subscribe to the RSS Feed

Monday, October 20, 2014

A time to celebrate?

Posted by Gary on July 13, 2009

As one whose calling and work includes performing funerals, I have a vantaged place from which to view the thinking of society when it comes to the death of others. In recent years you may have noticed that funerals are less frequently referred to as "funerals" they are more and more frequently called "life celebrations." The thinking here isn’t hard to follow, "funeral" sounds negative and sad, "life celebration" sounds joyful and hopeful.

There are times when we can rightly call for celebration when a person dies, when and only when that person was in right standing with God through the merits and forgiveness of Jesus Christ. When a forgiven, redeemed sinner dies it is reason to celebrate, that person has gone into the presence of God:

Psalm 16:11 "In Your presence is fullness of joy; in Your right hand there are pleasures forever."

According to the Bible, God Himself celebrates when one who belongs to Him dies and is brought to heaven with Him:

Psalm 116:15
"Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His godly ones."

Here painful honesty is required, an honesty that apart from enablement from God we will never apply. How many people are entering God’s presence when they die? How often do we truly have a right to call for celebration? Did you know, not many? "On what authority do you say this?" one might ask. On the authority of the Lord Jesus:

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

In twenty years of ministry and many funerals I can tell you that I can’t remember one time it being said of a person who died, "I don’t think they are in heaven." In virtually every case the declaration made of the deceased is that, "They are in a better place" or "They aren’t suffering anymore" or "God took them home". It doesn’t matter if the deceased never made any profession of faith in Christ or gave any indication of ever coming to repentance in their life. The base assumption is that essentially everyone goes to heaven, with every funeral we can rejoice. Oh, perhaps Hitler isn’t in heaven but beyond him virtually everyone else is in heaven.

Our calls for celebration without discretion flows from denial, a refusal to listen to the Son of God. Not many are going to heaven, only a few are finding the path to life.

How do we know if someone is in heaven? First, we cannot make the ultimate declaration in this matter can we? I do not mean it is impossible for a person to know they are going to heaven because Christ’s death insures that those who come to Him by faith will be saved. But even here we must be cautious…have you ever questioned whether or not you are truly in the faith?

2 Corinthians 13:5
"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?"

If you have not tested your claim to heaven I would warn you that you are not standing on safe ground.

Snatching the prey

Posted by Gary on November 22, 2008

Matthew 25:41-43 "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been 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;”

For those of you who have been asleep for the last forty years and who have refused to pay attention to the death machine that has been revving up, a machine which yearly murders 42,000,000 infants and starves and dehydrates people to death, what will it take to awaken you?

We only have a day or so to rejoice in the wonderful news that the parents of Lauren Richardson have stepped out of a court battle and joined together to care for their daughter and seek her healing when we see this post from professor and attorney Thaddeus Pope insisting that the court should appoint a guardian who will insure that Lauren’s feeding tube is removed causing her death. From his post:

“At this point, it looks like Lauren’s parents are not acting as proper substitute decision makers under the Delaware Health Care Decisions Act because they appear to be doing something to Lauren that she would not have wanted.”

“…it seems that an evidentiary hearing is required to determine exactly why the mother has changed her mind. Otherwise, the court should appoint a guardian authorized to make the decision to withdraw life support.”

(Mr. Pope is an Associate Professor of Law and a member of the Health Law Institute at the Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware. Mr. Pope teaches in the realm of health law, bioethics and medical futility.)

By taking control of the terminology (see a previous post) advocates of death are able to put a mask on euthanasia and call it something else. Pope’s argument is that the court found previously that the evidence that Lauren would not want to live this way was clear and convincing. It is quite amazing that Pope would reference this when one considers his comments on the case.This from Pope’s Blog posted early on in Lauren’s court case (read the post here):

“On the other hand, the mother’s evidence — a handful of prior oral statements — seems awfully thin. While such evidence is sometimes upheld as sufficient to exercise the "substituted judgment" standard, other times it has been held insufficient.”

This from another Pope post:

There is one thing that I had not appreciated before looking at the local rules of procedure. Since the initial decision was from a Master, the next level of review is to the Court of Chancery. That review is de novo. That is significant because while the Master wrote a lucid and compelling opinion, it is a close call whether the mother’s evidence of Lauren’s wishes meets the "clear and convincing" standard. A judge owing no deference to the factual determinations of the Master might reach a different conclusion.

