Category Archives: Involuntary Malthanasia

Deliberately Hastened Death Is Here Now, It’s Just Not Heavily Advertised

After-Birth “Abortion”: We encounter people who think
it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth
on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit

syringeDoctorOutOfFocusWe Are In The Middle Of A Tsunami Of Physician-Hastened Termination—Goodness Has Nothing To Do With It, Don’t Call It “Euthanasia”

I watch the people’s faces coming out of Mass, the time when their lives are most affected by our Blessed Lord’s earthly mission. Sometimes my notice is caught by a heavenly glow on the faces of mothers with many children. Little children are innocently preoccupied by more immediate emotions. But most arresting are the looks of young people, often ranging between wistfulness and angst.

Teenage_Pain_by_JulietNowhereYouth are faced with some of the most serious business of life, finding their future course in the midst of conflicting feelings and discordant noise from the world. Young people seeking guidance often meet with de facto apathy from those who could help them. But some of those most actively seeking to influence young people have an actual malicious intent.

A woman wrote to Archbishop Fulton Sheen about her brother, saying that he was dying in a hospital and that he had been away from the sacraments for about 30 years. She said that he had not only lived a bad life, but that he was an evil man. (There’s a difference between being bad and being evil. A bad man steals; a bad man kills. An evil man may do none of those things. But he seeks to destroy goodness in others.) This woman’s brother was an evil man, as he did much to corrupt youth by circulating pamphlets among them that contained evil messages in order to destroy both faith and morals. —Homily, June 24, 2012, Assumption Parish, Dwight NE

One of these who have chosen evil, is Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer. The extremism of his view, that young children can be “aborted” until they are several years of age, might be dismissed as ivory tower ravings–except that the views he spearheaded are now becoming common.

     “A trend seen by prolife activists that frequently engage college students on campuses nationwide is the growing acceptance of post-birth abortion, or killing the infant after he or she is born, campus prolife outreach leaders tell The College Fix.
     “Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet ‘self aware.’
     “We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit,” said Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal. “While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”
     —More college students support post-birth abortion by Mairead McArdle, Thomas Aquinas College, October 29, 2014,

(Click Open) THERE EXISTS IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURE a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands.… Pope John-Paul II, —Evangelium Vitae §15
…What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this in the spread of euthanasia-disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally. As well as for reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient’s suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill. Pope John-Paul II, —Evangelium Vitae §15
Involuntary "euthanasia" needle poised over condemned person's arm in The Giver movie

Involuntary “euthanasia” needle poised over condemned person’s arm in The Giver movie

In Lois Lowry’s Newberry Award winning, young people’s novel The Giver, progtagonist Jonas resolves his youthful lifecourse quest by squarely facing up his society’s so extreme opposition to the messiness of suffering that deliberate culling of problem people is routine and mandatory.

TheGiverBookCover JonasAndGabriel

TerrySchiavoThe depiction of Jonas’ rebellion for the cause of life is highly timely: It has been nearly 10 years since Terry Schiavo was unjustly put to death, but actually several decades since the inconvenient disabled became subject to involuntary killing.

And more than a century has transpired since Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson predicted the trends of these times, in his seminal, apocalyptic sci-fi The Lord of the World.


Julian Felsenburgh, “The Anti-Christ”


Robert Hugh Benson’s Lord of the World coming true before our eyes
     Early in the book, a government volor [flyer], an airplane, has crashed in the middle of London and the protagonist, the young Catholic priest Fr. Percy Franklin, [who becomes Pope Silvester III, the last Pope], happened to be on the scene, though he was not yet known to Mabel, pretty wife of a rapidly-rising young Communist member of parliament and a devotee of the officially sanctioned state socialist atheism.
     Mabel scarcely knew what happened next; but she found herself a moment later forced forward by some violent pressure from behind, til she stood shaking from head to foot with some kind of smashed body of a man moaning and stretching at her feet. There was a sort of articulate language coming from it; she caught distinctly the names of Jesus and Mary; then a voice hissed suddenly in her ears: “Let me through. I am a priest.”

     She stood there a moment longer, dazed by the suddenness of the whole affair, and watched almost unintelligently the grey-haired young priest on his knees, with his coat torn open, and a crucifix out; she saw him bend close, wave his hand in a swift sign, and heard a murmur of a language she did not know. Then he was up again, holding the crucifix out before him, and she saw him begin to move forward into the midst of the red-flooded pavement, looking this way and that as if for a signal.
     Down the steps of the great hospital on her right came figures running now, hatless, each carrying what looked like an old fashioned camera. She knew what those men were, and her heart leaped in relief. They were the ministers of euthanasia.

