Obama Claims No Death Panels, Some Already Call the Shots

People are kidding themselves if they think there are no health care “death panels” in existence and just waiting to be expanded upon. Insurance companies, who deny rightful claims without reason or under the technicality umbrella, have death squads whether decisions are made by individuals or actual committees. There are hospitals and nursing homes that have decided to get onboard with their so-called ethics committees that make life and death decisions even in spite of the “actual” wishes of the patient or the patient’s family. Shall we say, “Andrea Clark“?

Andrea Clark was well aware of her surroundings and fighting to live after major surgery, when it was decided by a so-called ethics committee that she fell under the futile care rule and should be put down. Her family felt otherwise and fought to give her a chance to live. Though she didn’t survive, it was nature that made the decision and not some cold and calculating panel.

We also have the case of Jesse Ramirez. A case where,

“News reports state that on May 30th, Jesse Ramirez and his wife Rebecca were traveling in their SUV, in the midst of an argument, when he lost control of the SUV and had a rollover crash. Both occupants were ejected from the vehicle. Jesse, 36, reportedly suffered critical injuries, which include a broken neck and head injuries, while Rebecca, 33, suffered only minor injuries.

“It appears that around a week after the accident, Jesse underwent surgery, only to be transferred to a hospice the following day with orders to have his feeding tube removed. Who made the decision to transfer him and end his life? Rebecca Ramirez, the woman with whom he was having marital problems even as they crashed.”

Jessie Ramirez’s family was successful in stopping the termination. As a result, Jessie walked out of the so-called health care system very much alive.

We also have the case of a little girl, who was admitted to the hospital after being violently beaten by her step-father. Haleigh Poutre had received life threatening brain injury. She was mistaken for hopeless.

“Haleigh was being given food and water through a feeding and hydration tube. A year later, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services filed a legal motion to remove it. They cited the medical finding of “PVS”. Her stepfather then sued to prevent the removal of the assistance. There was speculation in some sources that he did this to avoid criminal charges for murder. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the assistance could be removed in a controversial ruling.

“One day after the ruling, Haleigh surprised all of her caregivers by breathing without the need for assistance and showing signs of communication. The court order was rescinded and the medical team continued to care for Haleigh. That was in 2006. Now, two years later, Haleigh may be called as a witness in the retrial of her stepfather’s case. He is on trial for assault and battery on a child with a dangerous weapon. Haleigh continues to recover. She now communicates through hand signals and a computer keyboard. She loves to brush her hair.” (“Editorial: Haleigh Poutre, ‘Persistent Vegetative States’ and Compassion” by Deacon Keith Fournier – Catholic Online 11/26/2008.)

LifeNews also reported on the government involvement that almost ended the child’s life.

“Stet officials called Poutre, once termed “brain dead” by doctors, “hopeless” but now she continues to improve and a new video in November showed her making amazing progress.

“‘And therein lies a terrible irony,” Wesley J. Smith responded. “Had Massachusetts finished Haleigh off–which is what the state would, in effect, have been doing by removing her feeding tube–Strickland might have been punished for murder.’”

“Just six days after the Massachusetts Department of Social Services took custody of Haleigh, it asked Juvenile Court Judge James G. Collins for permission to remove her feeding tube and ventilator. Collins gave them the okay.

“‘The state’s action, taken to cause her death, would have been merely described as a sad but necessary example of medical ethics,” Smith said.’” (“Abuser of Near-Euthanasia Victim Haleigh Poutre Jailed as She Recovers” – by Steven Ertelt January 7, 2009)

Ted Stith, Sr. had a stroke while in Florida on vacation in 2006. Without even a hint of time to recover, he was moved to a hospice and starved and dehydrated to death. This was in spite of the fact, his friend (that had flown down to be with him) reported that Ted was aware and had reached for water. She further reported that she was removed from visitation because they believed she might have been feeding him. Apparently there was no interest in what Ted Stith, Sr.’s wishes were. He was denied the water he desperately reached for. He had, after all, been sentenced to death by the new rules put into place and readily carried out by the hospice.

Now we have Gary Harvey from New York, whose wife is fighting both for his life and the right to take him home.