And this from an email correspondence between the two of us:

“The legal standard for Lauren’s mother was clear and convincing evidence. This is a standard more demanding than mere preponderance (51%) in civil litigation. The judge found that she met that standard. I, like you, am a little skeptical since the only evidence consisted of rather casual verbal comments. The Chancery Court may very well disagree with the master as to whether the mother had sufficient evidence that removing ANH is what Lauren herself would have wanted.”

And most damningly there is this statement by Pope to me personally (yet posted publicly) as we interacted on this post:

“Note that the legal standard in the criminal context is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while in the guardianship context it is only the lower "clear and convincing." Therefore, greater efforts to ensure certainty in the capital punishment context are aligned with the evidentiary standard.

That said, I do not think the evidence in Lauren Richardson met even the lower standard. The master’s conclusion was rather weakly supported by the evidence.”

Now, Pope has said that he thought the evidence presented was “thin”, that he was “skeptical” and then ultimately that he did not think it “met even the lower standard” of clear and convincing and yet we find him now calling for the court to appoint a guardian to insure Lauren’s starvation.

What are we to make of this? Well there are many things that I hope Lauren’s case will further reveal such as the attempted intervention of death advocate groups who have sought to encourage and influence Lauren’s mother in this case. What should be clear is that there are many who wield legal power who are intent on further instituting a system of imposed death.

Concerning Mr. Pope, he can call for Lauren’s death hiding behind the court’s ruling but what about his public statements about the ruling? If he actually thinks what he has previously posted on Lauren’s case wouldn’t one assume that he would publicly applaud the decision of Lauren’s family or at least just remain quiet now? Yes the court ruled but he has questioned the courts ruling in the strongest terms. Instead what we hear is his call for Lauren’s death.

This is all nothing more than the intention to make imposed death a way of…death in our country. Lauren’s case is vital, it is probably the most highly publicized starvation case after Terri Schiavo. There are big players with the intention of death circling around Lauren Richardson.

Do not underestimate how determined death advocates are to see this good end to Lauren’s case undone, it will in some way set a precedent and will serve as a call of hope to many families.

Wake up!

Thank God

Posted by Gary on November 20, 2008

Psalm 43:3  “O send out Your light and Your truth, let them lead me…”

Many in our congregation have prayed in recent months for Lauren Richardson, a young woman who is dependent on a feeding tube to receive her nourishment after a brain injury she suffered in 2006.

For a time there was concern that Lauren’s feeding tube would be removed through legal action initiated by her mother. As months went by Lauren’s mother began to reconsider and through seeking God’s guidance decided to stop the court case and together with Lauren’s father is initiating a plan of therapy and medical care. Lauren will soon be moved to live at her father’s house.

You can read this amazing story here. Lauren’s is a story of God’s intervention and mercy. How grateful we are to God for His work in our hearts in showing us the good and right way.

We also want to encourage Lauren’s mother in her decision, by God’s grace she has done the right thing. In a culture that seems intent to hasten the end of people’s lives such a decision took courage. We can safely assume that there was pressure brought to bear on Lauren’s mother by many death advocate groups to end Lauren’s life.

Here is a quote from Lauren’s mother taken from the Delaware News Journal story:

"I was waiting on God to help me through this, and I think I got my answer the day I realized, if I cut my daughter’s life short without giving her every opportunity to heal, could I live with that decision?"

Here is another story on this wonderful answer to prayer from the Alliance Defense Fund.

Lord, we thank you for hearing the prayers of Your people. We ask you to do more than we have asked or imagined in and through Lauren’s life. We pray that you will raise her up and make her a tremendous witness of your power and grace. Amen.

A Pastoral Statement on Euthanasia and Imposing Death by Starvation and Dehydration

Posted by Gary on June 7, 2008

You will find below a Pastoral Statement on Euthanasia and Imposing Death by Starvation and Dehydration. This statement is born of concern for our willingness and increasing intention to end the existence of the ill and disabled through any means but especially through the inhumane and sinful practice of starvation and dehydration.

We recognize that all decisions concerning the end of life are not as clear morally and medically as others and that this statement cannot cover every potential situation adequately. This being said, the fear of misapplication or misunderstanding of our intent must not keep us from speaking to a situation that needs clarification from God’s servants. Our fear of making blanket applications has led us at least in the Protestant world to say very little and sometimes nothing. While it is given that one could present a situation that needs special consideration the simple truth is that with greater frequency people whose condition is not terminal and who by God’s grace might recover are being starved to death. The “quality of life” mantra of recent decades has been successful and has wrought great destruction upon human life.