A FORMER EUTHANASIA SUPPORTER warned of a surge in deaths if the British Parliament allowed doctors to give deadly drugs to their patients. ‘Don’t do it Britain,’ said Theo Boer, a veteran European watchdog in assisted suicide cases. ‘Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely ever to go back in again.’

Involuntary, physician-facilitated terminations have now gone mobile in the Netherlands. Coming soon to a family transition crisis near you.


More proof that more college students support post-birth abortion

A College Fix article that went viral last fall drew attention to an emerging inclination among young people: pro-life activists who engage college students on campuses across the country are seeing support for so-called “post-birth abortion,” or the killing of infants and young children.

It was a report so shocking, many did not want to believe it.

In response to the article – shared on social media nearly 50,000 times and sparking a national dialogue – attempted to debunk the claim by complaining the piece spun anecdotal evidence into a “study.” Students for Life also published a piece saying they did not think the trend was real.

However, the article explicitly stated its evidence is anecdotal, based on the many experiences of pro-life activists with Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, whose members show up at college campuses weekly and engage young people in serious conversations about abortion.

Although no official study or poll has been conducted on this issue, Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal, and Kristina Garza, director of campus outreach for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, speak with college students about abortion on a regular basis and find that more young people than ever before are willing to admit they support post-birth abortion.

In response to those who questioned the experiences of these pro-life campus advocates, The College Fix returned to the groups’ leaders to get their take on the notion that it was all too outlandish to believe.

In recent interviews, they not only stood behind their assessment, but provided further details to their original claims to help prove it.

The groups use graphic images of aborted babies to spark debate and then hold respectful, one-on-one dialogues with students to change minds on college campuses. Because of this, the exchanges members engage in with students at universities are deeply personal and very real.

Anecdotal evidence piles up

Partial transcripts from conversations between Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust team members and college students in recent months reveal the mindset can be found in young people.

On Dec. 3, 2014, at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Survivor team member Sam Riley talked with a student who said he supported the “choice of the intellectual human.”

He said that “an intellectual human is a 5-, 6- or 7-year-old. They don’t know anything until 5, 6 or 7 years old.” When asked whether it was permissible to kill 2, 3, and 4-year-olds, he said: “Yes, under that criteria, I guess it would be ok.”

On Oct. 15, 2014, at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, Calif., a student admitted to Survivor team member Josh Cummings that a fetus is a human fetus. When asked when it was okay to kill a defenseless human life, the student said, “many times.” Cummings then asked the student whether a mother could drown her 2-year-old in the bathtub if she couldn’t afford to take care of it. “Yes, absolutely,” the student responded.

On Dec. 10, 2014, at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif., Survivor team member Lizzy Riley talked to a student who called himself a “utilitarian.” He said that if abortion were legal in India then people would not be forced to kill or abandon their baby girls. The situation now, he said, makes it necessary to kill these girls.

On Oct. 13 and 14, 2014, at UC San Diego, Lizzy Riley talked to three or four people who exhibited this utilitarian mindset, saying they had no problem with killing a 1- or 2-month-old. They admitted this after being shown there is no substantial biological difference between a 7-month fetus and a 2-month-old.

“Students wouldn’t be able to articulate where they learned it, but the ideology is so ingrained in them that they don’t even question it,” Lizzy Riley told The College Fix. “Look at where the slippery slope leads. If you’re casually pro-choice, at some point, you’re going to have to defend killing children after birth.”

After The College Fix published its original article, titled “Trending: More college students support post-birth abortion,” InfoWars reporter Joe Biggs got a number of students at the University of Texas in Austin to sign a petition for “post-birth abortion” that would allow killing children up to five years old. His efforts were captured on video.

But long before Biggs posted his man-on-the-street campus poll, Created Equal posted a video showing in a shocking manner the mentality of some modern college students.

“If you kill a baby fetus, it’s the same thing as killing any old inanimate object,” one college student told Created Equal in a 2011 conversation captured on video. “Like a rock, a tree – whatever. It’s not self aware. So what’s the point of holding on to its life?”

When a Created Equal member asked this college student when a young person becomes self aware, he replied: “Um, I am not a scientist, I am not a doctor, but if I recall from taking classes and stuff like that, like after a certain amount of months and years like, after a child is growing, like they begin to understand. I think it’s somewhere around the time of like, speech.”

