The Competent Conservative » Universal Health Care

Religious Freedom Series, Part 3: Why We Need Religious Freedom

Mark Dixon — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:24:41 +0000

Religious freedom, or freedom of conscience, is critical to the health of a diverse society.

This is Part 3 in a series of articles on religious freedom. For the series introduction, see “An Introduction to Religious Freedom.”

Over the past two years, general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have delivered major addresses on many aspects of religious freedom — what it means, what it does, the threats it faces and why it is so vital for free people everywhere. Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles said, “There is a battle over the meaning of [religious] freedom. The contest is of eternal importance.” And Elder Quentin L. Cook, also an Apostle, challenged university graduates to “work with people of other faiths” to protect and “be an advocate for religious freedom and morality.”

Alongside these endorsements of religious freedom from Latter-day Saints are the significant efforts of other religious leaders and citizens. So why this attention to religious freedom? Why do we as citizens of the United States need it?

The need flows from the immense diversity of our nation and society. From its very beginning, the United States has been home to a wide range of religious beliefs. Without a confining state-sponsored church (thus breaking a 1,500-year European tradition) and with a steady and assorted stream of immigrants, religious pluralism has been a signal feature in America. Americans in the new and growing nation found a range of religious choices unheard of in their past experience — they could choose their own faith group, select a congregation (or start their own) and find a minister. They could also choose not to adhere to religion at all. This vast array of religious choices demonstrated an invigorating freedom of conscience and a flourishing religious freedom. Americans didn’t simply tolerate other religious beliefs, but eventually embraced full-fledged religious liberty, realizing that the “only way to get it for themselves was to grant it to all others.” [1]

Yet there has been no royal road to religious freedom in the United States. Baptists, Jews, Catholics and other faiths — which at some time have been new, unpopular and minority religions — have felt the sting of religious persecution and societal prejudice. But the possibility of a society where diverse faiths and beliefs can coexist is rooted in the high principles of freedom of conscience and the enabling protections for religion in the First Amendment. They are the architectural framework that ensures the physical, social and legal space for individuals and groups to live out their different beliefs in meaningful ways, both privately and publicly. A statement of principles signed by scholars and statesmen emphasizes these principles: “The Religious Liberty clauses are both a protection of individual liberty and a provision for ordering the relationship of religion and public life. They allow us to live with our deepest differences.” [2]

But freedom of religion and conscience require more than simply living and coexisting with our differences. These preeminent freedoms also create rejuvenating obligations. All recipients of religious freedom — every group and individual who is free to live according to the dictates of conscience — must in turn protect that same freedom for all others, especially the most vulnerable, whether religious or not. That is the obligation. And it is rejuvenating because it “enable[s] diversity to be a source of national strength.” [3]

These principles are splendidly articulated in The Williamsburg Charter. Drafted as a national “reaffirmation of the First Amendment,” signatories included leaders of government (including two former presidents of the United States), business, education and faith groups and many other interests. Elder Dallin H. Oaks signed the document on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The charter emphasizes the vital nature and moral importance of the obligations associated with religious freedom, including the incisive observation that a “society is only as just and free as it is respectful of [freedom of religion and conscience] for its smallest minorities and least popular communities.”

Recent studies quantify the societal benefits of religious freedom. [4] These findings report, for example, that:

Religious freedom promotes stability in a pluralistic society, but when limited, it correlates to increased violence and conflict.
Wherever religious freedom is high, there is more economic prosperity, better health, lower income inequality and prolonged democracy.
Religious freedom directly correlates with the protection afforded other civil and human rights; if some agency can control the yearnings of faith and conviction, then that agency could, in James Madison’s words, “sweep away all our fundamental rights,” such as freedom of speech, press and assembly.

These are some of the consequences of religious freedom that contribute to a just and free society where tensions are negotiated and people live peacefully with their deepest differences. This is the essence of democracy.