While this statement makes reference to one individual (Lauren Richardson) whose life is currently threatened by the intention of her guardian and a Delaware court decision, we include also a concern for the many who are starved and dehydrated to death without our knowledge. A few such cases become high profile because of a dispute between family members but most deaths of this nature are never heard of. Because there is no debate between family members the act happens largely unnoticed and uncontested.

It is our prayer that God will use this statement and the voice of His servants to rebuke this practice and those who advocate and enforce it, to call them to repentance and to reverence for God and the life that He gives and takes and that bears His image. This call to repentance is not limited to those of the medical field or political/judicial world but includes all of us who by ignorance and/or apathy have allowed this practice to become entrenched and to increase.

Signatories will be listed in the comments section.

A Pastoral Statement on Euthanasia and Imposing Death by Starvation and Dehydration

Believing that human life at all stages from conception until natural death and in every condition regardless of disability or cognitive ability bears the image of God, we, the undersigned offer our voice in support of life and in opposition to imposing death on the ill and disabled, in particular through starvation and dehydration.

Those of us who minister in Delaware have a special concern at the potential imposed death by starvation of one of our citizens, Lauren Richardson. We urge those who have influence over Lauren’s life, her guardian and the Delaware court system, to act on the basis of hope which comes from faith and reverence for human life, of which God is the author and finisher (Deuteronomy 32:39).

Acknowledging the tragedy and difficulty of human suffering we ask our fellow citizens to consider the following:

1. Euthanasia is an act of hopelessness. Human suffering humbles us as we see our inability to heal suffering despite our many medical advancements. But by imposing death on the ill and disabled, society is declaring that there is no purpose in suffering. This is contrary to the message of Scripture as seen in the lives of many people, most notably Job, and ultimately our Lord Jesus Christ.

2. God has told us clearly that He is the author and finisher of our existence. Fear of God should prevent us from ever seeking to end our own life or the life of another prematurely, especially by depriving them of the sustenance that is essential to human existence.

3. We express our concern that nutrition and hydration have been classified as medical treatment by many medical authorities and in the legal system. Food and water are now referred to in some legal documents as “life support”. This classification then becomes the basis for interpreting unguarded or uninformed comments from individuals about life support as an expressed declaration of their intent. The result is a deceptive vehicle by which many people are starved to death.

4. We urge our citizens to reject the claim that euthanasia is a private act. Even if one’s wishes to have his life ended prematurely were documented (Lauren Richardson left no such written documentation), society must give its approval to euthanize, which it has not done. Euthanasia advocates demand that society validate the so called private decision and make provision for the practice of imposing death. By depicting euthanasia as a purely private act, euthanasia advocates hide the reality that if Lauren is starved to death, we will all share in the decision to do this to her.

5. New Jersey recently ceased capital punishment calling death by injection “cruel and unusual punishment”. If imposing death by injection is cruel, how much more so death by starvation, which can be a two week process!

6. Faith leads to hope. We readily acknowledge that suffering is tragic and painful, both for the one suffering and for their loved ones. But because God is real and active, the end of our life is not certain until He makes it so. Often doctors using their best judgment declare that there is no hope; often they are wrong. Faith believes that God can heal, and that if He doesn’t, He is with us and has a purpose for our suffering.

7. Human suffering is ultimately a result of the fall by which our first parents Adam and Eve turned away from God and brought death (physical and spiritual) upon themselves and their offspring. Human suffering is a reminder of our need of the Savior Jesus Christ and the eternal life that comes through His atoning death and resurrection.

  • We call our fellow citizens to acknowledge God’s prerogative in beginning and ending life.
  • We encourage prayer to God in Jesus’ name on behalf of those who suffer.
  • We call on the medical profession and government to turn from their irreverence for God demonstrated in the sinful act of starving and dehydrating the ill and disabled.
  • We remind us all that because mankind bears God’s image our treatment of life is taken as our attitude toward God Himself (Genesis 9:6).
  • Finally, we remind us that God sees our actions and will render to each one of us according to our deeds (Jeremiah 17:10).