Trend or not, some students support infanticide

Garza, of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, says her team often encounters this viewpoint on campuses.

“We talk with dozens of students a week, and one or two of those students say they think infants and toddlers are not persons,” Garza said.

Harrington, director of Created Equal, told The Fix in October that “we encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit. While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”

In a more recent interview, Harrington responded to naysayers by pointing out that “our anecdotal evidence is more germane to the question of whether … abortion advocates are becoming more intellectually honest—that is to say, accepting of killing born children along with preborn (since there’s no relevant difference) in theory if not in practice.”

Garza agreed.

“Nobody is claiming that this ideology of accepting infanticide is the norm – far from it,” she said. “Students accepting the humanity of born children, but discrediting his or her value based on cognitive ability, is merely a trend.”

“I don’t think we can completely discredit anecdotal evidence,” she added. “They are one pole of the abortion debate spectrum, of which we see every facet by talking with hundreds of students at high schools, colleges and universities across the country every year.”

Infants born alive during botched abortions also contribute to the acceptance of killing newborns, Garza pointed out.

“It is difficult to refute that some percentage of late-term abortions fail, and end with the murder of a born-alive infant,” Garza said. “Hence, it would be fair to say that students who support late-term abortion, after admitting the humanity of the preborn child and knowing the failure rate, would also support infanticide.”

In the end, Harrington points out, “We could provide more anecdotes, but no amount of anecdotes will prove conclusively a general trend across all college students.”

Extreme views emerge

More people are taking a more extreme position on abortion rights.

For example, in 2013, students from the University of New Mexico were bussed to the Albuquerque polls to vote down the late-term abortion referendum that would have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

And a fall 2013 philosophy syllabus from UC San Diego even includes a piece by Peter Singer, the moral philosopher who supported infanticide. Although most professors are not necessarily teaching that infanticide is acceptable, it is not clear that they are condemning it, either.

One student told Survivors that, a few years ago at one university in Southern California, a graduate school professor who taught “virtue ethics” once gave a lecture in which he used the case of Terri Schiavo to argue along the lines of: “If we could do it in her case (i.e. kill her), why can’t we do it with other people?”

Schiavo was a 26-year-old woman who inexplicably collapsed into a permanent vegetative state and was kept on life support for years before her feeding tube was removed and she died.

The scholar continued to say that he and his partner had a surprise baby, 2 years old at the time. He said, “I absolutely love my son, but I wouldn’t call him a person because he doesn’t have the reasoning capabilities, the personality that I would say is necessary for someone to be called a person.” During that class, none of the graduate students challenged him.

The good news

While more college students may support post-birth abortion, the number of students who accept that life beings at conception is also growing, and at a larger and faster rate than those who accept infanticide, Garza said.

“This trend of students saying they think babies are not ‘persons’ for whatever philosophical reason is actually just proof that we’re doing our job,” Garza said. “There is no logical way to disprove the humanity of the child before birth. The next logical step for the … pro-abortion supporter would be to argue that the child may be a human being, but circumstances warrant it ok to kill the child anyway.”

Garza said this trend is not disheartening.

“Pro-life leaders from many organizations have been saying for a few years now that we need to push students out of the mushy middle and force them to choose a side,” she said. “Some are going to choose the ugly extreme for abortion and infanticide. However, most are … going to choose to be 100 percent against abortion, which is the trend that we are also seeing on high school and college campuses all over California.”

According to Gallop, 33 percent of Americans were pro-life in 1996. Today, 46 percent say they are pro-life.

Distorting ‘Denial of Care’ Into a Virtue


Wanting to be cured of illness is “depraved”
—if your life isn’t worth saving.

“In a bygone era, doctors thought every life was important. Treatment was aggressive and persistent in intensive care units even when it might be futile.…”

A UCLA “academic study” is providing the theoretical basis for denying ordinary care to those deemed “Life Unworthy of Life” (Lebensunwertes Leben).

That idea, most prominently advanced by the Nazis, has been repackaged as “futile care theory”, disregarding the fact that all persons are in the process of moving towards death from their earliest moments.

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Health Sciences
Summary: Providing futile treatment in the intensive care unit sets off a chain reaction that causes other ill patients needing medical attention to wait for critical care beds, according to a study. The study is the first to show that when unbeneficial medical care is provided, others who might be able to benefit from treatment are harmed, said the study’s lead author.

