"Wait! I Don't Want To Die After All!"

On the heels of the tragic death of Trisha Duguay after no hydration or food for 58 days, I decided it's time to work on educating people of the truths scientifically and spiritually of euthanasia. Having "been there, done that" with my mom and dad under my full time care in my home, and with a hospice nurse later, I have learned a few things that some might benefit from. Just this evening, I came across this article, "Wait! I Don't Want To Die After All!" written by Jimmy Akin, published in the National Catholic Register. I wish to share this with you, followed by links to the story of Trisha Duguay.

++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/wait-i-dont-want-to-die-after-all/

"Wait! I Don't Want To Die After All!"

I’ve been thinking about writing a book to help people dealing with end-of-life situations. Between the deaths of my wife and my parents and other family members, I’ve been through enough of them that I’ve had to think hard about the spiritual, moral, and evangelistic aspects of these situations.

If I am able to write such a book, one aspect that I will definitely cover is the need for humility and caution in assessing the sick person’s will to live.

Very frequently these days people end up in situations where they cannot speak for themselves and clearly communicate what kind of care they want or whether they even want care. In such situations, family members are typically consulted, and this can cause a rift inside the family as they try to figure out what their loved one would want.

This is one of the most painful kinds of conversations for family members to have, and it if goes the wrong way, it can permanently injure relations in the family. “You killed Dad!” or “You wouldn’t let Mom die with dignity!” are things that can haunt families for years after the event, permanently turning people against each other. (I am very thankful to say, however, that my own family was able to get through the difficult days without such damage being done—and in spite of the fact that I’m the only Catholic in my immediate family.)

Sooner or later the “Do you want to pull the plug?” question is going to be presented to virtually every family, and it’s good to be prepared for it.

In some cases the patient may have left explicit instructions, but often not. Sometimes family members will remember (or think they remember) things the patient said in conversation about what they would want if something terrible happened. Other times they won’t have such memories and will simply rely on their feeling of what the loved one would want.

Regardless of which of these is the case, there is reason for great caution here. The stakes are, after all, life and death.

But there is another reason for caution: None of these things—from explicit written instructions to the vague feeling of what someone would want—is a good indicator of what they actually would want now that they are in the situation.

Certainly, pre-written instructions are a better indicator than a gut feeling assessed in a moment of crisis. If someone has taken the trouble to write instructions in advance then those instructions are more likely to reflect the settled views of person in question. But the thing is . . . views change. Particularly when we’re put in a dramatically different life situation.

There is also a danger of the loved ones, without fully realizing it, simply taking the easy way out—regardless of what that easy way is for them.

For some people the easy way would be for the loved one not to want to continue treatment. Under the pressure of watching a loved one dying they are emotionally worn out and in pain and they are ready for it to be over. It’s not that they want their loved one to die. But they can’t stand seeing the loved one suffer and want the mutual agony to be done with.

This is a human response.

But it poses a danger of leading the relative to believe what is convenient rather than what is true. In this case what is convenient would be for the loved one to want to discontinue treatment, and so the relative starts feeling certain that the loved one would never want to live this way. That would be preposterous. Of course they would just want to let go and die in peace.

And if there are a few dimly-remembered conversations that might support this view then they will be taken as proof positive. There even might be a little exaggeration used to help convince doubtful relatives who are also being consulted.

But even if that isn’t the case. Even if the person clearly expressed a preference, that preference may no longer apply.

A good illustration of that is the case of the British man in this news story from July:

Richard Rudd was paralyzed and brain damaged after being injured in a motorcycle accident last October and suffering subsequent medical complications. Treated in Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England his family thought they knew he would not want to live.

“We said that knowing Richard, there was no way in a million years that he would want to live with his injuries,” his father told the Daily Telegraph. Rudd had told his daughter that if he suffered a severe injury in an accident like a car crash, he “wouldn’t want to go on,” Rudd’s father reported.

Rudd’s father gave permission for treatment to be withdrawn. As hospital staff gathered around Rudd’s bed, they noticed he was able to blink his eyes for the first time in several weeks.

The doctors asked Rudd three times whether he wanted to continue to live. He blinked “yes” in reply to each of their three questions.

Rudd was lucky, to say the least. No doubt there are vast numbers of people who aren’t.