[1] See Robert Booth Fowler, Allen D. Hertzke, Laura R. Olsen, Kevin R. Den Dulk, Religion and Politics in America, Faith, Culture and Strategic Choices, p. 6.

[2] The Williamsburg Charter, Summary of Principles, 1988.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See, for example, Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke, The Price of Freedom Denied, and Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom study, __________________

LDS Newsroom

Religious Freedom Series, Part 2: What Religious Freedom Means

Mark Dixon — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:16:47 +0000

What Americans Know About Religious Freedom

Most Americans know that religious freedom is one of the most basic freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Frequently called the “first freedom,” freedom of religion is prominent in the American founding documents and gives rise to many other freedoms.

It is a fundamental human right — one that is now protected in the laws of many nations around the world and in global compacts like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Americans generally recognize and revere religious freedom as one of the unalienable freedoms they can claim.

Yet despite Americans’ awareness of religious freedom and a common perception that it is something of profound worth, research suggests that many Americans aren’t entirely clear about what it means. As a result, they also don’t fully understand why it is so critical and what it requires.

Studies do suggest that most Americans grasp the basic concept. For the average citizen, religious freedom is the right enjoyed by many in the free world to believe the things about God and about moral truth that they choose to believe, as well as the right to honor those beliefs in worship, if they want to. Intuitively, this makes sense. It would not be right for someone to be coerced in matters of religious belief or morality, or prohibited from worshipping according to their conscience.[1]

The Rest of Religious Freedom

But while these private and inward activities are vital parts of religious freedom, they do not encompass the whole of it. Religious freedom is actually much broader and deeper than this description suggests. More fundamentally, religious freedom — akin to “freedom of conscience” — is the human right to think and believe and also to express and act upon what one deeply believes according to the dictates of his or her moral conscience. This freedom applies to those who adhere to religious beliefs and those who do not.

The full picture of religious freedom reveals a deep liberty that goes much further than the right to believe as one chooses and that extends well beyond the right to private devotion in one’s place of worship or home. Indeed, religious freedom is not merely interior and private, to be enjoyed internally in our minds and in the privacy of personal life. It also incorporates the right to act according to one’s moral beliefs and convictions. And more than the freedom to worship privately, it is the right to to live one’s faith freely and in public.

Beliefs lead to actions, and freedom to believe, without the ability to act on that belief within the bounds of law, is no freedom at all. Most will agree that moral and religious beliefs don’t mean much if they don’t influence the way we live. In other words, we expect religious beliefs to influence the way that people behave, how they raise families and how they treat others. And indeed, religious freedom protects the right of individuals to act in line with their religious beliefs and moral convictions. Religious freedom does not merely enable us to contemplate our convictions; it enables us to execute them.

Because of this, religion cannot be confined to the sphere of private life. Certainly religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their religion within the walls of private spaces. But religious and moral speech is also protected in the free air of the public domain. Whether in the town hall, in the newspaper column, on the Internet or elsewhere in the public sphere, people with moral convictions are entitled by their religious freedom to share those convictions, to reason and persuade, and to advocate their vision for society.

Research suggests, in fact, that religious people in the United States contribute to, enrich and improve society. They tend to demonstrate a disproportionate level of social virtues like neighborliness, generosity, service and civic engagement. Hence it is not only required by religious freedom for religious people and their voices to be welcome in the public sphere; it strengthens the civic fabric of society.[2]

Practicing and Protecting Religious Freedom

The fact that religious freedom is public and that it involves more than mere belief does not, of course, mean that it overwhelms all other considerations in society. The purpose of a democracy is to accommodate the diverse interests of all its members. Religious freedom and freedom of conscience are vital because they help sustain this system of peaceful coexistence, and they must be balanced against other considerations, such as the rights of others, the law and public safety. However, because these freedoms are so fundamental to human dignity, and because they contribute so much to society, they merit careful protection.