Signatories:

Reverend Gary Knapp
East Gate Presbyterian Church (Millsboro, DE)

Doug Perkins
Heritage Presbyterian Church (New Castle, DE)

Jeff Rakes,
Assistant Pastor, Grace Church, (Dover, DE)

Reverend Dave Lort,
(Townsend DE)

Concerning Delaware HB 302-Organ Donation Legislation

Posted by Gary on May 28, 2008

Here is yet another national story of a woman who was declared brain dead and has recovered. If you listen carefully you will hear that doctors were about to remove her organs when she revived though she had been declared dead:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=7932917

We have spoken against proposed legislation here in Delaware that would presume participation and intent in organ donation unless one opts out. Chief amongst our concerns is that vital organ removal happens under the diagnosis (guise) of brain death which is not death as this story proves.

The response we have received is that HB 302 has nothing to do with brain death or end of life issues. What lawmakers refuse to acknowledge is that if they pass HB 302 they would be making a statement to the public advocating organ donation more strongly than ever. Whenever we advocate something to others we take a moral obligation upon ourselves about the process or position that we advocate. Organ donation cannot be divorced from the brain death diagnosis and in advocating organ donation lawmakers would be (whether they acknowledge so or not) also advocate the means by which organs are taken, brain death.

In the last six months there have been three national stories of people diagnosed brain dead who then recovered. Two of these were moments from having their organs removed, yet lawmakers still insist that this has no bearing on the fact that they want to presume participation in organ donation.

On top of all this, an important voice from Harvard (who gave us the brain death diagnosis) recently stated that he doesn’t believe people diagnosed as brain dead are dead. This quote is mind-boggling but here it is:

“It’s completely ethical to remove organs from patients we diagnose as brain dead. It’s just ethical for reasons other than that we think they’re dead, because I don’t think they are.” (Dr. Robert Truog, director of clinical ethics at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Children’s Hospital Boston)

See the full story here:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/09/fatal_flaw/

We present information like this and the response seems to be a yawn. Does it not trouble anyone that for forty years we have been assuring people that their loved ones are dead and it is safe to take their organs only now to be told otherwise? The initial story linked above is further proof that brain death is not death. But here in Delaware we don’t seem to think it important to take this to heart, we stick to our politically precise answer, “HB 302 only has to do with how people get into the organ donor program”.

Lawmakers everywhere need to take a serious, honest look at organ donation and how states arrive at the declaration of death. We have been dishonest with many, many people all for the purpose of getting organs.

Truth and time go hand in hand.

Imposing death is not a private matter

Posted by Gary on April 18, 2008

Ephesians 5:11-12  "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret."

We cannot battle every evil that takes place in the world but what lies nearest us becomes our duty when it comes to wrong and right. We have been concerned and write to oppose the potential death by starvation of a Delaware citizen, Lauren Richardson.

"What business is this of yours?" one might ask those of us who are concerned. "This is a private matter" is the mantra of those who seek to usher in a culture of death in our country to which we have a simple response, imposing death on someone is never a private matter. We are not islands to ourselves, we are all a part of the human race and what is done to one of us effects us all. Death for Lauren would be imposed for she is not terminal and needs no medical machinery to live, she only like you and me, needs food and water.

Those who insist that imposing death on ill and disabled people is a "private matter" need to have something explained to them. Even if it were documented that someone would want to be starved to death (which is not the case with Lauren) such a request forces us all into that person’s situation for by their request they are demanding that we (society) validate and make provision for their self imposed death. Imposing death is not the act of one person, it is the act of a society and some of us maintain and will never stop maintaining that imposing death on the ill and disabled, especially through the tragic vehicle of "substitute judgment" is immoral and unjust. Be very frightened that you live in a country where your life can be ended on the testimony of others while you are unable to speak for yourself.

Guardians and attorneys who seek to impose death through starvation and dehydration will thank us for our concern and then ask us to leave them alone to deal with the situation "privately". No, by imposing death on a fellow citizen you are attempting to force us all to join hands with you, to give our societal approval and consent. You cannot try to make us join hands with you and tell us to go away at the same time.

Of course the response from imposed death advocates to what I am saying is that this is all legal and as evidence of our depravity, it is. Owning slaves and forbidding women to vote was once legal also.

