Chris Dunn died today 23 December 2015 of natural causes. He was 46. What do they mean by natural causes. If he was going to die anyways why did the Houston Methodist Hospital decide to withdraw life support. Or was it just the money that the Hospital would save by extending the life of Chris by a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks.
It is unconsciousable.
Quote by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and most inhumane."
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Do Not Resuscitate Orders
http://life.org.nz/euthanasi/euthanasia/euthanasiakeyissues/dnr-orders/Default.htm
At VGH the patient doesn't even sign a DNR, only the doctor, and no witnesses are required.
Under our forthcoming Euthanasia law, euthanasia cannot be executed on a patient who is incompetent. My understanding is that with a DNR, it is the reverse, if a patient is incompetent his surrogate can authorize a DNR.
from the Terry Schiavo Life and Hope Network:
"What is happening to Chris Dunn at Houston Methodist happens daily in medical facilities nationwide," says Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo and president of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.
Schindler continues, "The rights of patients and their family members have been abrogated and turned over to complete strangers—ethics committees, hospital boards and health care professionals. Even in such heartbreaking cases as Mr. Dunn, who is literally begging for his care to be continued, the hospital seems to be taking whatever action possible to remove him from its balance sheet. Hospital administrators should not be able to summarily deny the civil liberties of a disabled patient."
Vancouver Coastal Health denied Randy his civil liberties and also imprisoned him so that I could not access him. We do not have to say that Chris Dunn is in the USA, the same thing is happening here in Canada. Bobby Schindler at least laid the blame on money which is the reason for draconian decisions.
I have asked that the Public Guardian and Trustee to investigate George Pearson Centre, but it hasn't even answered my communication.
Harry Rankin once said to say "coverup" and you will get action but VGH/PGT are immune to even that. I do not know what to do.
Quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and most inhumane."
- When a DNR order is on a chart, doctors often refrain from implementing other life-sustaining treatment
- Some patients are pressured to sign DNR orders, worded with medical jargon they do not understand, when they are in a confused state.
At VGH the patient doesn't even sign a DNR, only the doctor, and no witnesses are required.
Under our forthcoming Euthanasia law, euthanasia cannot be executed on a patient who is incompetent. My understanding is that with a DNR, it is the reverse, if a patient is incompetent his surrogate can authorize a DNR.
from the Terry Schiavo Life and Hope Network:
"What is happening to Chris Dunn at Houston Methodist happens daily in medical facilities nationwide," says Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo and president of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.
Schindler continues, "The rights of patients and their family members have been abrogated and turned over to complete strangers—ethics committees, hospital boards and health care professionals. Even in such heartbreaking cases as Mr. Dunn, who is literally begging for his care to be continued, the hospital seems to be taking whatever action possible to remove him from its balance sheet. Hospital administrators should not be able to summarily deny the civil liberties of a disabled patient."
Vancouver Coastal Health denied Randy his civil liberties and also imprisoned him so that I could not access him. We do not have to say that Chris Dunn is in the USA, the same thing is happening here in Canada. Bobby Schindler at least laid the blame on money which is the reason for draconian decisions.
I have asked that the Public Guardian and Trustee to investigate George Pearson Centre, but it hasn't even answered my communication.
Harry Rankin once said to say "coverup" and you will get action but VGH/PGT are immune to even that. I do not know what to do.
Quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and most inhumane."
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Texas decides Chris Dunn should die ..
American hero faces death sentence in a Texas hospital ... euthanasia! Is a version of this happening in British Columbia.
Right now, an American hero is fighting for his right to make that decision from his hospital bed at Houston Methodist Hospital.
David Christopher “Chris” Dunn is one of countless Texans who have been victimized by the draconian Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA), enacted by the Texas Legislature in 1999.
The law – which benefits the medical lobby and jeopardizes medically vulnerable Texans – protects the financial and discriminatory interests of hospitals and physicians by abrogating the civil liberties of patients.
When a hospital or physician determines for any reason that they disagree with a patient’s decision about his or her own medical treatment and invokes TADA, Texas law protects those healthcare providers as they remove life-sustaining treatment from the patient even when doing so means overriding the patient’s desire and right to live—and even when the treatment is benefitting the patient.
