Although the State of Texas is one of the freer places in the United States of America in this era of statism, there are some morally offensive provisions in the Lone Star State’s statute books.
One of these is a statute (TEX HS. CODE ANN. § 166.046) that was passed by the Texas State Legislature in 1999 and signed into law by the supposedly “pro-life” governor at the time, whose identity will be saved for later, authorizing hospital administrators to override a patient’s directives to his physicians concerning healthcare decisions:
(a) If an attending physician refuses to honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal shall be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee. The attending physician may not be a member of that committee. The patient shall be given life-sustaining treatment during the review.
(b) The patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual who has made the decision regarding the directive or treatment decision:
(1) may be given a written description of the ethics or medical committee review process and any other policies and procedures related to this section adopted by the health care facility;
(2) shall be informed of the committee review process not less than 48 hours before the meeting called to discuss the patient's directive, unless the time period is waived by mutual agreement;
(3) at the time of being so informed, shall be provided:
(A) a copy of the appropriate statement set forth in Section 166.052; and
(B) a copy of the registry list of health care providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness to consider accepting transfer or to assist in locating a provider willing to accept transfer that is posted on the website maintained by the Texas Health Care Information Council under Section 166.053; and
(4) is entitled to:
(A) attend the meeting; and
(B) receive a written explanation of the decision reached during the review process.
(c) The written explanation required by Subsection (b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.
(d) If the attending physician, the patient, or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does not agree with the decision reached during the review process under Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with the directive. If the patient is a patient in a health care facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in arranging the patient's transfer to:
(1) another physician;
(2) an alternative care setting within that facility; or
(3) another facility.
(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
(e-1) If during a previous admission to a facility a patient's attending physician and the review process under Subsection (b) have determined that life-sustaining treatment is inappropriate, and the patient is readmitted to the same facility within six months from the date of the decision reached during the review process conducted upon the previous admission, Subsections (b) through (e) need not be followed if the patient's attending physician and a consulting physician who is a member of the ethics or medical committee of the facility document on the patient's readmission that the patient's condition either has not improved or has deteriorated since the review process was conducted.
(f) Life-sustaining treatment under this section may not be entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has expired.
(g) At the request of the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate district or county court shall extend the time period provided under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's directive will be found if the time extension is granted.
(h) This section may not be construed to impose an obligation on a facility or a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or agency. This section does not apply to hospice services provided by a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter 142. (As found at Advanced Directives Act.)
In other words, you see, it is up to a patient or his surrogate to find another facility that is willing to following his directives within ten days of a review board’s decision to uphold his physician’s refusal to honor those directives. A sick or injured human being then must play a contemporary version of Beat the Clock to save his life. A world governed by Catholic principles would feature physicians who strove to heal their patients. Our own Protestant and Judeo-Masonic world features devils masquerading as physicians who strive to find every pretext imaginable to avoid giving ordinary care to patients they deem worthy of death.
Scores of human beings are being consigned to liquidation by death panels without family members uttering a word of protest. After all, most Americans have been taught that the “doctor is always right,” serving as bobble-head dolls to the high priests and priestesses of medicine and Big Pharma. It is only when a patient and/or his family objects to decisions made by Modernity’s body-snatchers that a particular case makes headlines.
Such a case happened a month ago in Houston, Texas, as a former deputy sheriff and a former Homeland Security Officer, Christopher David Dunn, who was forty-six years old and is fully conscious, was consigned to death by means of the removal of life-sustaining treatment in a decision made by the “ethics panel” at Houston Methodist Hospital even though he was fully conscious:
HOUSTON, Texas — A Texas mother claims a hospital is seeking to end the life of a her son who is a fully conscious patient. The patient’s mother says that a hospital administrative death panel is “Playing God” in deciding whether her son has the “quality of life” to continue to live.
Her son, Christopher David Dunn, 46, a fully-conscious former peace officer, is receiving life-sustaining care. Hospital officials in Houston are fighting to stop that care.
The man, his mother, and his lawyers, have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to save the man’s life. His attorney, Joe Nixon, told Breitbart Texas, “A criminal on death row in Texas has more rights than a patient in a Texas hospital.” He says a Texas statute denies a patient all due process rights and is unconstitutional.
Trey Trainor, another lawyer with the same firm who is representing Dunn, says Texas law gives a hospital the right to make life or death decisions without consulting the patient or the patient’s family.
Dunn is fully conscious but is receiving oxygen and antibiotics through two tubes down his throat. He is receiving fluids and nutrients intravenously.
Dunn’s lawyers and his mother say he is capable of making his own decisions but has difficulty speaking because of the two tubes in his throat.
Hospital officials are fighting to stop his treatment and have filed for a court to appoint a guardian to make decisions for him. Dunn filed suit but the hospital filed their own lawsuit asking that a guardian be appointed for Dunn. Dunn and his mother, Evelyn Kelly, have been making choices regarding his care.
A video (below) made by Ms. Kelly on December 2nd and produced with the help of a Houston-based pro-life organization, Texas Right to Life, shows that Dunn understands the questions asked of him, and he communicates that he wants to live.
Dunn is a former sheriff’s deputy and has worked as a Homeland Security officer but had no health insurance when he got sick. He has been in the hospital for eight weeks since a noncancerous mass was found where his small intestine connects to the pancreas. Ms. Kelly says the mass is squeezing off the small intestine and is affecting his liver and kidneys.
The distraught mother told Breitbart Texas, “The hospital wants to turn Chris’ nutrients and extra air off and they are playing God. They want to kill my son. They say there is nothing else they can do for him, but I don’t believe that.”
“When they found out that Chris did not have insurance, they said they were done,” Chris’ mother claimed.
She says the hospital wants to turn off the breathing machine and administer a dose of morphine and another drug she did not know the name of. She was told it would take only three to five minutes for Chris to die if the drugs were administered.
Ms. Kelly and Mr. Dunn received a letter from the Meeting Chair of the Houston Methodist Bioethics Committee, J. Richard Cheney. The letter (attached below) said “the Committee has decided that life-sustaining treatment is medically inappropriate for Chris and that all treatments other than those needed to keep him comfortable should be discontinued and withheld.”