Such protection is the responsibility of all citizens who value their freedom and recognize that one’s own freedoms are only as secure as those of others. Protecting religious freedom also requires that it is understood fully and respected in its entirety. An inadequate understanding of religious freedom can be problematic if it leads, for example, to policy and laws that define it too narrowly and protect it too feebly. Ignorance of religious freedom can also, without care, allow for it to be slowly and subtly eroded, leaving this fundamental liberty exposed or compromised. A robust sense of religious freedom — an appreciation for its full meaning — is required for it to endure and to flourish.

[1]See “Survey Fact Sheet: What Americans Know About Religious Freedom,” American Religious Freedom Program, accessed January 14, 2012, http://religiousfreedom.org/research/detail/survey-fact-sheet-americans-views-on-religious-freedom; and“What It Means to Be an American,” Brookings Institute and Public Religion Research Institute, accessed January 14, 2012, http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0906_american_attitudes.aspx.

[2]See Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).

LDS Newsroom

Religious Freedom Series, Part 1: An Introduction to Religious Freedom

Mark Dixon — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:59:16 +0000

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued a series of articles about the principle of Religious Freedom here in the US. The church generally tries to stay out of political issues but when political issues threaten moral/religious issues, the church will stand by those who are defending what is morally right. In light of recent attacks on religious freedom by the administration, both in terms of the administration’s insistence that religious institutions be forced to provide services that they find to be morally offensive and the recent ruling in CA regarding gay marriage, the church has issued a series of articles stating our beliefs regarding Freedom of Religion. And, since Mitt Romney is a practicing Mormon, I am posting this on this website.

For many people in the world, there are few things more precious than freedom. Freedom — the power to live as one would choose — is one of the great sources of human dignity. Exercising freedom correctly is also one of the great responsibilities that humans hold. We continue to grapple with how to define our freedoms, how to understand them, and how they should be both cultivated and tempered. At the heart of these questions, we find one of the most fundamental of all freedoms: freedom of religion.

Religious Freedom© 2012 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

What is freedom of religion?

Contrary to what some may assume, religious freedom is not simply the freedom to worship or to believe the way one chooses, though these are essential parts of it. Neither is it just for religious people. Religious freedom is actually deeper, broader and more important than most realize.

At the most fundamental level, religious freedom is the human right to think, act upon and express what one deeply believes, according to the dictates of his or her moral conscience. In fact, religious freedom has always been understood in conjunction with “freedom of conscience” — the liberty to develop and hold moral convictions and to act accordingly. So while religious freedom encompasses the liberty of religious belief and devotion, it also extends well beyond that, incorporating the freedom to act — to speak freely in public, to live according to one’s moral principles and to advocate one’s own moral vision for society. The breadth of religious freedom and its relationship with freedom of conscience helps explain why religious freedom is important for everyone, not just for people of faith.

The United States of America has a long and exceptional tradition of freedom of religion, a virtue that was embedded in the original documents of the nation and extolled by its founders. Enshrined as the preeminent freedom in the U.S. Bill of Rights, religious freedom is the first among other essential liberties and is often referred to as the “first freedom.” It is characterized this way because it enables and protects other human freedoms, like freedom of speech. Indeed, the culture of liberty and peaceful democracy in the United States in large part emerged from its firm respect for religious freedom. Like the United States, many other nations have also come to acknowledge this most essential of liberties and made it a central premise of their own governments. The United Nations, in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and in many other compacts since then, has identified religious liberty as “a fundamental human right.”

Religious freedom and society

This fundamental right is indispensable in the diverse societies of the modern world, where the rights and interests of different parties often come into conflict. Since the potential for animosity is greatest where differences are most profound or where majorities dominate, freedom of religion is critical because it allows people with differing convictions about the deepest matters of truth to live together peacefully. A careful regard for this freedom protects all groups and individuals, including the most vulnerable, religious or not. When honored, religious freedom helps to avert violence and to mediate conflict.