The law does not require that the hospital inform the patient or family about the reasons or basis for the removal of treatment, which could include financial reasons, discrimination, or subjective quality of life value judgments about the life of the patient.
Chris, who has served Texas and the nation as an EMT, in the Harris County Sheriff’s office, and Homeland Security employee, received his death sentence when Methodist invoked the TADA statutory process last month.
After the hospital announced that care would be forcibly removed from Chris against his will, Chris’s family contacted Texas Right to Life, and, with legal aid, an extension of the ten-day waiting period was secured. (The law requires this ten-day period ostensibly to provide time for a patient to transfer to another facility that will accept him and follow his medical directive.).
A Harris County judge has granted two consecutive two-week extensions thus far, but Houston Methodist Hospital has countered these interventions with additional court filings to remove Chris’s mother from the process. His mother, Evelyn, has been vigilant in protecting Chris since he is intermittently sedated. In this You Tube video below, a conscious and alert Chris Dunn pleads for legal assistance from his attorneys:
Most Texans are incredulous upon learning that a patient who is conscious and communicating his desire to live can be killed by the forcible removal of life-sustaining care, which is euthanasia by hospital committee. But this is exactly the scenario you just saw in this powerful video.
What makes the Texas Advance Directives Act even more despicable is the airtight power of the hospital to kill patients without any recourse to appeal the death sentence imposed by the hospital committee. That’s right – the final arbiter over the hospital’s fatal decision is the hospital!
For this reason, Texas Right to Life has been at-the-ready with pro bono lega lcounsel equipped to help countless patients and their families navigate the mind-boggling labyrinth of the hospital system for many years. TADA is an anti-Life, anti-Texan law and endangers all hospitalized patients, and particularly the disabled and the indigent who may not be able to pay for their care.
In no other state are patients subjected to this level of legally-protected abuse of power among hospitals and physicians. Texas Right to Life has spent the last decade working to repeal TADA and restore the Right to Life of hospitalized Texans at the mercy of the powerful medical lobby year after year.
Enough is enough. Join Texas Right to Life to help Chris see Christmas.
#HelpChrisSeeChristmas
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v+67FquofEeo
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Houston family seeks to protect life of ailing patient | Texas Right to Life
Houston family seeks to protect life of ailing patient | Texas Right to Life
What is happening in Texas seems to happening here in Canada. If you do not agree with the medical team they will take away your Representation Agreement etc. and give it to a third party (PGT) who will agree with the medical team to put down the one you have a fiduciary duty to in favour of death against a patient's wish. This is what Vancouver Coastal Health did to me and I live in British Columbia, not Texas.
See the video. https/youtube.com/watch?vFquofEeo
If a patient does not agree to die, he will be declared incompetent and so will his surrogate. We do not need an euthanasia law, we already have it.
In November, Methodist Hospital delivered a letter to the mother of David Christopher Dunn, “Chris,” confirming plans to remove and withdraw medical treatment at the end of ten days. Because Chris is intermittently conscious due to sedation, his mother is acting as his Medical Power of Attorney.
However, Methodist has invoked the statutory process found in the Texas Advanced Directives Act (TADA-Chapter 166.046 of the Health & Safety Code), which allows the hospital to override medical directives of a patient and provide only ten days’ notice before withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Dunn’s only recourse is to find another facility that will offer him an ICU bed – a daunting task on a rushed time frame for anyone, but even more so for patients without insurance such as Chris.
Chris is an American hero, who has served his community and the nation as an EMT, a police dispatcher, a Harris County Sheriff, and a Homeland Security employee. Chris even fought Somali pirates as part of a security team. Rather than protecting Chris’s Right to Life, the state of Texas is rewarding his lifetime of selfless service by relinquishing him to a hospital panel who have judged his quality of life too low to merit continued treatment.
Tragically, this is the way countless Texans have lived out their final days since 1999, when TADA unconstitutionally bestowed on healthcare facilities authority over Life and death.