Ms. Kelly asked the hospital ethics representative – “Who gave you the right to turn off life support from my son?!” The hospital representative replied – “George Bush.”
“The statute makes the decision of the hospital committee final, not appealable, and there is no right to go into a court of law to have a judge review the hospital’s decisions,” Dunn’s lawyer, Joe Nixon, told Breitbart Texas. He said the decision is made behind closed doors in a hospital and a patient has no representative or due process rights.
Nixon, a former Texas state house representative, said the hospital filed a lawsuit for a guardian to be appointed because they do not want a judge ruling on the constitutionality of the statute.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
A statement obtained by Breitbart Texas from Houston Methodist Hospital said, “We want to express our deepest sympathies and offer our prayers to the family during this difficult time. Out of respect for the family and because of patient privacy laws, we cannot discuss the particulars of the case. We are providing the best possible care to the patient and we continue to care for him. We are working with the courts to get guidance on who has legal guardianship of the patient.”
The statement from the hospital continues, “Within the patient’s family there is disagreement on the appropriate end-of-life care for this patient. We feel strongly that every decision we have made is in the best interest of the patient, and the Houston Methodist staff works hard and compassionately every day to help families who are facing difficult end-of-life issues. Houston Methodist is a faith-based, values-centered organization that strives to make the best choices for all our patients. We will continue assisting the family through this painful process.”
Breitbart Texas spoke with Melissa Conway of Texas Right to Life who said, “It is unprecedented how unconstitutional this statute is. It truly allows the rights of a patient to be stripped away from a patient or a patient’s right of attorney and gives them to a faceless panel of hospital administrators.”
Conway said that Texas Right to Life has navigated over 250 of these cases but that Chris Dunn’s case is “the perfect storm.” She said the organization has never seen a case where a patient is conscious and the hospital makes a value judgment about that person’s life.
She added that their pro-life organization has been fighting the statute that gives hospitals this power for 18 years, approximately nine Texas legislative sessions.
Ms. Kelly told Breitbart Texas, “This is bigger than Chris, and if other people don’t think that this can happen to your son or daughter, then it sure can. If they can do it to Chris, and they will, they can do it to anyone.”
The crying mother said, “It just amazes me that life does not mean anything anymore. They are supposed to be saving lives, not taking lives.” (Texas Hospital Seeks to End Life of Conscious Patient.)
Alas, Christopher David Dunn died on December 23, 2015, before his mother could arrange for a court hearing so that he could be transferred to another medical facility that would have provided him with the care that he needed. We will only know in eternity how many people have died while awaiting for the judicial process to schedule hearings to mandate that they receive the care that was once provided, many times for free, by Catholic hospitals staffed with truly Catholic physicians and consecrated religious as nurses and their assistants:
HOUSTON, Texas — A Texas man prayed for by people all over the world, and identified with the hashtag #HelpChrisSeeChristmas, has died two days before Christmas. Breitbart Texas reported that the man, 46-year-old Christopher David Dunn, a former sheriff’s deputy, was fighting a Texas hospital that wanted to stop the care.
The local ABC affiliate in Houston has reported that one of Dunn’s attorneys has confirmed that he has died.
Dunn was fully-conscious and asked his mother and attorneys to fight for his life. When asked whether he wanted to hire lawyers to fight for him, Dunn placed his hands in the prayer position. A video was made showing that the former peace officer and EMT wanted to fight for his life.
His mother, Evelyn Kelly, said a hospital administrative death panel from Houston Methodist Hospital, was “playing God.”
Dunn is a former sheriff’s deputy and has worked as a Homeland Security officer but had no health insurance when he got sick. He had been in the hospital for approximately ten weeks since a noncancerous mass was found where his small intestine connects to the pancreas. Ms. Kelly said the mass was squeezing off the small intestine and was affecting his liver and kidneys.
The distraught mother told Breitbart Texas in early December, “The hospital wants to turn Chris’ nutrients and extra air off and they are playing God. They want to kill my son. They say there is nothing else they can do for him, but I don’t believe that.” “When they found out that Chris did not have insurance, they said they were done,” Chris’ mother exclaimed.
As reported by Breitbart Texas on December 11, Dunn’s mother said the hospital wanted to turn the breathing machine off and administer a dose of morphine and another drug she did not know the name of. She was told it would only take three to five minutes for Chris to die if the drugs were administered.
The man, his mother, and his lawyers, filed a lawsuit in an attempt to save the man’s life. His attorney, Joe Nixon, told Breitbart Texas at the time, “A criminal on death row in Texas has more rights than a patient in a Texas hospital.” He says a Texas statute denies a patient all due process rights and is unconstitutional.
Another lawyer who was representing Dunn, Trey Trainor, says Texas law gives a hospital the right to make life or death decisions without consulting the patient or the patient’s family.
Dunn was fully conscious but was receiving oxygen and antibiotics through two tubes down his throat. He was receiving fluids and nutrients intravenously. His lawyers and his mother said he was capable of making his own decisions but had difficulty speaking because of the two tubes in his throat.
Hospital officials were fighting to stop his treatment and filed for a court to appoint a guardian to make decisions for him. Dunn filed suit but the hospital filed their own lawsuit asking that a guardian be appointed for Dunn. Dunn and his mother, Evelyn Kelly, had been making choices regarding his care.
Dunn and his lawyers were not able to get a court hearing date in the guardianship suit before he died. (Texas Man Who Hospital Wanted To Kill Has Died.)
Yes, death panels really exist, and not just in the case of Christopher David Dunn. Although they go by the Orwellian euphemism of “ethics panels,” the death panels in the State of Texas are protected by a powerful and influential group of medical industry lobbyists who militate in behalf of a utilitarian, cost-benefit analysis concerning the treatment of living human beings that is at odds with the original Hippocratic Oath, to say nothing of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that prohibit any action from being undertaken whose only end result can be the death of an innocent human being.