The California Catholic Conference, the official organ of the California Bishops, expects that there will be a major push in 2015 in the California Legislature to make Physician Assisted Suicide the law of California. If disability rights groups succeed in blocking the money influence of hospitals and insurance companies in the legislature, plans are for a public relations blitz in 2016 in support of a statewide suicide initiative. The UCLA study provides an x-ray of the disinformation we can expect to be coming over television in the summer of 2016.



Will Doctors Be Forced To KILL?
by Wesley J. Smith | 7/25/2014 | FirstThings

The wailing and gnashing of teeth in some quarters over the modest Hobby Lobby decision has me worried. Apparently, many on the political port side of the country believe that once a favored public policy has been enacted, it immediately becomes a “right” that can never be altered or denied. More, once such a “right” is established for the individual, others should have the duty to ensure access—even at the cost of violating their own religious consciences.

If such thinking prevails, medical professionals could be forced to participate in the taking of human life, for example in abortion, assisted suicide, and (given the research trends in regenerative medicine) providing treatments derived from the intentional destruction of human embryos or fetuses.

That certainly seems to be the direction in which the ACLU wishes to take the country. Recently, the ACLU of Washington State began trolling for potential clients to sue medical professionals or facilities that refused to participate in certain legal procedures or transactions based on religious objection:

Have you or members of your family been denied reproductive health care or end-of-life services by a religiously based medical facility? The ACLU believes that everyone in Washington has the right to receive health care that is not restricted by the religious beliefs of others.

MyHealthCare_618x267_2The solicitation listed specific procedures—some of which involve the taking of human life—that presumably a patient should have a right to receive. They include:

  • Abortion
  • Information about Washington’s Death with Dignity Act [the law permitting doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill];
  • Referral to support organizations or cooperating providers to assist a patient in using Washington’s Death with Dignity Act;
  • Medical providers permitted to participate in Washington’s Death with Dignity Act;
  • Palliative care/nursing support for patients who choose to stop eating and drinking to allow natural death (e.g., participation in suicide by starvation, not a natural death)
  • Pharmacy dispensary (e.g, forced dispensing of drugs used in assisted suicide, RU 486 abortions, etc.)

Some might think that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law that protected Hobby Lobby, could also protect medical professionals and facilities. Nope. That law only applies to cases involving federal statutes. Unless a state has its own equivalent law, RFRA protections do not apply. (In Washington doctors cannot currently be forced to participate in assisted suicide, but pharmacists do not enjoy equivalent conscience rights.)

But what about the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion? Religious health professionals and religiously-operated health facilities may be out of luck on that score, too. Indeed, the RFRA was passed by a near unanimous Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton to overcome a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that deprived individuals of religious protection against a law of “general applicability,” e.g., one not aimed at chilling religious practice but which merely has that ancillary impact. Continue reading

Advance Medical Directive / Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care / Protective Medical Decisions Documents

Hospital-Designed “Living Will” BAD
Pro-Life Protective Document GOOD


Sign the Document that says what YOU want
—Don’t buy into the “DUTY To Die”

When you’ve been admitted to a hospital, are in an emergency room, or are having an outpatient procedure at a clinic, if the treatment should put you into temporary cardiac arrest—from which you might easily recover if you are treated properly—the cost for the facility of standard emergency treatment can range from $50,000 to more than $100,000. The medical services industry has long regarded Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) as your presumed, “normal” emergency treatment status, regarding your intention to be revived in an emergency as exceptional—and objectionable.

Hospitals have a strong financial incentive to muscle you into signing away your rights with a deceptively titled “Living Will”—the name conveys the impression that your intentions will be followed, but “Living Wills” are actually designed to give power to hospital administrators and insurance officials to deny expensive treatments that could save your life. You may be prompted to sign such a document when you are under the stress of illness, even in pain.

"Grandma loved us so much that she wanted to have something to leave us, and she didn’t want to burden us by trying to cling to life after she had lived her time."

THE “Living Will” SALES JOB
: “Grandma loved us so much that she wanted to have something to leave us, and she didn’t want to burden us by trying to cling to life after she had lived her time.”

You need to take time when you are calm and well, to plan and make arrangements for your intentions to be represented when you are in an emergency and perhaps incapacitated. If you take time to perform this task, you have a much better chance of obtaining a positive outcome. You need an “Advance Medical Directive / Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care / Protective Medical Decisions Document”.