“This is a case where a 55 year old man had a heart attack, fell down the basement stairs, and ended up severely brain damaged. It is a case where still another so-called ethics committee felt it had some sort of god-like wisdom and right to determine life or death for a stranger. It is a case where a so-called ethics committee decided, behind closed doors, that it was perfectly okay to starve and dehydrate this man — Gary Harvey — to death by termination of his Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) feeding tube.”

Thankfully the request has been dismissed for now.

John Zick with the Corning Leader, reported on the County’s request to remove Gary Harvey’s feeding tube. (“Comatose man’s feeding tube won’t be removed” – July 28, 2009).

“The county Attorney’s Office filed the motion to remove the feeding tube in early June but informed state Supreme Court Judge Judith O’Shea late last month it was withdrawing the request, according to a letter from Assistant County Attorney Donald Thomson.

“In early June, the St. Joseph’s Hospital Ethics Committee recommended the removal of Harvey’s feeding tube because it was no longer a viable source of nutrition and was causing fungal septicemia, according to an affidavit completed by Rita Gould, the supervisor of Adult Services for the Chemung County Department of Social Services.

“Fungal septicemia is an infection that in Harvey was located where the feeding tube was inserted.

Later in June, however, the infection began responding to treatment, and the county withdrew its application to remove the feeding tube.”

What caused the infection? Could it have been prevented? Whose care was Gary in at the time? It certainly wasn’t his wife’s.

Zick also reported,

“According to Chemung County Attorney Bryan Maggs, Sara Harvey has a history of abusing her husband and failed to follow the advice of medical professionals.”

What “history of abusing” is Maggs referring to? Is he referring to when Sara Harvey cut the fish line on her husband’s trach.

“Right or wrong, Sara did cut a “fish line” on an allegedly defective trach. (Gary was not on a ventilator or respirator. The trach is an aid to hopefully prevent aspiration.) While ill-advised for non-medical personnel to do such a thing, and no one is advising others to likewise do it, it isn’t as black and white as it sounds.

“From what it appears, the trach was defective for at least two weeks and staff was well aware that it was. However, nothing was apparently done to fix the problem. Instead, there was Gary pulling on the “fish line”, as he had been frequently doing through those two weeks.

“Sara told the nurse that it was bothering him. The nurse, I’m told, did not even walk over to see for herself, though she was right there. Sara said she was going to cut the “fish line”. The nurse shrugged. Sara cut the line, with the facility’s scissors. The nurse did nothing to either stop Sara or in response to her having cut the line. As a matter of fact, Sara stayed perhaps another two hours before going home around 8:30 PM.

“At approximately 10:30 PM, she received a call saying they were taking Gary to the ER to have his trach evaluated.

“Though Gary suffered no injury or distress, and the problem was resolved as it should have been done two weeks prior, Sara was to be considered (from then on) a danger to her husband. She was to lose her say in his care decisions and restricted to supervised and limited visitation.”

Though Sara cut the fish line in the presence of medical staff, it was behind closed doors that the so-called ethics committee decided to pull the plug on her husband. It was the so-called ethics committee that sought to starve and dehydrate Gary Harvey to death. Who is it that placed a DNR on him? Who is it that is the immediate threat to this man? Who?

By whatever name, there are death panels in existence. It is no myth. There are medical facilities that have the so-called ethic’s committees to make life and death decisions, some states have actual futile care laws, and the insurance companies make decisions on what will and won’t be covered, which effectively can deny a person life-saving treatment and medication. Not only don’t we need anymore groups to kill off people, there needs to be a review of the ones that thus far exist. There needs to be something that seems to be lacking thus far and that is true accountability, rather than an open license to kill off the vulnerable.

Gary Harvey, and others like him, prove the dangers of death panels without accountability.

Gary suffered severe brain injury. We know that. What we don’t know is if he has been receiving proper care that would afford him every chance of recovering to the highest level possible. Not only don’t we know it — never does his wife Sara. She, too, has been locked out of the unholy room where death panels meet to decide the fate of the helpless.

A hopeless case? That’s what was said about Jesse Ramirez and Haleigh Poutre. Obviously, someone was quite wrong!

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.