The original Hippocratic Oath required physicians to “do no harm” to their patients:
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygeia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot. (The Hippocratic Oath.)
As has been noted on this site several times in the past, there are manys stories of supposedly "brain dead" patients recovering fully. Some of those were outlined in
Our world of relativism today, however, has redefined the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings, whether in their mother’s wombs or at any time thereafter, to be part of “merciful” and “compassionate “health care.” Such, of course, must be the logic of men when they deny Truth Himself, Christ the King, and His Catholic Church as the sole, infallible depository and explicator of all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and the authoritative teacher of all that is contained in the precepts of the Natural Law. Everything about contemporary law and culture is based on lies, which stands to reason when one considers that the American founding itself is based on the lie that men can pursue justice and be virtuous in their own lives without the teaching authority and the sanctifying offices of the Catholic Church.
What happended recently with the late Christopher David Dunn, though, was not an anomaly. It is happening all over the State of Texas. The only difference in cases such as Mr. Dunn’s is that he has family members who are fighting to save his life while it is usually the case that relatives trust physicians and hospital administrators in all that they diagnose and decide as a course of “treatment,” up to and including those actions that will result in the death of an innocent human being as its sole end.
As a case from 2012 will illustrate, the parents of a twelve year-old boy wounded by a gunshot were not even told that a physician had placed a "do not resuscitate" order in his medical chart by his hospital bed:
October 9, 2012 (Texas Right to Life) - A 12-year-old boy, whose doctor claimed he was in a “persistent vegetative state” after suffering a gunshot wound to the head, is now talking and receiving physical therapy at a Dallas hospital.
On August 6, Zach McDaniel was shot in the head as a bystander when he got caught in the crossfire of a drug deal gone bad. He was rushed to emergency surgery in Abilene, placed in a drug-induced coma, and then transferred to Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth on a ventilator.
Upon transfer, Cook Children’s staff claimed that Zach’s prognosis was poor, and that part of his brain had been removed during surgery. They pressured Zach’s parents to sign an organ donation consent form.
However, a brain scan later revealed that Zach’s brain was intact. The staff said that there must have been miscommunication between the two hospitals.
But just a week later, the hospital convened an ethics committee, an entity under Texas law that has the power to terminate a patient’s care after 10 days. It was the committee’s opinion that any further care for Zach would be futile, and moved to terminate care. Zach’s parents pleaded for the hospital to give him time to recover. But because of procedural mistakes, the committee did not technically convene, and their ruling didn’t stand.
Three days after that, Zach was able to breathe on his own. Yet, on that same day, Zach’s doctor secretly withdrew Zach’s food and water, then slipped a “Do Not Resuscitate” order into his chart without his parent’s knowledge or consent. Dehydration can cause—among other serious problems—cardiac arrest. But with the DNR in his file, if Zach did need help, the hospital would have done nothing to save his life.
When Zach’s mother, Jessica, discovered the DNR and realized that her son wasn’t receiving food and water, she was alarmed and called Texas Right to Life for help.
Texas Right to Life’s legislative director, John Seago, advised Jessica to confront the doctor. Removing a patient’s food and water without the approval of the hospital’s ethics committee is illegal. However, the secret DNR was legal under Texas law. John promised Jessica legal aid if the need arose.
When Jessica confronted the doctor, he reluctantly reinstated the food and water and removed the DNR order, but claimed that Zach was in a “persistent vegetative state.” He made it clear that he no longer wished to treat Zach, and advised Jessica to find another place to take her son.
With John’s help, Zach was moved to the Children’s Medical Center in Dallas, where doctors were hopeful and said that Zach had a survivable injury. Doctors there slowly weaned Zach off the sedatives in order to bring him out of his drug-induced coma. Now, Zach is fully conscious, talking, and receiving physical therapy.
John Seago details Zach’s recovery: “Zach has regular short term and long term memory capacity. He has had both a successful brain surgery, and reconstructive surgery to repair his skull from damage caused by the bullet.
“Currently, he is in the process of moving to a full in-patient rehabilitation facility where they will help him recover fine motor skills and the ability to walk again. He was in a drug-induced coma for so long that his body has to relearn these simple functions. However, his doctors expect him to have a full physical recovery, with the only lasting damage being weakened vision in his left eye.
“Zach’s recovery is a victory for Life, and a testimony that we should fight for all innocent human life without making arbitrary quality of life judgements.”
To keep their son alive, Zach’s parents were forced to fight an unethical Texas law, the Advance Directives Act, that allowed a physician to place a possibly life-ending DNR in Zach’s chart without their consent or notice. The Act also empowers doctors and hospitals to terminate all care against the patient’s will and the will of his family, even if they have the means to pay.
I am thrilled to share Zach’s story with you today. His has a happy ending; but unfortunately, cases like his are becoming more common, and don’t always end as well as Zach’s. Sign up to receive our breaking news alerts, and learn of these cases as they happen. (Twelve Year-Old in 'Vegetative State' Now Talking.)
By the way--and most especially for those who have taken leave of their senses with a serious case of electoral cycle insanity, do you know who signed the Advance Directives Act" into law after it was passed by the Texas State Legislature?
Give it it a try. After all, the answer is to be found in the article about Christopher David Dunn.
No, it was not the longest-serving governor in the history of the State of Texas, Richard James Perry. He was lieutenant governor of the State of Texas at that time.
Ah, you got it.
Good for you.
Yes, the man who signed the Advance Directives Act into law in 1999 was none other than then Governor George Walker Bush, the "lesser evil" from the year 2000, the man whom gullible, excitable, frightened irrational "pro-life" voters were told that year was going to "help turn back Roe v. Wade" and give us "pro-life" judges who "respected" the Constitution of the United States of America. Sure. Those suffering from a case of wishful thinking and insanity this year ought to review the actual record of Bush the Lesser once again it matched almost perfectly and word-for-word (noting a few variations here and there) everything I said would be the case under this "pro-life" fraud's administration if he got elected (see Justice Will Lose No Matter Who Wins, November 13, 2000). Sure, Bush the Lesser gave us Samuel Alito. He also gave us John Roberts. Remember him? If not, see Here To Stay and Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part one. How did that one work out for "limited" government according to the Constitution?