But his case is illustrative of the fact that someone—when feeling able and healthy—could decide that they don’t want to live if it means the kind of existence Rudd is facing, yet when they’re actually in that situation they decide that they do want to live after all.

Rudd’s case is thus a valuable cautionary tale: We must recognize that past statements are not a good guide to what someone would actually want in this kind of situation. And especially we must not allow ourselves to believe what is convenient for us—the relatives— and what will help ease our own suffering.

This goes both ways, though.

Just as a person can change his mind about wanting to die, so he can change his mind about wanting to live.

There may be—and no doubt are—many people who when healthy and active think, “I’d want them to do everything to keep me alive, no matter what shape I’m in.” Yet, when they get down to the end of live, they may change their mind and say, “You know, I’m ready to go. I’m ready for this suffering to be over.”

In the same way, if they can’t speak for themselves, their relatives may make the same mistake of believing what is convenient rather than what is true. There are people—not as many as their used to be given our society’s growing death ethic—for whom the easy thing would be to keep the loved one alive as long as possible, for any number of reasons. They may find themselves thinking, “Of course this person would want to live! They would want everything done to keep them alive!” And perhaps the person even said this in the past, though now the person would say differently.

The point is that people’s minds can change and that we must cross examine our feelings when we are being asked these questions. We must make sure we are not just choosing what is easy and convenient for us to believer rather than focusing on what is true.

I’m afraid that I don’t have a magic solution, here. I wish I did!

Obviously, committing an immoral procedure—such as deliberately killing the patient or withholding nutrition and hydration that they would be capable of assimilating—is off the table. And, if the patient can’t speak for himself then previously written instructions are the best available guide, followed by clear memories of what the patient said, followed by fuzzy ones, followed by gut instincts. And the default should be in favor of preserving life.

But there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the question of when to end treatment. All too often a judgment call is involved.

The case of Mr. Rudd from England highlights the fact that people’s opinions can change and that we need to be cautious—and prayerful—in making these decisions.

What are your thoughts? (end of article)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And now for links so that you may read about Trisha.

The first the world heard about Trisha came from the Atlanta Journal http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/update-bride-in-coma-596116.html

An update on Trisha http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/update-bride-in-coma-596116.html

Notice of her death http://networkedblogs.com/8j7BN

And the final episode http://www.ajc.com/news/bride-in-coma-27-620657.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although painted by the Atlanta Journal as a romance novel, the facts are that there is no real dignity in starving to death or in dehydration. There is much to learn about this whole area and it behooves each and every one of us to know all the facts, not to run on emotion. This touches everyone's life.

Pro-Life Is Not A Single Issue : Know The Truth About Another Pro-Life Issue

Kate Adamson

In 1995 at the age of thirty-three, Kate Adamson suffered a double brainstem stroke Not yet availablecompletely paralyzing her and leaving her unable even to blink her eyes. Like Terri Schiavo, Kate most basic care of food and water was removed for a full eight days. Fortunately, her feeding tube was restored due to the intervention of her husband.

Author of "Paralyzed but not Powerless", Kate now travels the country as the only professional speaker to have recovered from Locked-in Syndrome.




http://www.terrisfight.org/index.php is the official website of the Terri Schindler Schaivo Foundation, that helps families fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. And that pro-life issue is assisted suicide and euthanasia and NO one is exempt from this one IF you or a loved one is deemed not enjoying enough "quality of life."

Additionally, this most certainly concerns the elderly as well as the infirm, injured, ill, and marginalized generally.

The problem is this: most of us are ignorant to the scientific terminology, the dying process, doublespeak of the "they are better off" mindset, and more. This website is one way of being sure that YOU are not ignorant. You may need to decide these decisions and NO one, as I said, can escape the possibility it could happen to yourself or someone you love at any moment.

Brain dead...what is that really? How do you know? It's a term loosely used. What is a "vegetable"? What really happens to the dying person in the 2 weeks it takes for all their body to shut down? Does it hurt? What is quality of life anyway?

Do you want the truth? Go here and see if for youself http://terrisfight.org/pages.php?page_id=37

Just one example of what this website has to offer to educate yourselves for that time, if that time arrives:

April 25, 2009 (News Alert)

Saturday our special guest will be award-winning author and attorney Wesley J. Smith.Not yet available

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

Attorney Smith has testified as an expert witness in front of federal and state legislative committees, and has counseled government leaders internationally about matters of mutual concern.