Recently, one of our members was unable to help direct the course of treatment of an ill relative, because she lacked a document required by law to express the patient’s intentions. Without it, hospitals are under no obligation to follow an incapacitated patient’s verbally expressed intentions—doctors, or even hospital administrators, may summarily decide that a patient’s life is “futile” (life unworthy of life), and order discontinuation of minimal hydration and nutrition. In the absence of one of the protective documents listed below, hospitals may use medical privacy laws as a pretext for refusing even to provide relatives with information about the condition of a patient who has been admitted to a hospital.

Life Legal Defense Foundation

Our friend, Dana Cody’s Life Legal Defense Foundation offers a free, protective document which specifically addresses the requirements of California law.

“About” the Protective Document

pdf Make Your Health Care Decisions…Or They Will Be Made For You: A guide to protecting yourself and your loved ones

FORMS (Eleven Pages)
What You Actually Have to Fill Out and Get Notarized Continue reading

The Golden Age Center

Positive vs. Natural Law

Picture this scene, a few years hence:

Charles Rice: Beyond Abortion:
The Theory and Practice of the Secular State
. 1979.CharlesRiceBeyondAbortion
The vote of the Review Committee was 3 to 0. The Doctor, who was secretary of the meeting, marked the patient’s card “MR” and added his initials and the date. This “Merciful Release” had been provided by the Congress almost two years ago in the Geriatric Welfare Act of 1996, which was part of an overall revision of the bankrupt Social Security system.

Under the law, Social Security retirement benefits were reduced by the full amount of any outside income received from whatever source. The only persons, therefore, who actually received Social Security benefits were those whose outside earnings, gifts from relatives, and other income totaled less than the ordinary Social Security benefits. As a result, only the poor received Social Security retirement checks. But still there were too many of them. The Geriatric Welfare Act of 1996 provided that each recipient of Social Security retirement benefits over the age of 65 who was “confined to any hospital or infirmary” for more than three consecutive days “shall be entitled to a Merciful Release on his or her own request or on a decision by the Review Committee that prolongation of life is a meaningless burden.” Continue reading

Innocuous-Appearing “Advance Medical Directive” Pamphlet Actually Prompts Elders to Consent to Termination

"Grandma loved us so much that she wanted to have something to leave us, and she didn’t want to burden us by trying to cling to life after she had lived her time."

The Implication: “Grandma loved us so much that she wanted to have something to leave us, and she didn’t want to burden us by trying to cling to life after she had lived her time.”

acrobitty Krames Communications #1771 Advance Medical Directives, Low Literacy

Cover : 6” × 4” color photographic composition. A well dressed, well coiffed elderly woman looking on wistfully with a smile on her face, sits at a desk, her hand resting on a sheet of paper holding a pen, a picture resting on the desk. The desk pans into purplish surf at sunset, a man in his ‘30s walking on the beach explaining something to a young teenage boy.

Given the content of the booklet, the implication seems to be that the woman’s son is explaining to the boy, “Grandma loved us so much that she didn’t want to burden us by trying to cling to life after she had lived her time.” The booklet later betrays the hidden subject of economic interest – an intrinsic conflict of interest despite the publication’ s dispassionate posture – on page 4, “Your Values,” question 11: How important is it for you to
[Leave money to my family or a cause I believe in].

UC Davis Health System booklet
Advance Medical Directives:
Your Wishes for Future Medical Care

Description:16 pages (including covers) soft-cover booklet (5” × 14”).
© 1996 Krames [Patient]Communications
1100 Grundy Lane, San Bruno, CA 94066-3030
(800) 333-3032
“#1771 Advance Medical Directives (Low Lit)”

Page 2
1” × 2” b&w photo of a less-self-assured elderlty woman, her face expressing mild grief. Caption: “My husband didn’t make an advance directive. Now, he can’t tell us what he wants.…We don’t know what to do.”

The booklet offers Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders as a reasonable alternative, and pre- conditions elderly and chronically ill patients toward the acceptance of life-ending, rather than life-sustaining, medical choices.

The American Medical Association (AMA) is working directly with the Obama Administration to implement [Advance Care Planning advice] reimbursement by administrative action, bypassing Congress.…An AMA panel approved a new [ICD-9 medical] code for “advance planning conversations” [Death Panels].