The Advance Directives Act was designed, believe it or not, to be a "protection" of "patients' rights." It is, in fact, of course, a license to declare that treatment for a living human being is "futile" when in fact it is not. It is a license to kill, and it is a license that caused a desperate father of a grown son who had been consigned to death by an “ethics panel” in 2014 to barricade himself at gunpoint inside of his son’s hospital room to prevent him from being killed:
December 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- George Pickering the Third suffered a massive stroke last January. Doctors diagnosed the 27-year old as "brain dead," and the hospital ordered his life support progressively shut off in a fatal procedure they call "terminal wean."
But George's dad, George Sr., felt in his gut that his son could make it, despite the terminal prognosis. His son just needed more time.
Nevertheless, doctors told the family that George had no hope of recovery. Both George's mother and his brother agreed to take George off life support. Hospital staff even notified an organ donation organization that George's organs would be imminently available.
“They were moving too fast. The hospital, the nurses, the doctors,” George Sr. told KPRC. “I knew if I had three or four hours that night that I would know whether George was brain-dead.”
That's when George Pickering the Second did something dangerous, and illegal, which saved the life of his son.
George Sr. took a gun into Tomball Regional Medical Center, barricaded himself in with his son and began a three-hour standoff with staff and police, seeking to give George Jr. more time on life support.
Even after he was disarmed, the father remained barricaded in, and even threatened staff and officers, to buy George time on life support.
Then, after three hours, George Jr. surprised everybody --except his dad-- by squeezing his father's hand, on command, three times.
“The SWAT team had their own doctors and when they entered into the critical care room, they saw that my client’s son was not brain dead because he was making eye contact (and) was following their commands,” the family’s lawyer Phoebe Smith told RT. "They were completely amazed."
After feeling his son show signs of life, and hospital staff and officers acknowledging the signs of life, George Sr. surrendered peacefully.
George Jr. recovered completely. "When you see him now, he is a picture of health," Smith said. "I don’t think he would have survived but for the fact that his father slowed the process down."
"Almost every day we see our rights to make medical decisions for our loved ones eroding," Bobby Schindler of the Life and Hope Network, told LifeSiteNews. Schindler is the brother of Terri Schiavo, who died after her life support was removed in 2005, even though she showed slight signs of responding to her mother, doctors testified that Terri was in a "minimally conscious state," and the judge deciding whether to remove life support admitted that Terri responded to her mother, though not consistently.
"Sadly, it resorted to a father having to use the threat of violence to afford time for his son to have that chance to improve," Schindler commented. "While violence is never the answer and cannot be tolerated, one can understand the unconditional love parents have for their children and wanting nothing more than to give them the chance to recover."
Arrested, charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and convicted, the father gladly served nearly a year in jail for his crime.
“There was a law broken, but it was broken for all the right reasons," the younger George explained to the Daily Mail. "And I’m here now because of it. It was love, it was love."
This Christmas, newly freed dad and son reunited to celebrate the life of the Christ Child, and, the life of George the Third. “The important thing is I'm alive and well, my father is home and we're together again.” (Dad who who saved son's life by armed, three-hour hospital.)
It should not take an armed siege by a distraught father to attempt to save the life of his son. It is the job of attending physicians to take every measure possible to save life and rehabilitate patients who have suffered some trauma, whether it be to the brain or elsewhere in the body, not seek to take measures that can have only one consequence, the directly intended death of an innocent human being that is strictly prohibited by the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.
To refer to a living human being who is suffer from brain damage as "dead" is the same as referring to a preborn baby merely as a "product of conception" or a "miscellaneous mass of cells" or "potential human being" even though there is nothing "potential" about a human being inside of his mother's womb who has his own specific DNA and whose growth to birth can be stopped by others only by killing him.
For those of you who are relatively new to this site (and for those of readers of longstanding who may have forgotten the details), it is good to provide an excellent summary of the medical industry's manufactured, profit-making myth of "brain death" found in an interview that Dr. Paul Byrne gave to Mrs. Randy Engel of The Michael Fund back in December of 2007:
Editor: When we speak of vital organs, what organs are we talking about?
Dr. Byrne: Vital organs (from the Latin vita, meaning life) include the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and pancreas. In order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs are not suitable, since damage to the organs occurs within a brief time after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will cause the donor’s death.
Editor: Are there some vital organs which can be removed without causing the death of the donor?
Dr. Byrne: Yes. For example, one of two kidneys, a lobe of a liver, or a lobe of a lung. The donors must be informed that removal of these organs decreases function of the donor. Unpaired vital organs however, like the heart or whole liver, cannot be removed without killing the donor.
Editor: Since vital organs taken from a dead person are of no use, and taking the heart of a living person will kill that person, how is vital organ donation now possible?
Dr. Byrne: That’s where “brain death” comes in. Prior to 1968, a person was declared dead only when his or her breathing and heart stopped for a sufficient period of time. Declaring “brain death” made the heart and other vital organs suitable for transplantation. Vital organs must be taken from a living body; removing vital organs will cause death.
Editor: I still recall the announcement of the first official heart transplant by Dr. Christian Barnard in Cape Town, South Africa in 1967. How was it possible for surgeons to overcome the obvious legal, moral and ethical obstacles of harvesting vital organs for transplant from a living human being?
Dr. Byrne: By declaring “brain death” as death.
Editor: You mean by replacing the traditional criteria for declaring death with a new criterion known as “brain death”?
Dr. Byrne: Yes. In 1968, an ad hoc committee was formed at Harvard University in Boston for the purpose of redefining death so that vital organs could be taken from persons declared “brain dead,” but who in fact, were not dead. Note that “brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. The Harvard Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions.
Editor: Does this mean that a person who is in a cerebral coma or needs a ventilator to support breathing could be declared “brain dead”?
Dr. Byrne: Yes.
Editor: Even if his heart is pumping and the lungs are oxygenating blood?
