heridity”, and many of its members were put in charge of “Final Solution” camp implementations, as the hospitals used the same gas-showers and crematorium process as became infamous years later at the concentration camps.
Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, was oustpoken in her opinions.
In her book, Women and the New Race (1920), she wrote “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
In her book, Pivot of Civilization, she wrote that immigrants and the indigent were “human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."
Her purpose in advancing Abortion, in the magazine Birth Control Review (1921), she was “to create a race of thoroughbreds”
In her book, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, Sanger is quoted as saying “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”
Planned Parenthood has never renounced those opinions as being conflict with their own plans and goals.
What happened to Terri Schiavo in Florida, and is now happening now to Mae Magouirk in Georgia, was set in motion long ago, on a deliberate course which ultimate objective has been hidden from national discussion. It is now time to be quite clear, that one either chooses the presumption of Life as a fundamental right, with no racial, gender, age, physical/mental condition or cultural prejudices allowed in the decision, or one chooses to murder the inconvenient, as the Eugenists and Planned Parenthood have argued for more than a century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