Attorney Smith is a frequent guest and friend of America’s Lifeline bringing us up to date on all of the critical issues we talk about each week that are facing our nation today.

So join us this Saturday at 3 PM ET on Talk Radio 860 WGUL for America's Lifeline!


At this website, you are kept abreast of latest news and legislature alerts, for example:
News Alert! Second International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Quadriplegic Child Found Dead in Storage Facility
Vermont Introduces Assisted Suicide Bill
Final Exit Network is a Death Cult

And upcoming seminars in your area:
5/3 Hankinson, North Dakota
5/14 Reno, Nevada
5/29 - 5/30 Landsdowne, Virginia
6/18 - 6/20 Charlotte, NC
6/26 Hilo, Hawaii


I urge you to study assisted suicide and euthanasia and learn it well. Having taken care of my mother full time at home, I am so thankful I knew about these things.

Please visit and learn all you can....please for the sake of your family.

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says Foreign Law OK for Legal Decisions

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Says Foreign Law OK for Legal Decisions
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In comments that signal enormous concerns for the pro-life movement, pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has conducted an interview with the New York Times in which she explains why she believes the rulings of foreign judges should be considered in interpreting US constitutional and statutory law. The concern for the pro-life community is that the use of foreign laws and rulings by international courts could promote abortion and euthanasia in the United States by relying on courts and laws that more strongly support those practices. "Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked. She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court. The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is "probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court." There is one reason for that, she said: "You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others." Wesley J. Smith, a bioethics attorney and euthanasia watchdog responds: “We are supposed to care whether Canadian rulings--which hew sharply to the left--are cited by foreign judges more than those of the US Supreme Court? We are supposed to care if another country's courts interprets its laws and constitution the way we do ours? Our judges are supposed to be diplomats to make other countries feel we respect their views? Baloney. This is an excuse for a power grab.” Smith says Ginsburg and her pro-abortion colleagues want to “remake society according to their own personal views.” He concludes: “The foreign cases that the former head of the ACLU Ginsberg cites will only be the ones with which she agrees--generally from Western Europe or Canada, that reflect her leftist views.

Idaho ! Wake Up and Save Your People !

Today's News & Views
March 10, 2009

Fast-Moving Idaho Bill Would Allow Hospitals to
Deny Life-Saving Treatment AGAINST THE WILL of Patients and Families
Part One of Two

Editor's note. Be sure also to post this TN&V on your social networking pages by going to www.nrlc.org/News_and_views/Mar09/nv031009.html and clicking on the "Share" button

A bill that would effectively create a "duty to die" has unanimously passed the Idaho Senate and is scheduled for a House committee hearing this Thursday.

While "right-to-die" advocates used to say they were defending the rights of patients and families to make medical treatment choices, in recent years the claim has been that doctors and hospitals need not provide life-saving medical treatment, food, or fluids chosen by patients and their families if the health care providers, imposing their own values, think the patients' disabilities make their "quality of life" inadequate.

As the Powell Center report on NRLC's website, "Will Your Advance Directive Be Followed" [www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/AdvancedDirectives/ReportRevised2007.pdf] documents, this approach is hidden under the euphemisms that providers should be able to deny "medically inappropriate" or "futile" treatment--terms carefully left undefined, but deadly in practice.

Now Idaho's Senate Bill 1114 would establish a procedure, adapted from a controversial Texas law, under which patients or their family members would be given only 24 hours notice before having to appear before a facility-appointed "ethics committee."

After hearing from them and the doctors who advocate the patient's death, the ethics committee would have authority to decide against life-preserving treatment.

In that case, treatment would be provided for up to 15 days while transfer to a willing provider was sought. While the patient or family could seek a court-ordered extension, it would be granted only if they could prove a "reasonable probability" of finding a willing provider within the extension period. There could be no appeal of the decision to deny treatment itself.

Although the option to transfer may seem to help the patient, experience in Texas has shown that once one institution has refused to treat, it is normally extremely difficult to find other facilities willing to buck "medical solidarity," or conduct a serious independent review of the facts and accept transfer.