Dr. Byrne: Yes. You see, vital organs need to be fresh and undamaged for transplantation. For example, once breathing and circulation ceases, in five minutes or less, the heart is so damaged that it is not suitable for transplantation. The sense of urgency is real. After all, who would want to receive a damaged heart?
Editor: Did the Harvard criterion of “brain death” lead to changes in state and federal laws?
Dr. Byrne: Indeed. Between 1968 and 1978, more than thirty different sets of criteria for “brain death” were adopted in the United States and elsewhere. Many more have been published since then. This means that a person can be declared "brain dead" by one set of criteria, but alive by another or perhaps all the others. Every set includes the apnea test. This involves taking the ventilator away for up to ten minutes to observe if the patient can demonstrate that he/she can breathe on his/her own. The patient always gets worse with this test. Seldom, if ever, is the patient or the relatives informed ahead of time what will happen during the test. If the patient does not breathe on his/her own, this becomes the signal not to stop the ventilator, but to continue the ventilator until the recipient/s is, or are, ready to receive the organs. After the organs are excised, the “donor” is truly dead.
Editor: What about the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)?
Dr. Byrne: According to the UDDA, death may be declared when a person has sustained either “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions” or “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” Since then, all 50 states consider cessation of brain functioning as death.
Editor: How does the body of a truly dead person compare with the body of a person declared “brain dead”?
Dr. Byrne: The body of a truly dead person is characterized in terms of dissolution, destruction, disintegration and putrefaction. There is an absence of vital body functions and the destruction of the organs of the vital systems. As I have already noted, the dead body is cold, stiff and unresponsive to all stimuli.
Editor: What about the body of a human being declared to be “brain dead”?
Dr. Byrne: In this case, the body is warm and flexible. There is a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. There will often be a response to surgical incisions. Given a long enough period of observation, someone declared “brain dead” will show healing and growth, and will go through puberty if they are a child.
Editor: Dr. Byrne, you mentioned that “brain dead” people will often respond to surgical incisions. Is this referred to as “the Lazarus effect?”
Dr. Byrne: Yes. That is why during the excision of vital organs, doctors find the need to use anesthesia and paralyzing drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients. In normal medical practice, a patient’s reaction to a surgical incision will indicate to the anesthesiologist that the anesthetic is too light. This increase in heart rate and blood pressure are reactions to pain. Anesthetics are used to take away pain. Anesthesiologists in Great Britain require the administration of anesthetic to take organs. A corpse does not feel pain. (The Michael Fund Newsletter.)
Dr. Paul Byrne, whose work has been noted on this website numerous times (see,for example, No Room In The Inn For Jahi McMath, Every Once In A While, Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death, Stories That Speak For Themselves, Headless Corpses?, First-Hand Evidence Of Fraud, Why Should Death Of Any Kind Get In The Way?, Grand Illusion, Every Once In A While, Canada's Death Panels: A Foretaste of ObamaCare, Someone Was Killed To Keep "J.R." Alive, Trying To Find Ever New And Inventive Ways To Snatch Bodies, Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death", Good Rule Of Thumb: Reject What Conciliarists Promote, To Avoid Suffering In The Name Of Compassion, Just Obey God, Death To Us All, Choosing To Live In States Of Apoplexy, ObamaDeathCare, Dr. Byrne's Jahi is alive -- praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and an article that attorneys recently tried to use against Dr. Byrne in court in Reno, Nevada, Dr. Paul A. Byrne's Refutation), has been on the front lines defending the lives of those declared "brain death." As Dr. Byrne's article linked above indicates, fifteen year-old Jahi McMath is still alive thanks to the prayers of so many Catholics who have supported his own efforts to provide the medical care that she needs in full accord with that which is due a living human being.
Dr. Byrne was also involved actively in the case of the Aden Hailu, who went into a hospital in Reno, Nevada, for abdominal pain but wound up unconscious after exploratory surgery and declared "brain dead." Although there was a Nevada Supreme Court hearing that was to take place on Friday, January 22, 2016, the Feast of Saints Vincent and Anastasius and, of course, the forty-third anniversary of the dreadful decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Aden died on Monday, January 4, 2016, mooting the legal proceedings. Although the cause of her death is being determined by an autopsy, the results of which may not be known for a few months, she was not "dead" until she stop breathing and her heart ceased to beat.
Here is Dr. Byrne's summary of Aden's case as it stood two months ago, that is, in November of 2015:
November 16, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the ruling of a District Judge that would have allowed doctors at St. Mary's Regional Medical Center in Reno Nevada to remove Aden Hailu from the life supporting ventilator. While this ruling restrains doctors from doing "as they see fit," as the District Court ruled, Aden and her family need a doctor and hospital to treat her. Please contact me immediately if you can help medically. Aden urgently needs a tracheostomy, a PEG tube for nutrition, and thyroid medication.
On April 1, 2015, Aden Hailu, a 20-year-old college student, went to the ER because of abdominal pain. Exploratory abdominal surgery was done but everything was normal. As the surgery was ending, Aden's blood pressure and heart rate went down. Since then Aden has not awakened.
On April 16, 2015, Aden was declared "brain dead." The doctors at St. Mary's Regional Medical Center in Reno, NV informed the family that the ventilator would be removed. Fanuel Gebreyes, father and legal guardian of Aden, believes that Aden, his daughter, is alive. Aden's father petitioned the court to restrain the hospital from removal of life support. The District Court ruled on July 28 that the hospital shall proceed "as they see fit," but did grant an injunction pending an appeal. Gebreyes on August 3 appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which issued a stay of the district court's order and directed St. Mary's not to terminate Hailu's life support pending resolution of the appeal. The ventilator was continued.
The statute for determination of death in Nevada is: "For legal and medical purposes, a person is dead if the person has sustained an irreversible cessation of...all functions of the person's entire brain, including his or her brain stem." NRS 451.007(1). The determination of death "must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." NRS 451.007(2).
From the NV State Supreme Court:
Here, we are asked to decide whether the American Association of Neurology guidelines are considered "accepted medical standards" that satisfy the definition of brain death in NRS 451.007. We conclude that the district court failed to properly consider whether the American Association of Neurology guidelines adequately measure all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, under NRS 451.007 and are considered accepted medical standards by states that have adopted the Uniform Determination of Death Act. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order denying a petition for temporary restraining order and remand....