Nations around the world that have nurtured religious liberty have witnessed its positive effects on society. While cases of religious extremism have blemished the public image of religion, scholars recognize that religion imparts vital benefits, including harmony and stability, to the societies that support it. Their scholarship consistently shows that religious people typically are more civically minded, more generous and more neighborly than their nonreligious counterparts. Empirical data also suggest that religiously free societies enjoy many other benefits, including higher levels of other freedoms, than do those where religion is repressed or disadvantaged. These benefits are additional reasons why religion should be free to flourish in society. [1]

Honoring religious freedom does not mean discarding other freedoms and social interests or subverting the law; religious freedom coexists with other legitimate interests in society. Government has a critical role to ensure public safety and to arbitrate the conflict of some rights with others. In the United States, we maintain a healthy independence of church and state, though we should not sequester religion’s moral influence from the nation’s public affairs. Religious freedom does not exclude other interests, but as the “first freedom,” it ought to be given due respect.

Mormons and religious freedom

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have great reason to revere religious liberty. From a history that at times has involved religious persecution, Mormons have a special appreciation for the freedom to speak and live according to their convictions and faith. Religious liberty, in fact, has been significant for Mormons since the beginning. Church founder Joseph Smith was a strong and generous proponent of this principle, and he recognized that it was critical for all parties to reciprocate in upholding it. “I am bold to declare before Heaven” he said, “that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbytarian [sic], a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination.”

In a 19th-century Mormon settlement, Smith also underlined the importance of religious freedom by introducing a city ordinance that guaranteed religious freedom for inhabitants of all faiths. Freedom of conscience and religion were incorporated into the Church’s Articles of Faith, which explain, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” [2] Mormons are steadfastly committed to religious liberty and to its protection.

The mounting challenges to religious freedom

The condition of religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the United States is not as dire as it is in some areas of the world. Today, American people of faith and conscience do not generally face the physical violence or coercion sometimes experienced in other nations. However, freedom of religion and conscience in the United States are nonetheless at risk. Social and legal shifts are squeezing this liberty in new and deeply problematic ways. Americans who have long taken it for granted are being reminded of its value.

Challenges to religious freedom are emerging from many sources. Emerging advocacy for gay rights threatens to abridge religious freedom in a number of ways. Changes in health care threaten the rights of those who hold certain moral convictions about human life. These and other developments are producing conflict and beginning to impose on religious organizations and people of conscience. They are threatening, for instance, to restrict how religious organizations can manage their employment and their property. They are bringing about the coercion of religiously-affiliated universities, schools and social-service entities. They are also resulting in reprimands to individuals who act in line with their principles — from health practitioners and other professionals to parents. In these and in many other circumstances, we see how religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being subtly but steadily eroded. And of equal concern, the legal provisions emerging to safeguard these freedoms are often shallow — protecting these liberties only in the narrowest sense. In many aspects of public life, religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being drawn into conflicts that may suppress them.

The requirements of religious freedom

Given the depth of these conflicts and the controversy that they sometimes create, it is essential that all parties are civil as they negotiate these deeply important issues. This is only right, because the qualities of human dignity that are part of religious freedom also entitle all people to respect and to the expression of their views. Each group, including religious individuals and organizations, is responsible to state its views reasonably in order to contribute to meaningful discussion. As fellow citizens we should always speak courteously and show patience, understanding and empathy for those who disagree with us. We foster goodwill by giving it ourselves. [3]

Religious freedom, or “freedom of conscience,” has long been the bedrock of democracy. Long buried and taken for granted, it is now an elevated concern. There is need for Americans — Latter-day Saints included — to become reacquainted with this freedom and recommitted to it. A free society committed to religious freedom and freedom of conscience means that all its members are vigilant in protecting the freedoms of each other. Maintaining this most basic of human freedoms and the harmony it brings is imperative for us all.

[1] See Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (Simon and Schuster, 2010); Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke, The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

[2] See LDS Newsroom, “Selected Beliefs and Statements on Religious Freedom of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

[3] For further explanation of the commitment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to civil discourse, see LDS Newsroom, “The Mormon Ethic of Civility.”