Moreover, Idaho facilities would NOT EVEN BE REQUIRED TO USE THE ETHICS COMMITTEE/TRANSFER procedure. The bill specifically makes it "voluntary" for each facility and states,

"Nothing in this chapter shall require a health care facility to establish or utilize an ethics committee, nor shall this chapter require a health care provider or surrogate decision maker to submit a matter to the ethics committee before withdrawing or withholding health care to a patient."

In short, the bill completely overrides patient and family rights, instead giving essentially absolute immunity to health care providers who involuntarily deny life-saving treatment, food and fluids so as to bring about the deaths of those patients they in their sole judgment consider too disabled to be worth saving.

Wesley Smith has an excellent expose of this scary legislation on his blog at www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/duty-to-die-in-idaho-legislature-close.html

Whether involuntary euthanasia comes to Idaho may well depend on how many of the state's citizens contact their representatives to impress on them how essential it is to oppose SB 1114 in its current form.

What Is Happening 4 Years After Terri Schiavo's Deydration

As for my column, which you will find below in English and Spanish, we are approaching the fourth anniversary of the death of Terri Schiavo, who was killed by deliberate, court-sanctioned dehydration. March 31 is “Terri’s Day,” and we urge individuals, families, parishes, dioceses, and pro-life groups to observe that day (see www.TerrisDay.org for details). Please spread the word!
+++++++++

Blessing the Grave -- Fr. Frank Pavone

I had the privilege of blessing the grave of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, who was murdered on March 31, 2005 by dehydration. Her grave is not far from the place where she died, and where people from around the world had gathered to protest and pray.

Those who visit the gravestone, however, will notice something highly unusual. While on most graves there is an inscription of two dates – when the person was born and when he or she died – on Terri’s there are three. Here’s exactly what the grave says:

Born December 3, 1963

Departed this Earth February 25, 1990

At Peace March 31, 2005

The whole world knows that she died on March 31, 2005. National and global media were present at the scene for days, covering every detail. Media were present again when I preached at her funeral mass. We know when she died.

But her gravestone has become a pulpit for the euthanasia movement. Those who killed her are now using her grave as a platform for their twisted ideology. What they are trying to say is that once her brain was injured in 1990 and she was no longer functioning like most of us, she wasn’t one of us anymore. She “departed this earth.”

This is actually a variation on an ancient heresy, which says that we are really spirits inhabiting a body. Terri couldn’t communicate normally. So, her “spirit” must have left her. The body was just a shell left behind. Those who believe she really “departed this earth” in 1990 can therefore pretend it was OK to kill her in 2005. After all, it wasn’t really her. She was already gone.

This is heresy, because Christianity teaches that we are a unity of body and soul, not simply a soul “using” a body. The body matters. What we do to the body, we do to the person.

Moreover, the gravestone inscription is a deep insult to all who are disabled, and to all those who love and care for them. Should they be considered already dead, too? Are we just wasting our time caring for them? Euthanasia advocates would have us think so.

A recent news story about a disabled unborn child quoted one as saying, “There’s no human life there.” Isn’t that the same idea? They think the baby has already “departed this earth,” so they don’t hesitate to abort the body.

As I blessed Terri’s grave, I also prayed that God’s people would be kept safe from this falsehood. And I recalled being in Terri’s room the day she died. I remembered her face, dehydrated from not having had a drop of water in two weeks. I recalled seeing the flowers, inches away, on her night table. They were immersed in water. And as I left the grave, I gave a final glance to the vase of flowers that was standing by the stone.

This column can be found online at http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2009/09-01-26blessinggrave.htm

Fr. Frank's columns are podcast. See http://www.priestsforlife.org/podcast

Comments on this column? Priests for Life, PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314; mailto:mail@priestsforlife.org; Phone: 718-980-4400; Fax: 718-980-6515

Bendiciendo la Tumba

Yo tuve el privilegio de bendecir la tumba de Terri Schindler-Schiavo, quien fue asesinada por deshidratación el 31 de marzo del 2005. Su sepulcro no queda lejos del lugar donde murió, donde gente de todo el mundo se reunió para protestar y rezar.