The briefing and testimony do not establish whether the AAN guidelines adequately measure the extraordinarily broad standard laid out by NRS 451.007, which requires, before brain death can be declared under the UDDA, an "irreversible cessation" of "[a]ll functions of the person's entire brain, including his or her brain stem." NRS 451.007(1) (emphases added). Though courts defer to the medical community to determine the applicable criteria to measure brain functioning, it is the duty of the law to establish the applicable standard that said criteria must meet.
The Nevada State Supreme Court identified that the NV statute and UDDA require "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." Thus, if any brain function exists, the statute has not been fulfilled. The statute is expected to protect Aden from being killed or harmed by the doctors at St. Mary's Regional Medical Center. Included are strong words: "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." The doctors at St. Mary's claim to be following the Guidelines of the American Academy of Neurology and that these Guidelines are the medical standard. The NV Supreme Court is not convinced that the doctors at St. Mary's have fulfilled the statutory requirement of cessation of all functions of the entire brain.
Fanuel Gebreyes, Aden's father, instructed doctors at St. Mary's not to do an apnea test. They did it anyway!
The apnea test is used to test the "function" of the brain stem respiratory center. It involves taking the patient off the ventilator for up to 10 minutes to allow the waste product, carbon dioxide, to rise in the blood. Oxygen may be given via the breathing tube, but that does not allow the waste product of normal metabolism, carbon dioxide, to be eliminated. The respiratory centers in the brain stem normally respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide by triggering breaths. In some patients, the threshold amount at which a breath may be triggered may be increased. However, in a person with injury to the brain, these centers may not be "functioning" optimally even if the cells are not destroyed or dead. The increase in carbon dioxide will further increase swelling in the brain, causing more damage and further decreasing the likelihood of not only "functioning" but of survival of these vital brain stem centers, as well as other parts of the brain. The apnea test, often repeated, and done as "part of a neurological exam" without specific informed consent, will do nothing for the patient with an injured brain except harm them. Essentially it can cause what it purports to test for – dead brain cells that will not function and then allows the diagnosis of "brain death." Once the patient is declared "legally" "dead," the hospital and doctors can ask for/take organs and/or discontinue life support. The family, unless willing to fight, loses decision-making. Gebreyes is fighting.
When the apnea test was done on Aden, she became very acidotic and her carbon dioxide increased greatly. These could have only caused Aden's brain swelling to increase.
More from the NV State Supreme Court:
On May 28, 2015, St. Mary's performed an apnea test, which involved taking Hailu off ventilation support for ten minutes to see if she could breathe on her own; Hailu failed the apnea test, leading St. Mary's to conclude that "[t]his test result confirms Brain Death unequivocally." Based on Hailu's condition, doctor . . . wrote the following in his notes: "Awaiting administration and hospital lawyers for direction re care – withdrawal of Ventilator support indicated NOW in my opinion as brain death unequivocally confirmed." On June 2, 2015, St. Mary's notified Hailu's father and guardian, Fanuel Gebreyes, that it intended to discontinue Hailu's ventilator and other life support. Gebreyes opposed taking Aden off life support and sought judicial relief.
[T]his court [NV Supreme Court] reviews the district court's conclusions of law, including statutory interpretation issues, de novo. Torres v. Nev. Direct Ins. Co., 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 54, 353 P.3d 1202, 1206 (2015). Brain death presents a mixed legal and medical question. Although "it is for [the] law to define the standard of death," courts have deferred to the medical community to determine the applicable criteria for deciding whether brain death is present. In re Welfare of Bowman, 617 P.2d 731, 732 (Wash. 1980). However, the statutory requirements of Nevada's Determination of Death Act that death be determined using "accepted medical standards" and that the Act be applied and construed in a manner "uniform among the states which enact it," NRS 451.007, necessitates a legal analysis regarding what the accepted medical standards are across the country.
The legislative history of NRS 451.007 makes clear that the legislative purpose was to ensure there was no functioning at all of the brain before determining death.
Here the NV Supreme Court identified that doctors must ensure that there is no functioning at all of the entire brain. The Supreme Court went to the legislative history for the word functioning. The Statute in Nevada is the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), which replaced "functioning" with "functions." The statute does not define functions. Doctors can know what a function is, but it is the functioning, or non-functioning, that is measured. Functioning can occur when life (Greek: bios) is present. Absence of functioning occurs as a result of disease and is described as pathological. The root of pathological, pathos (Greek ), means disease. Cessation of functioning can have many causes rooted in disease that interfere with functioning but are not necessarily destruction, disintegration of the brain, or death. The lack of functioning or functions is not necessarily lack of life. When life is not present, the function, functions, and functioning are gone.
The NV Supreme Court asked: "Are the AAN [American Academy of Neurology] guidelines considered 'accepted medical standards,' which adequately measure all functions of a person's entire brain, including the brain stem?
The NV State Supreme Court stated:
[T]he district court and St. Mary's failed to demonstrate that the AAN guidelines are considered "accepted medical standards" that are applied uniformly throughout states that have enacted the UDDA as sufficient to meet the UDDA definition of brain death. . . .
Contrarily, extensive case law demonstrates that at the time states began to adopt the UDDA, the uniformly accepted medical standard that existed was the then so-called Harvard criteria. The Harvard criteria require three steps, followed by a flat EEG as a confirmatory test: (1) unreceptivity and unresponsivity to painful stimuli; (2) no spontaneous movements or spontaneous respiration; and (3) no reflexes, as demonstrated by no ocular movement, no blinking, no swallowing, and fixed and dilated pupils. Ad Hoc Comm. of the Harvard Med. Sch., A Definition of Irreversible Coma, 205 JAMA 337, 337-38 (1968) [hereinafter Harvard Report]; see also In re Welfare of Bowman, 617 P.2d at 737. After the first three steps, the report recommends requiring flat EEGs, which serve as "great confirmatory value." Harvard Report, supra, at 338. "All of the above tests shall be repeated at least 24 hours later with no change." Id.