LDS Newsroom

For parts two and three, please follow the “LDS Newsroom” link just above.

Obama Says ‘No’ To Pensions For WW II Alaska Guards

Mark Dixon — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:06:47 +0000

McClatchy News Service reports:

WASHINGTON — In a strongly worded message to Congress outlining its priorities for a military spending bill, the Obama administration today said it disapproved of including money for pensions for 26 elderly members of the World War II-era Alaska Territorial Guard.

The Guardsmen are among those assigned to protect Alaska from the Japanese during World War II.

The Army decided this year to no longer count service in the Guard in calculating the military’s 20-year minimum for retirement pay, although it still counts for military benefits. As a result, their pensions were decreased in January.

An estimated 300 members are still living from the original 6,600-member unit formed in 1942 to protect Alaska, then a territory, from attack. The 26 men have enough other military service to reach the 20-year minimum for retirement pay but would lose it if the Territorial Guard service doesn’t count.

A Senate military spending bill up for a vote in the Senate allows the former Guard members count their service as part of active military duty, and it reinstates the payments.

State lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year to fill the pay gap until Congress made a permanent fix, but the White House said Friday it didn’t think it was “appropriate to establish a precedent of treating service performed by a state employee as active duty for purposes of the computation of retired pay.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who along with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, sponsored the fix, called the administration move “deeply disappointing, bordering on insensitive.” The legislation honors 26 elderly Native people who are the few remaining survivors of a military unit that served the country with valor, Murkowski said.

“The administration’s justification, which is that the legislation will set the precedent of treating service as a state employee as federal service, defies logic and history,” she said in a statement. “Sixty-two years after the Territorial Guard was disbanded, the Obama administration minimizes the contribution of this gallant unit to America’s success in World War II by calling its service ‘state service.’ “

We have been told that the President’s healtcare plan will not lead to rationing. We have been told that he would never cut off the elderly’s medical benefits to save a few bucks. “How could you even think that the President would ever do such a thing?” we have been asked. Only Republicans would be so cold-hearted and cruel. In fact, many supporters of the President, including his cheerleaders in the state run media, have called those who have said that such things were possible under his healtcare plan are all “liars.”

And yet, Mr. Obama cuts off pension benefits to 26 WWII vets and denied the applications of 37 more WWII vets, to save a few bucks. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. Give us a reason to believe your claims that you would never ration healthcare and restore the pensions of these brave veterans who deserve far better than the treatment you have given them.

Read the Bill? Heck, We Haven’t Even Written It Yet!

Mark Dixon — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:47:10 +0000

The Heritage Foundation reports that Congressional leaders, desperate to pass Mr. Obama’s Health Care plans, have come up with an idea on how to get it passed with the minimum of scrutiny and debate. Don’t put it in writing before the vote. Instead, they have put forward a “shell” of the legislation which is nothing more than a theoretical concept of what they want to do. No details. No actual legislation. Just an outline. And they want to attach it to an unrelated bill to get it through.

From the Heritage Foundation’s article:

STEP ONE: The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday. Baucus has not unveiled final legislation and, according to the Associated Press, he added some new language to the mark up today. AP reports that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working class families.”

Senators have not been provided any real legislation and are offering amendments this week to Baucus’ 200+ page outline. It is expected that at the end of the process the Senate Finance Committee may produce a bill longer than the 1,000 page House bill that proved so controversial over the August recess. Many Senators are upset that they don’t have final language for a bill, yet still they sit in a Committee Hearing Room this week marking up a draft document that is not in the form of legislative language. The plan is to have this document voted out of the Senate Finance Committee by Friday.

STEP TWO: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. This was the late Senator Kennedy’s (D-MA) bill, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), which passed the HELP Committee on July 15, 2009 on a party line vote. Remember, most Senators will still not know what they voted for in the Finance Committee.