Quienes lo visitan notarán algo muy inusual en la lápida. Mientras que en la mayoría de los tumbas hay una inscripción con dos fechas, la del nacimiento y la de fallecimiento, en la de Terri hay tres. He aquí exactamente lo que dice la tumba:

Nació el 3 de diciembre de 1963

Dejó este mundo el 25 de febrero de 1990

En paz el 31 de marzo del 2005

Todo el mundo sabe que ella murió el 31 de marzo del 2005. Los medios nacionales de comunicación y los globales estuvieron presentes en la escena durante días, cubriendo cada detalle. Los medios también estuvieron presentes cuando prediqué en su funeral. Sabemos cuando murió.

Pero su lápida se ha convertido en un púlpito para el movimiento a favor de la eutanasia. Quienes la mataron ahora usan su tumba como una plataforma para su ideología perversa. Lo que están tratando de decir es que una vez que su cerebro se dañó en 1990 y dejó de funcionar como la mayoría de nosotros, dejó de ser una de nosotros. “Dejó este mundo.”

Verdaderamente, esta es una variación de una antigua herejía, que dice que realmente somos espíritus habitando en un cuerpo. Terri no se podía comunicar normalmente. Luego, su “espíritu” debía haberla abandonado. El cuerpo era sólo un caparazón que quedó. Quienes creen que realmente “dejó este mundo” en 1990 pretenden, por lo tanto, que estuvo bien matarla en el 2005. Después de todo, no era realmente ella. Ya se había ido.

Esto es una herejía, porque el cristianismo enseña que somos una unidad de cuerpo y alma, no simplemente un alma “usando” un cuerpo. El cuerpo importa. Lo que le hacemos al cuerpo, se lo hacemos a la persona.

Más aún, la inscripción en la lápida es un insulto a todos los discapacitados y a todos aquellos que los aman y cuidan de ellos. ¿Debe considerarse también que ya han muerto? ¿Estamos perdiendo el tiempo al cuidarlos? Los promotores de la eutanasia quieren que pensemos eso.

Una noticia reciente sobre un niño por nacer discapacitado citaba a alguien que decía: “Allí no hay vida humana.” ¿No es acaso la misma idea? Creen que el bebé ya “dejó la tierra,” por eso no dudan en abortar al cuerpo.

Mientras bendecía la tumba de Terri, también recé para que el pueblo de Dios fuera protegido de esta mentira. Me acordé de haber estado en el cuarto de Terri el día que murió. Recordé su cara, deshidratada porque no había tomado ni una gota de agua en dos semanas. Recordé haber visto unas flores, apenas a unas pulgadas de distancia, sobre su mesita de noche. Estaban inmersas en agua. Y cuando me alejaba de la tumba, le di una última mirada al recipiente con flores que estaba junto a la tumba.

Esta columna se puede encontrar en la pagina de Internet http://www.priestsforlife.org/spanish/09-01-26span.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let me also provide you with the upcoming schedules for our own TV shows and Radio programming:

Hear us on EWTN radio on Catholic Connection with Teresa Tomeo. Fr. Frank Pavone is her guest every Wednesday at 9:30am ET and Janet Morana is her guest every Friday at 9:10am ET. For radio station information and to listen to the live show on the internet, go to www.avemariaradio.net

Defending Life: Watch on EWTN every Friday at 10pm ET and Saturday at 2:30am ET. Listen on EWTN radio every Friday at 1am ET, Saturday at 6:30pm ET and Sunday at 5am ET. For more information or to listen online go to www.ewtn.com

February 6-8: The Abortion Child Abuse Connection. Why has child abuse skyrocketed in America? In this program Dr. Philip Ney explores the mutual relationship between abortion and child abuse/neglect.

February 13-15: Abortion Survivor Syndrome. Our youth carry a heavy burden - abortion survivor syndrome. There are various types of survivors. Dr. Philip Ney explores some of the symptoms and the road to healing.

Gospel of Life: The shows air on "Angel One" Channel 101 on Sky Angel IPTV and channel 262 on Dish Network every Wednesday at 11:30pm. It also airs on Catholic Familyland (www.familyland.tv) - Sunday at 1am, Monday at 9am, Wednesday at 3:30am and Thursday at 11:30 pm. (All Times Eastern). Listen to Gospel of Life episodes online at www.gospeloflife.com

Week of February 1: Ask Fr. Frank. Fr. Frank answers some common questions we have received from our viewers.
Week of February 8: Reflections from Alveda King, Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Please tune in and spread the word! In fact, you can help us – and your whole parish -- by asking your pastor to place in the parish bulletin an announcement about our TV shows. Thanks in advance!