Page 4:
4” × 3” color photo: A smiling, vigorous-looking elderly man kneels on one leg, tousling the hair of a golden retriever dog, a cane poised beneath his arm.
Your Quality of Life
• What things give meaning to your life? If you lost some of them, how would you feel?
• Answering the questions below can help you decide. You may want to talk with family, close friends, or a counselor, too.
1. What do you fear most about being seriously ill or injured?
2. How would you feel if you couldn’t do the things you enjoy most?
3. How would you feel if you couldn’t get around by yourself or think for yourself?
4. Would you want to be moved from your present home?
5. Would you want to be in a nursing home or hospital at the end of your life?

(This booklet reveals its stake in the domain of the culture of death, by the scant, token respect that is paid to the normal healthcare concern for well-being and life. The overwhelmingly fear oriented list, above, would be more appropriate in an advertisement for burial plots and caskets, or in a lawyer’s exhortation for clients to make out their wills. Pope John-Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae (§19) comments on “an extreme concept of subjectivity” in an individual’s self-valuation of life: “The mentality which tends to equate personal dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit, or at least perceptible, communication [presupposes that] there is no place in the world for anyone who…is a weak element in the social structure, or …appears completely at the mercy of others and radically dependent on them….In this case it is force which becomes the criterion for choice and action in interpersonal relations and in social life.” The booklet’s regime of fear sets up elders and the disabled for a predetermined “choice” to die that is inevitable and unavoidable – far from “choice in dying.”)

Your Values
Read each statement below. How important is it for you to do each of these things? Very important? Somewhat important? Not very important? Check the box that best describes your feelings.

Importance Very Somewhat Not Very
1. Care for myself
2. Get out of bed every day.
3. Go out on my own.
4. Recognize family and friends.
5. Talk to and understand others.
6. Decide things for myself.
7. Stay in my home as long as I live.
8. Live without a lot of pain.
9. Live without needing medical treatment or machines to keep me alive.
10. Pay my own expenses.
11. Leave money to my family or a cause I believe in.
12. Be faithful to my beliefs.
13. Live as long as I can.
14. Try all medical treatment possible.
15. Not linger before I die.

A rating of these questions by 4 subjectively selected categories, yields a finding that a majority of the 15 questions above are moderately or profoundly negative in cast, and only a small minority are positive in character. The rating categories are:

I – Idealism S – Self Image & Autonomy
M – Minimal Functioning E – Extreme Measures

The 15 questions were casually rated with the following results:

1 M 5 M 9 E 13 E
2 M 6 M 10 S 14 E
3 M 7 E 11 I 15 E
4 M 8 E 12 I

A count of the ratings yielded these results:

Idealism – 2 Self Image & Autonomy – 1
Minimal Functioning – 6 Extreme Measures – 6

A casual assignment of the ratings (along with their counts) in a 2-dimensional “truth-window” by criteria of necessity and desirability, yields the following:

“Truth Window” Necessary Unnecessary
Desirable Self Image & Autonomy – 1 Idealism – 2
Undesirable Extreme Measures – 6 Minimal Functioning – 6

Irrespective that the criteria and ratings are subjective, a clear majority of the 15 questions (12 out of the 15, or 80%) are of a moderately to profoundly negative cast. In view of the euthanasia-oriented context of the booklet, this check-list is therefore highly weighted toward a pre-determined outcome, that normal end-of-life debility and distress are intolerable and must be avoided by means of extreme measures.

§12 This culture [of death] is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favoured tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of “conspiracy against life” is unleashed.

§15. Threats which are no less serious [than those against the unborn] hang over the incurably ill and the dying. In a social and cultural context which makes it more difficult to face and accept suffering, the temptation becomes all the greater to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable.

Various considerations usually contribute to such a decision, all of which converge in the same terrible outcome. In the sick person the sense of anguish, of severe discomfort, and even of desperation brought on by intense and prolonged suffering can be a decisive factor. Such a situation can threaten the already fragile equilibrium of an individual’s personal and family life, with the result that, on the one hand, the sick person, despite the help of increasingly effective medical and social assistance, risks feeling overwhelmed by his or her own frailty; and on the other hand, those close to the sick person can be moved by an understandable even if misplaced compassion. All this is aggravated by a cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but rather considers suffering the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all costs. This is especially the case in the absence of a religious outlook which could help to provide a positive understanding of the mystery of suffering.

On a more general level, there exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this in the spread of euthanasia-disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally. As well as for reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient’s suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill. Nor can we remain silent in the face of other more furtive, but no less serious and real, forms of euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to increase the availability of organs for transplants, organs are removed without respecting objective and adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor.

— Pope St. John-Paul II, Evangelium Vitae