STEP THREE: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was the bill passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Reid will move to proceed, and he will need 60 votes to act on this bill. After the motion is approved, he will then offer a complete substitute bill purportedly including the combined Senate HELP and Finance Committee products. This means that the entire health care reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.

STEP FOUR: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 57 Democrats, 2 Independents (Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont), and a potential new member replacing the late Senator Kennedy. This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. According to CQ, the state legislature may pass a bill and present it to Governor Patrick by next week.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill, without changes, and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure thereby transforming within a few weeks 1/6th of the US economy. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House Leadership may consider using reconciliation to pass the legislation.

Click here for further details.

So, if you just loved the stimulus bill that was passed without members having read the bill, you will absolutely adore this Healthcare Bill that they want to pass before it even exists. Keep it up Democrats, 2010 is coming and we are taking notice of your complete lack of respect for us, established law and the Constitution. 2010 could be 1994 times ten.

Sentenced To Death on The NHS

Mark Dixon — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:19:55 +0000

Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors warn today.

By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.”

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.

Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.

He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.

He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.

“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.

“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”

He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.

Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.

In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.

“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.

“There is no one size fits all approach.”

A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.

“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.”

The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.

It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes.

The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives.

“Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”

Click here for direct link to source article.

Commence the posts about how this is all lies from a far-right, radical, bomb-throwing newspaper, doesn’t really happen anyway and even if it does, NHS is way better than the US system, so there! (Insert rasberry sound here.) Keep in mind, dear reader, that when its Anthropogenic Global Warming, we have to believe leading scientists. I wonder if these leading scientists/doctors will be afforded the same reverence? As the Brits themselves would put it: “Not bloody likely.”

Great Article: This Will Never Be A Euro-Socialist Country

Mark Dixon — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:27:57 +0000

I just came across an article from the American Thinker that I just had to pass on. It’s too long to post here so here is the link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/this_will_never_be_a_eurosocia.html

Europe was a breeding ground for Socialism and Communism because they have a long, long history of the people being subject to the government. They were/are more accepting of having the government run their lives because that is the historical precedent for them. Serfs served kings and queens. Germans and Italians willingly subjected themselves to Hitler and Mussolini. Eastern Europeans suffered under Communism for decades after WWII, which they ultimately rejected but many became comfortable with it. It was just the way things were.

The United States was founded by people who rejected the notion of one man rule. In it’s historical context and even today, The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution were/are radical documents. The idea that man’s rights came from God and not man was a radical departure from most of the world’s concept of governance. The founders stated that government’s role should be to make sure that we are free to exercise our God given rights. This was, and still is in many cases, totally foreign to European tradition.

America was also founded on the concept of individualism. Some say this is selfish. This is not true. The freedom to improve one’s self ultimately leads to that person becoming concerned not with self but with other people and their well-being. If you can come to understand yourself you are better able to understand others. With this understanding, instead of seeing only “what’s in it for me” you come to realize that others have needs as well. Understanding yourself makes you reach out to others in compassion because you know what they are going through.

Collectivism, on the other hand, says that its about helping the little guy but actually promotes greed and selfishness. Leaders collect goods for themselves while telling everyone to sacrifice for the “common good.” Soviet leaders had nice houses and never went without food or the nice things in life while their people waited in long lines for common items like toilet paper. Soviet leaders had fancy cars while the average citizen, if they could afford it, would have to wait years to buy a poorly made Trabant. European monarchies have/had a ruling class which lives entirely apart from the people they govern, surrounded by wealth and opulence. Monarchies promote strict caste systems where upward mobility is determined by which family you were born to. If you were born to a poor family, that was your lot in life. Too bad. This government enforced inequality creates a poverty mentality amongst the populace who, naturally go into survival mode. In survival mode, you cannot think beyond your own needs thus fostering the traits of greed and selfishness.