Blessings and prayers,

Fr. Frank Pavone
+++ +++ +++

Blessing the Grave -- Fr. Frank Pavone

I had the privilege of blessing the grave of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, who was murdered on March 31, 2005 by dehydration. Her grave is not far from the place where she died, and where people from around the world had gathered to protest and pray.

Those who visit the gravestone, however, will notice something highly unusual. While on most graves there is an inscription of two dates – when the person was born and when he or she died – on Terri’s there are three. Here’s exactly what the grave says:

Born December 3, 1963

Departed this Earth February 25, 1990

At Peace March 31, 2005

The whole world knows that she died on March 31, 2005. National and global media were present at the scene for days, covering every detail. Media were present again when I preached at her funeral mass. We know when she died.

But her gravestone has become a pulpit for the euthanasia movement. Those who killed her are now using her grave as a platform for their twisted ideology. What they are trying to say is that once her brain was injured in 1990 and she was no longer functioning like most of us, she wasn’t one of us anymore. She “departed this earth.”

This is actually a variation on an ancient heresy, which says that we are really spirits inhabiting a body. Terri couldn’t communicate normally. So, her “spirit” must have left her. The body was just a shell left behind. Those who believe she really “departed this earth” in 1990 can therefore pretend it was OK to kill her in 2005. After all, it wasn’t really her. She was already gone.

This is heresy, because Christianity teaches that we are a unity of body and soul, not simply a soul “using” a body. The body matters. What we do to the body, we do to the person.

Moreover, the gravestone inscription is a deep insult to all who are disabled, and to all those who love and care for them. Should they be considered already dead, too? Are we just wasting our time caring for them? Euthanasia advocates would have us think so.

A recent news story about a disabled unborn child quoted one as saying, “There’s no human life there.” Isn’t that the same idea? They think the baby has already “departed this earth,” so they don’t hesitate to abort the body.

As I blessed Terri’s grave, I also prayed that God’s people would be kept safe from this falsehood. And I recalled being in Terri’s room the day she died. I remembered her face, dehydrated from not having had a drop of water in two weeks. I recalled seeing the flowers, inches away, on her night table. They were immersed in water. And as I left the grave, I gave a final glance to the vase of flowers that was standing by the stone.

This column can be found online at http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2009/09-01-26blessinggrave.htm

Fr. Frank's columns are podcast. See http://www.priestsforlife.org/podcast

Comments on this column? Priests for Life, PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314; mailto:mail@priestsforlife.org; Phone: 718-980-4400; Fax: 718-980-6515

Bendiciendo la Tumba

Yo tuve el privilegio de bendecir la tumba de Terri Schindler-Schiavo, quien fue asesinada por deshidratación el 31 de marzo del 2005. Su sepulcro no queda lejos del lugar donde murió, donde gente de todo el mundo se reunió para protestar y rezar.

Quienes lo visitan notarán algo muy inusual en la lápida. Mientras que en la mayoría de los tumbas hay una inscripción con dos fechas, la del nacimiento y la de fallecimiento, en la de Terri hay tres. He aquí exactamente lo que dice la tumba:

Nació el 3 de diciembre de 1963

Dejó este mundo el 25 de febrero de 1990

En paz el 31 de marzo del 2005

Todo el mundo sabe que ella murió el 31 de marzo del 2005. Los medios nacionales de comunicación y los globales estuvieron presentes en la escena durante días, cubriendo cada detalle. Los medios también estuvieron presentes cuando prediqué en su funeral. Sabemos cuando murió.

Pero su lápida se ha convertido en un púlpito para el movimiento a favor de la eutanasia. Quienes la mataron ahora usan su tumba como una plataforma para su ideología perversa. Lo que están tratando de decir es que una vez que su cerebro se dañó en 1990 y dejó de funcionar como la mayoría de nosotros, dejó de ser una de nosotros. “Dejó este mundo.”

Verdaderamente, esta es una variación de una antigua herejía, que dice que realmente somos espíritus habitando en un cuerpo. Terri no se podía comunicar normalmente. Luego, su “espíritu” debía haberla abandonado. El cuerpo era sólo un caparazón que quedó. Quienes creen que realmente “dejó este mundo” en 1990 pretenden, por lo tanto, que estuvo bien matarla en el 2005. Después de todo, no era realmente ella. Ya se había ido.