It seems that we are to accept that starving people to death is legal and are to be quiet and go our way, we will not, we cannot. Starving people to death is the act of a society that has lost its moral bearings, fear of God and appreciation of life. If privacy means that things like this can be done, there is no telling what will become possible and practice in our world.

Atheism's logical end

Posted by Gary on April 8, 2008

Atheism has no other answer to suffering than suicide or in atheism’s attempt to be “merciful”, to kill others who suffer.

God warned our first parents Adam and Eve that they would certainly die if they separated themselves from Him (through disobedience) which they did and with their disobedience they brought suffering and death into this world. Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day they disobeyed, physical death would come through an extended process but they did die spiritually that day, they could no longer bear God’s presence and now hid from the Creator who in love made them.

This spiritual death that sin has worked in us brings with it a force of a sinful life that rushes toward death. Most primarily, man now is determined to live life without God. Oh yes, if you listen to man’s mouth, he speaks of God all the time and claims to believe in Him but the proof is in the pudding, what we do in regard to the life that bears God’s image is one of the greatest revealers of whether we know God or not and will submit to Him or not.

Know this, much of what is called belief in God today is nothing but practical atheism with a coat of religious paint brushed over it. How does one know whether or not they believe in God? One way we know is what our response is to this statement of God’s:

Deuteronomy 32:39  “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me; it is I who put to death and give life…”

If I believe in God then I am a person who understands that God is the One who creates life. The philosophy that I have a right to decide whether or not another person who has been conceived can live or die is nothing but atheism in its fullest arrogance. God is the One who is forming that child in the womb and would you dare lay a hand or severing scalpel on him?

Now come to the end of life, yes, we grieve for those who suffer but faith in God brings one to the place that they understand that God has a purpose in our suffering. Remember, we cannot blame God for our suffering, we brought it on ourselves but God in His great power and kindness takes our suffering and uses it, He gives it a purpose and is able to even use if for our good and the good of others.

What must we ultimately say of those who support abortion and euthanasia? They do not believe in a living, real God, for abortion and euthanasia are not compatible with belief in a God who is in control of all things (life and death especially) and who is able to bring about good from suffering.

Look closely at Euthanasia, it is man in his utter desperation and atheism. Human suffering humbles us all, all we have power to do with it is to lock our self in a garage and start the engine, or in the case of others, give them the lethal injection or remove their feeding tube. These are acts of people who do not believe that God is in control of or has a purpose for what we suffer and in defiance (not mercy) they end their own life or the life of others.

For a sober look at where man is in this regard just read these recent articles about a suicide machine and proposed legislation. Fallen man, your only answer to your suffering is to kill isn’t it? When will you see how powerless and hopeless you are?

Humanism is the religion of our day. Read the philosophy and legislation that comes with the death movement and it is filled with the term “self-determination” which as they mean it is totally incompatible with the Christian faith. If Job believed in this self-determination he would have hung himself but being a man of faith in a real God, he humbled himself under his suffering and believed that God was worth following no matter what life may bring Him and God did not leave his faith un-rewarded:

James 5:11  “We count those blessed who endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord’s dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful.”

Our sinful darkness will not be seen for what it is so sin with its deceiving power tells us that we are being merciful and loving as we remove people’s feeding tubes and put them on the two week path to death. Listen clearly to atheism now as it insists that people who are starved to death do not suffer, they are not aware we are told (why they then give them pain medication is a mystery, didn’t you tell us that they can’t perceive anything?).

Here is the position of atheistic man, he believes that we are nothing more than what can be detected on a monitor, if a monitor cannot detect life, than it must not be there. You don’t believe that we have a soul or spirit do you fallen man? You don’t believe that people with a soul and spirit would still perceive what is happening and would wonder why this horrendous thing is being done to them.

Faith knows nothing of this self-determination, faith submits and believes God to be in control and wise in what He does and allows. Does God have a purpose for people who are disabled like Lauren Richardson? He does. Listen to the voice of atheism, “There can be no recovery” really? Those who believe in God believe that nothing is too difficult for the Lord and that even if He does not heal, that He is working good even through suffering. And by the way, should we trust the diagnosis of a being who has no other answer but to kill himself when faced with suffering?

Ask God for the courage to look around you at what is happening in our day. Man’s atheism is erecting a machine of death that none of us understand the reach and power of (this of course is because the devil is the real builder of it). We are self-determining ourselves to the grave and to hell. How grateful we are to be among those God has rescued from sin and death. How we need to pray for those who are lost in the hopelessness of atheism and its child, death. Lord, save us from ourselves.