It appears from a layperson's review of the Harvard criteria versus the AAN guidelines that the AAN guidelines incorporated many of the clinical tests used in the Harvard criteria. 9 See Am. Acad. Of Neurology, Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults, 74 Neurology 1911 (2010). However, the AAN guidelines do not require confirmatory/ancillary testing, such as EEGs. Id. Although the AAN guidelines state that ancillary testing should be ordered "only if clinical examination cannot be fully performed due to patient factors, or if apnea testing is inconclusive or aborted," the AAN's own study recognized that a decade after publication of the guidelines, 84 percent of brain death determinations still included EEG testing. See David M. Greer et al., Am Ass'n of Neurology Enters., Inc., Variability of Brain Death Determination Guidelines in Leading US Neurologic Institutions, 70 Neurology 1, 4 Table 2 (2007).
While the Harvard criteria may not be the newest medical criteria involving brain death, we are not convinced with the record before us that the AAN guidelines have replaced the Harvard criteria as the accepted medical standard for states like Nevada that have enacted the UDDA. We recognize the Legislature's broad definition of "accepted medical standards" to promote "the development and application of more sophisticated diagnostic methods." People v. Eulo, 472 N.Ed.2d 286, 296 n.29 (N.Y. 1984) ("Any attempt to establish a specific procedure might inhibit the development and application of more sophisticated diagnostic methods."). Therefore, we hesitate to limit the criteria to determine brain death "to a fixed point in the past." State v. Guess, 715 A.3d 643, 650 (Conn. 1998) ("We have searched unsuccessfully for evidence that the legislature intended to render immutable the criteria by which to determine death. In the absence of any such indication, we are loath to limit the criteria to a fixed point in the past.").
...[Footnote 11 includes: ] A cursory review of medical research raises concerns about brain death testing comporting with NRS 451.007. See Choi et al., supra, at 826 ("[S]ome features of brain function remain intact after brain death (e.g., posterior pituitary secretion of anti-diuretic hormone and thermoregulation). This raises an inconsistency with the definition of brain death in the UDDA: 'irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.'"); Seema K. Shah, Piercing the Veil: The Limits of Brain Death as a Legal Fiction, 48 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 301, 311-12 (2015) ("Many brain-dead patients still have at least one functioning part of the brain – the hypothalamus, which continues to secrete vasopressin through the posterior pituitary.... [M]any brain-dead patients do not lose all neurological function, as the UDDA and state laws explicitly require to determine brain death."); D. Alan Shewmon, Brain Death or Brain Dying?, 27 J. Child Neurology 4, 5 (2012) ("It has long been recognized that in some cases of clinically diagnosed brain death, certain brain structures may not only be preserved but actually function, such as the hypothalamus (in cases without diabetes insipidus), relay nuclei mediating evoked potentials, and cerebral cortex mediating electroencephalographic activity.").
Laws and medical practice standards and guidelines should reflect objective reality. Neither the UDDA, the Harvard criteria, the AAN guidelines, or the myriad of other criteria used by hospitals and some physicians to declare "brain death" do that because it has never been scientifically validated that "brain death" is true death, because it isn't, it can't be, and it won't be as long as the patient has a beating heart with circulation and respiration, albeit with the aid of a ventilator. The vast majority who study this issue know that. "Brain death" is a utilitarian construct adopted by the legal and medical communities to label a person with a severely injured brain as "dead" in order to legally facilitate organ procurement and/or for the hospital to then be the decision-maker on discontinuation of treatment, including but not limited to use of a ventilator.
The ventilator could be used outside of the hospital intensive care setting, but facilitating treatment and care for either in-home care or at another institution would require a tracheostomy and feeding tube placement. The hospital has thus far refused to give Aden these necessary treatments that would optimize and facilitate ordinary care elsewhere, care which Aiden's father steadfastly is willing to provide. Instead of providing treatment and care to a young woman who suffered serious complications at their institution, they are using their administrative and financial resources to fight a legal battle, clinging to their own choice of "brain death" guidelines.
While the NV State Supreme Court takes on these issues, Aden is alive and needs treatment and care. Please help to find doctors and a hospital that will treat Aden. (Nevada Spreme Court Protects Aden Hailu.)
So many physicians in so many hospitals perform so many needless tests and perform such needless surgery that wind up maiming, if not killing outright, countless numbers of human beings each year. The goal, as noted before, is to cease treatment for those so maimed, not to help them to live. We live at a time in human history when the supposed "pope" has said that he would be an "organ donor" if possible (the conciliar Vatican forbids their "popes" to serve as participants in their own vivisection, although its officials are motivated not by an understanding of the myth of "brain death" but by the desire to preserve an apostate's body for relics). All of this is done, of course, with the full support and approval of Federal, state and local authorities, something that I pointed out in ObamaDeathCare twenty-six months ago. There are few safe refuges from the killing that is done in American hospitals, especially upon those people who are unconscious at the time of their admission, not that being fully conscious as Christopher David Dunn was, obviously, is any guarantee that one will not be killed.
An even more deadly place than hospitals, however, are hospices, which use a combination of drugs that are designed to stop a chronically or terminally ill patient's heart in a short amount of time or a longer period depending upon various circumstances. The facts about the killing centers that are hospices were spelled out and documented in To Avoid Suffering In The Name Of Compassion, which was published on August 8, 2013. I urge each reader to re-read this article as it contains vital information to save one's own life and that of relatives by refusing to submit to "palliative care" that is nothing other than a masqueraded form of outright euthanasia.
We are living at a time when the following words, preached by Bishop Clemens von Galen, the courageous Bishop of Munster, Germany, seventy-five years ago this year in the midst of World War II, apply equally to the so-called countries of the "civilized" world, including the United States of America, as much as they did at the time in Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany:
No: We are concerned with men and women, our fellow creatures, our brothers and sisters! Poor human beings, ill human beings, they are unproductive, if you will. But does that mean that they have lost the right to live? Have you, have I, the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognised by others as productive?