Esto es una herejía, porque el cristianismo enseña que somos una unidad de cuerpo y alma, no simplemente un alma “usando” un cuerpo. El cuerpo importa. Lo que le hacemos al cuerpo, se lo hacemos a la persona.

Más aún, la inscripción en la lápida es un insulto a todos los discapacitados y a todos aquellos que los aman y cuidan de ellos. ¿Debe considerarse también que ya han muerto? ¿Estamos perdiendo el tiempo al cuidarlos? Los promotores de la eutanasia quieren que pensemos eso.

Una noticia reciente sobre un niño por nacer discapacitado citaba a alguien que decía: “Allí no hay vida humana.” ¿No es acaso la misma idea? Creen que el bebé ya “dejó la tierra,” por eso no dudan en abortar al cuerpo.

Mientras bendecía la tumba de Terri, también recé para que el pueblo de Dios fuera protegido de esta mentira. Me acordé de haber estado en el cuarto de Terri el día que murió. Recordé su cara, deshidratada porque no había tomado ni una gota de agua en dos semanas. Recordé haber visto unas flores, apenas a unas pulgadas de distancia, sobre su mesita de noche. Estaban inmersas en agua. Y cuando me alejaba de la tumba, le di una última mirada al recipiente con flores que estaba junto a la tumba.

Esta columna se puede encontrar en la pagina de Internet http://www.priestsforlife.org/spanish/09-01-26span.htm

Obama Invited to the March for Life

Obama Invited to the March for Life

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

WASHINGTON, DC, January 22, 2009 (LifeSIteNews.com) - A letter delivered to President-Elect Obama on January 15 from president of the March for Life, Nellie Grey, and the March for Life Fund Board of Directors, invited the President to speak to the assembled throngs at the 36th annual March for Life Rally today. But with the participants of the March already making their way through the streets of Washington or completing the March route, following the early afternoon speeches, it seems that the president has declined the invitation.

Explaining the reason for the invitation, the letter stated: "America needs your strong leadership as President of all of the people to stop the intentional killing of an estimated 3,000 preborn boys and girls each day and the brutalizing of mind, heart and body of pregnant mothers.

"This evil continues because some public officials and other citizens are indifferent to the fatal errors of Roe v. Wade and the critical need to overturn the illicit Roe v. Wade.

"So, on January 22, 2009, we prolifers will again peacefully March for Life in our Nation’s capital.”

The conclusion of the invitation again asks the President to participate: "As President of all the people, please join us prolifers as we March for Life for love of God, of our born and preborn Neighbors, including abortionists, and of our Country."

With this year's attendance at the March for Life expected to surpass last year's staggering 225,000, the event organizers were hopeful that President Obama would follow the example of President Bush, who was accustomed to speak to the March for Life rally via telephone to express his support.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews during the preparation for this year's March for Life, Nellie Grey discussed the effort to show the true face of abortion to a president who promises to abolish all legal abortion restrictions through the infamous Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

"We will ask him," Grey said, "Have you seen an abortion? Have you seen a child who has been subjected to abortion?" Gray pointed out that she would also want the new President to know "that on the day of his inauguration, an estimated 3,000 children will be killed and the body and mind of their mothers will be traumatized that day."

Asked what she would want Obama's first impression to be of the pro-life movement in America, Gray told LSN, "I definitely want him (Obama) to see that Americans ... are telling him that this is our country, and our country does not kill innocent human beings. And now we are at the point of killing 50 million innocent human beings - that's genocide. The reason for the March for Life is to assure that in history no one will be able to say, 'Why didn't those people stand up and do something?'"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Link to March for Life invitation to President Obama: http://www.marchforlife.org/content/view/38/

Invitation to President-Elect Obama Print E-mail
President-Elect Barack Obama

The White House

Washington, DC January 15, 2009

Dear Mr. President-Elect,

I am pleased to extend this invitation from the March for Life Fund Board of Directors and from thousands of prolife Americans as we look forward to the memorable occasion of your inauguration. We request that you come to speak to us at the 36th annual March for Life Rally on Thursday, Noon, January 22, 2009 at the Mall and 4th Street NW. Why? Because America needs your strong leadership as President of all of the people to stop the intentional killing of an estimated 3,000 preborn boys and girls each day and the brutalizing of mind, heart and body of pregnant mothers. This evil continues because some public officials and other citizens are indifferent to the fatal errors of Roe v. Wade and the critical need to overturn the illicit Roe v. Wade. So, on January 22, 2009, we prolifers will again peacefully March for Life in our Nation’s capital with the theme: "REMEMBER — The Life Principles mean ‘Equal Care’ with No Exception!"