He who defines the terminology wins

Posted by Gary on March 26, 2008

The way that the medial world and government make it possible to end people’s lives is to redefine terms then pass legislation that uses the terminology to make imposing death legal.

Some things don’t require an M.D., some things are just known innately (knowledge given us by God). Do you think that food and water are medical treatment? When you sit down at the dinner table or go to the refrigerator at half-time do you think you are taking medicine? Food and water are increasingly considered medical treatment and therefore the order to remove medical treatment means removing food and water and “viola” we can starve people to death and its all very legal.

From the north comes a voice of truth and reason…Alex Schadenberg Chairperson of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition – International and the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition defining euthanasia on his Blog states:

Post-modern bioethicists have falsely redefined fluids and food as medical treatment even though the provision of fluids and food do not constitute a treatment of a medical condition, but rather provide a basic necessity of life. Medical treatment is always optional whereas basic care is a necessity that must be provided based on need

I am quite aware that the Bible tells us that a great day of evil will come before the return of Christ. Reading in the gospels this past week for Easter I was reminded of what Jesus said to the women who followed Him as He went to Calvary:

Luke 23:28-31  “But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. “For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’  “Then they will begin TO SAY TO THE MOUNTAINS, ‘FALL ON US,’ AND TO THE HILLS, ‘COVER US.’  “For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

I take Jesus to mean: “If they do the things they are doing to Me now, what will they do after I am no longer here.” Who knows to what depths of evil we will fall before Christ returns? Knowing that an evil day must come does not mean that God’s people are to say and do nothing, God tells us the day will come but at the same time commands us to stand against evil and wrong:

Ephesians 5:11 “Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them…”

Taking a mile

Posted by Gary on March 22, 2008

Legislation is under consideration here in Delaware that would presume participation in our organ donor program unless one opts out. This bill also presumes consent which means that no further consent is needed. Current law allows some circumstances under which family could refuse the removal of a love one’s organs (an important protection especially if family becomes concern that medical care is on a track for organ removal more than for healing).

Some of us have a concern about House Bill #302 as it stands on its own, but we also have concerns about where laws like this will lead. We get some idea if we look to Wisconsin. Legislation has been passed there and is expected to be signed by the governor that would among other things:

1. Drop the age of consent to be an organ donor from 18 to 15

2. Give medical staff authority over the family’s decision if it cannot be determined what a patient wanted concerning being an organ donor. Here is a quote from an article:

"And in cases where it’s unclear whether the person wanted to be an organ donor, the bill elevates the consent-granting power of appointed health care agents over family members."

Here is a link for the article:

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/03/09/news/z01organ09.txt

My fifteen year old can make a decision that I cannot override if I think best as his parent? A health care agent has more right to decide what will happen in regard to my loved one than I do? Do we not see where these things are all heading? Are we apathetic? I can assure you that as laws like this march forward that many people will find themselves in situations with their loved ones and they will cry out, "How can this be happening?" It happens very simply, by people not paying attention or hearing warnings and being apathetic.

There is nothing quite so dangerous as a group of people who are determined that what they are doing is good.

Mind boggling honesty

Posted by Gary on March 17, 2008

Here is amazing frankness from a doctor concerning the issue of brain death and organ transplantation. Remember, Harvard gave us the brain death diagnosis in 1968:

It’s completely ethical to remove organs from patients we diagnose as brain dead," says Dr. Robert Truog, director of clinical ethics at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Children’s Hospital Boston. "It’s just ethical for reasons other than that we think they’re dead, because I don’t think they are."

Dr. Robert Truog (Director of clinical ethics at Harvard Medical School)

You need to read the Boston Globe article from which this quote was taken you can find it here.

This is where things are going. We will eventually admit that people are not (and have not been) dead as their organs are removed but we will appeal to our (supposed) right to choose to end our life when we wish to therefore justifying the removal of our organs. Our pride will be our further undoing. We like nothing more than asserting that we have the right to kill our unborn offspring and to choose how and when our lives will end. This is all our attempt to be God.

Proverbs 8:1; 35-36  "Does not wisdom call, and understanding lift up her voice?…Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at my doorposts. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favor from the Lord. But he who sins against me injures himself; all those who hate me love death."