The average person’s ability to better themselves is either severely limited or done away with entirely. Without the hope of bettering their own condition, the average person will simply give up and look towards garnering what little he or she can for his or her self. They become fatalistic. “Whatever happens to me is beyond my control so I should just accept it.” Fatalism is, from my own experiences in Chile, very much part of Hispanic culture. The expression “Si Dios quiere” (If God wills it) is an all too common expression. For that reason, Spain and South America are also fertile grounds for Socialism and Communism. In Arab countries, there is a similar phrase “Insha’Allah” or “God willing.” Arab countries as well are fertile ground for collectivism albeit in the form of religious collectivism.

In the US, the American Dream says anyone can become anything they desire to be and this has attracted the masses from around the world for over 200 years. And when someone comes to this country and makes of him or herself what they desire, legitimately, then the natural result of their success is a desire to extend that same chance to others. That is the hope and change that we all want and have wanted since the founding of this country. Not European Collectivism. We have too long a tradition of being free to accept government control of our lives and the strong protests around the country against Obamacare, etc. are proof of that. I agree and applaud the author of this article! Well done and well said!

Romney on The Early Show: Obama Bowing To Liberals on Health Care

Spencer Iacono — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:55:35 +0000

Finally, Governor Romney is able to defend the MA health care bill that got nearly every citizen in MA insured. He was able to clear the record on CBS, as well as on CNN, and is well positioned to be the alternative in 2012. I can see it now -Romney Vs Obama on health care and economy.

Watch CBS Videos Online

White House Rethinks How To Sell Healthcare Overhaul

Spencer Iacono — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:00:56 +0000

A good friend of mine posted this article on his Turning Point Financial blog today and I thought it was applicable to what we have been speaking about here. I would caution folks that, although this administration is rethinking how to sell health care, it will most likely be the same program but with a different sales angle. The Obama administration has already demonstrated, a number of times, that they are more bent on manipulating the American people into thinking that what they are getting is right, rather than listening to “The People” when they say “it is not right.” Why is this? Well, because they think that you and I are ignorant and that they know what we want more than we do.

By Jonathan Weisman

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, trying to regain control of the health-care debate, will likely shift his pitch in September, White House and Democratic officials said, as he faces pressure from supporters to talk more about the moral imperative to provide health insurance to all Americans.

The rethinking comes amid a struggle by the White House to clarify its view on a public insurance plan, which liberals see as a critical part of a health overhaul. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that a public plan isn’t the “essential element” of a health bill, prompting sharp words from liberal groups.

Associated PressAudience members react to an answer from Democratic Rep. Dan Boren during a town-hall meeting on health care in Muskogee, Okla., on Tuesday. White House officials concede that the anger that has surfaced in town-hall meetings on TV is shifting the debate on the health overhaul.

The muddle continued Tuesday, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs facing repeated questioning at his news briefing on whether the position has changed and how the president will respond to the liberal concerns.

Mr. Gibbs said the president’s “preferred method” is the public plan “but he’s certainly open to looking at and discussing other ideas.” Ms. Sebelius insisted, “We continue to support the public option.”

She said her earlier comments on a CNN program got too much coverage. “Sunday must have been a very slow news day because here’s the bottom line: Absolutely nothing has changed,” Ms. Sebelius told an audience in Washington.

Read the rest of the article here.

Obama Healthcare: So, It’s NOT Our Body, Our Choice?

Mark Dixon — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:30:27 +0000

Here’s a thought:

For years the Left has told us regarding abortion that women have the unassailable right to do with their body as they please. “Our bodies, Our Choice,” right? Now that the Left is demanding that the government be given control of our healthcare, does this mean that they no longer believe in this supposed right? If the government can tell us, as Mr. Obama himself suggested, to take pills instead of having an operation, doesn’t that violate this “sacred” right the Left has insisted on so vehemently? If the medical procedure of abortion is a right, then why not grandma’s cancer surgery? Surely grandma has a right to do with her body as she pleases regardless of the societal repercussions, right?