If the principle that men is entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as invalids! If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill “unproductive” fellow-men even though it is at present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients” then the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, the handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will require only a secret order to be issued that the procedure which has been tried and tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other “unproductive” persons, that it should also be applied to those suffering from incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons disabled in industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!
Then no man will be safe: some committee or other will be able to put him on the list of “unproductive” persons, who in their judgment have become “unworthy to live”. And there will be no police to protect him, no court to avenge his murder and bring his murderers to justice.
Who could then have any confidence in a doctor? He might report a patient as unproductive and then be given instructions to kill him! It does not bear thinking of, the moral depravity, the universal mistrust which will spread even in the bosom of the family, if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put into practice. Woe betide mankind, woe betide our German people, if the divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on Sinai amid thunder and lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man's conscience from the beginning, if this commandment is not merely violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished! (Three Sermons in Defiance of the Nazis by Bishop von Galen.)
This is happening with legal impunity and cultural approval right here in the United States of America. We must be aware of the facts as we entrust ourselves entirely to Our Lord as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, making sure to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
We must never compromise on any article of the Catholic Faith, including the precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. We must bear our crosses, no matter whether they be spiritual or bodily (or both!), as befits redeemed creatures who understanding that we must suffer bravely as the sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church to make reparation for our own sins as well as for those of the whole world. This is time of chastisement, which gives us plenty of opportunties to make reparation, especially when we consider that the season of Setuagesima occurs starts in but three days in preparation for the season of Lent, which begins on Ash Wednesday, February 10, 2016 (the Feast of Saint Scholastica is commemorated this year after the orations for Ash Wednesday).
We must have the courage of Saint Agnes, whose feast we celebrate today, to die for the Holy Faith if called upon to do so, and to be willing to die the death of white martyrdom by refusing to concede anything to falsehood, whether on the level of supernatural faith or the truths governing the existence of our phsical bodies, at any time for any reason whatsoever:
This is a virgin's birthday; let us then follow the example of her chastity. It is a Martyr's birthday; let us then offer sacrifices. It is the birthday of the holy Agnes; let men then be filled with wonder, little ones with hope, married women with awe, and the unmarried with emulation. But how shall I set forth the glory of her whose very name is an utterance of praise? It seemeth to me that this being, holy beyond her years, and strong beyond human nature, received the name of Agnes, not as an earthly designation, but as a revelation from God of what she was to be. For this name Agnes is from the Greek, and being interpreted, signifieth Pure. So that this saintly maiden is known by the very title of Chastity and when I have added thereto the word Martyr, I have said enough. She needeth not the praise which we could utter, but do not. None is more praiseworthy than she for whose praise all mouths are fitted. As many as name her, so many praise her, by the noble title of martyr.
We learn by tradition that this holy martyr testified in the thirteenth year of her age. We will pass by the foul cruelty which did not spare her tender years, to contemplate the great power of her faith, whereby she overcame the weakness of childhood, and witnessed a good confession. Her little body was hardly big enough to give play to the instruments of their cruelty, but if they could scarce sheathe their swords in her slight frame, they found in her that which laughed the power of the sword to scorn. She had no fear when she found herself grasped by the bloody hands of the executioners. She was unmoved when they dragged her with clanging chains. Hardly entered on life, she stood fully prepared to die. She quailed not when the weapons of the angry soldiery were pointed at her breast. If they forced her against her will to approach the altars of devils, she could stretch forth her hands to Christ amid the very flames which consumed the idolatrous offerings, and mark on the heathen shrine the victorious Cross of the Lord. She was ready to submit her neck and hands to the iron shackles, but they were too big to clasp her slender limbs. Behold a strange martyr! She is not grown of stature to fight the battle, but she is ripe for the triumph; too weak to run in the race, and yet clearly entitled to the prize; unable from her age to be aught but a learner, she is found a teacher.
She went to the place of execution a virgin, with more willing and joyful footsteps than she would have gone with to the nuptial chamber as a bride. The spectators were all in tears, and she alone did not weep. They beheld her with wonder, laying down that life of which she had hardly begun to taste the sweets, as freely as though she had drained it to the dregs and was weary of its burden. All men were amazed when they saw her whose years had not made her her own mistress, arise as a witness for the Deity. Consider how many threats her murderer used to excite her fears, how many arguments to shake her resolution, how many promises to bribe her to accept his offers of marriage. But she answered him It is an insult to Him Whom I have wedded to expect me to comply. He That first chose me, His will I be. Headsman, why waitest thou? Perish the body which draweth the admiration of eyes from which I would turn away. She stood, prayed, and then bent her neck for the stroke. Now mightest thou have seen the murderer trembling as though he himself were the criminal, the executioner's hand shake, and the faces of them that stood by turn white at the sight of her position, and all the while herself remain without fear. This one victim brought God a double offering, that of her purity, and that of her faith. She preserved virginity and achieved martyrdom. (The Life and Martyrdom of Saint Agnes as found in The Divine Office: Matins, January 21.)'
Our own faith must be as pure and as strong as that of Saint Agnes, remembering these words that Our Lord spoke as recorded in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew:
 The brother also shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death.  And you shall be hated by all men for my name' s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.  And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.  The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his lord.  It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?
 Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known.  That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops.  And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.  Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father.  But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
 Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows.  Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.  But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.  Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.  For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
 And a man' s enemies shall be they of his own household.  He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.  And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.  He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.  He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. (Matthew 10: 21-40.)
Adhere to the truths of the Catholic Faith.
Be prepared to suffer for the truths of the Holy Faith, making sure to say a perfect Act of Contrition in times of spiritual and bodily danger, praying to Our Lady also for the conversion of all those in the world—whether in the government or in the death care industry—to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow spiritual robber barons do not accept, which is why they celebrate all falsehood, both supernatural and natural, thus leading souls into Mortal Sins and into becoming accomplices in their own execution in supposed "health-care" facilities.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Agnes, pray for us.
Moral monsters must triumph in any world where men and their nations do not live under the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church.