What Are the Life Principles? The March for Life drew up and adopted the principles in 1974 as a positive response to Roe v. Wade errors. The Life Principles are summarized immediately below. They focus on the fact that each human life begins at fertilization, and society must provide equal care for the right to life of each born and preborn human. The Life Principles are based on law of God and Man: Thou Shalt Not Kill, and begin with a sentence adapted from our Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all human beings are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which is the right to life . . .."

The Life Principles then set the duty of every human in society and of society as a whole to preserve and protect the right to life from each human’s beginning at fertilization and throughout the natural continuum of life without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency.

The Life Principles conclude with an equal care provision: "When two or more human beings are in a situation in which their lives are mutually endangered, all available ordinary means and reasonable efforts shall be used to preserve and to protect the life of each and every human so endangered."

We know that a doctor may not be able to save the life of each patient. An innocent human may die, but must never be killed. Thus, rather than using an "exception clause" to try to authorize anyone intentionally to kill an innocent preborn, America must provide equal care for both a pregnant mother and her preborn child.

No Exception! No Compromise! What does this mean? It means that a government or a person does not own the unalienable right to life of another human, and does not have capacity to authorize anyone intentionally to kill an innocent human with impunity. We can correct Roe v. Wade errors with education focused on 1) the fact that a human is in existence at fertilization, and 2) society’s duty is to provide equal care for both a pregnant mother and her preborn child. This theme calls each American – prolife and pro-abortion alike – to free ourselves from the evils of abortion. Moral and civil laws are based on sanctity of human life and command each human not to shed innocent blood.
Each American has a personal duty to God, Self, Neighbor and Country to defend by word and deed against abortion evils, because it is the inescapable right thing to do.

History tells us that this duty to protect the right to life of each human in existence at fertilization was not always carried out as it should have been. Our own country suffers the evils of slavery, the Nazi era, and more. Both church and state officials often apologize today for past errors when heinous things were done and when necessary proper things were not done. Abortion evil in America is error which officials and citizenry of both church and state have a duty to stop and can unite to stop. The dreadful killing goes on because abortionists and media keep the innocent blood of preborns out-of-sight, which keeps many Americans so passive to the evil of killing that they tolerate or even support a choice to murder preborns. Killing innocents is a crime against humanity as we learn from principles used by Americans in judging at the Nuremberg Trials. There is no common ground or "moderate" position between "to kill or not to kill."
It is an anomaly for an American to enjoy personal civil rights and then participate directly or indirectly in the intentional killing of even one preborn human – or, for public and private officials to favor legislation, persons, or positions which make exceptions to the Life Principles and approve of murdering a preborn human with impunity. Americans must not shirk their duty to protect preborns today and force Americans to apologize tomorrow for the massacre of innocents which we can stop today. The offense of innocent blood wreaks havoc on the moral, political, economic and social fiber of both individual citizens and our country. By abortion, a pregnant mother is hurt and a preborn is a torn-apart corpse. Each prolifer is repulsed that America tolerates this home-grown violence to humans. It is equally as heinous intentionally to kill a tiny preborn human at fertilization as to kill a larger preborn or an innocent born human.

Mr. Obama, we hear about genocide in far-off lands, and America is asked to help stop that evil. Certainly America wants to help stop all genocide evil – foreign and domestic. Since the illicit Roe v. Wade, America suffers genocide of an estimated 50,000,000 preborn boys and girls. And, since the March for Life Rally last year, an estimated 1,300,000 preborn humans have been intentionally killed out-of-sight – without coverage by media or a celebrity. An abortion killing site is within walking distance of the White House. As President of all the people, please join us prolifers as we March for Life for love of God, of our born and preborn Neighbors, including abortionists, and of our Country.

Sincerely in Life,

Miss Nellie J. Gray, President