Doctors who decide their patients’ cases are “futile” – regardless of their motive or reasons for doing so – hold the power to remove patients from medical treatment or to issue a Do-Not-Resuscitate order on the patient, even if such action is against the expressed wishes of the patient or his surrogate.
If the patient or his surrogate cannot find a transfer facility willing to take the patient within that ten-day period, there is no appellate process for the decision of the hospital panel. In other words, hospital panels have the right to decide which medically vulnerable Texans live and die.
Texas Right to Life has assisted Chris’s family in navigating this legal labyrinth to ensure that he continues to receive care. As a result of Texas Right to Life’s advocacy, Methodist Hospital agreed to extend the time for Chris, and the family was granted a two-week extension by a Harris County judge. Yesterday, a second two week extension was granted.
However, yesterday Methodist Hospital also filed an injunction seeking custodial guardianship of Chris. If granted, this injunction would legally prevent his mother, Evelyn, from fighting for the rights of her son. The family has released a video in which Chris clearly communicates that he wants to live and that he wants his lawyers to continue to fight for his life.
Since Evelyn would not succumb to pressure from the hospital to impose death upon Chris, Methodist’s lawyers are now trying to remove Evelyn from Chris’s bedside and from his medical care. The hospital is attempting to neutralize her ability to protect the life of her 40-something year old son.
The Office of the Attorney General sent a strong message that the law could not be defended if challenged, stating that the OAG would not be involved in the case. Chris’s attorneys plan to file a constitutional challenge to the law. This cannot take place if Evelyn’s rights to speak for her son are stripped and the ill-intended hospital garners all control over the care, treatment, and life of Chris.
What is happening in Texas seems to happening here in Canada. If you do not agree with the medical team they will take away your Representation Agreement etc. and give it to a third party (PGT) who will agree with the medical team to put down the one you have a fiduciary duty to in favour of death against a patient's wish. This is what Vancouver Coastal Health did to me and I live in British Columbia, not Texas.
See the video. https/youtube.com/watch?vFquofEeo
If a patient does not agree to die, he will be declared incompetent and so will his surrogate. We do not need an euthanasia law, we already have it.
by Texas Right to LifeFriday, December 04, 2015
Houston, Texas- December 4, 2015:In November, Methodist Hospital delivered a letter to the mother of David Christopher Dunn, “Chris,” confirming plans to remove and withdraw medical treatment at the end of ten days. Because Chris is intermittently conscious due to sedation, his mother is acting as his Medical Power of Attorney.
However, Methodist has invoked the statutory process found in the Texas Advanced Directives Act (TADA-Chapter 166.046 of the Health & Safety Code), which allows the hospital to override medical directives of a patient and provide only ten days’ notice before withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Dunn’s only recourse is to find another facility that will offer him an ICU bed – a daunting task on a rushed time frame for anyone, but even more so for patients without insurance such as Chris.
Chris is an American hero, who has served his community and the nation as an EMT, a police dispatcher, a Harris County Sheriff, and a Homeland Security employee. Chris even fought Somali pirates as part of a security team. Rather than protecting Chris’s Right to Life, the state of Texas is rewarding his lifetime of selfless service by relinquishing him to a hospital panel who have judged his quality of life too low to merit continued treatment.
Tragically, this is the way countless Texans have lived out their final days since 1999, when TADA unconstitutionally bestowed on healthcare facilities authority over Life and death.
Doctors who decide their patients’ cases are “futile” – regardless of their motive or reasons for doing so – hold the power to remove patients from medical treatment or to issue a Do-Not-Resuscitate order on the patient, even if such action is against the expressed wishes of the patient or his surrogate.
If the patient or his surrogate cannot find a transfer facility willing to take the patient within that ten-day period, there is no appellate process for the decision of the hospital panel. In other words, hospital panels have the right to decide which medically vulnerable Texans live and die.
Texas Right to Life has assisted Chris’s family in navigating this legal labyrinth to ensure that he continues to receive care. As a result of Texas Right to Life’s advocacy, Methodist Hospital agreed to extend the time for Chris, and the family was granted a two-week extension by a Harris County judge. Yesterday, a second two week extension was granted.
However, yesterday Methodist Hospital also filed an injunction seeking custodial guardianship of Chris. If granted, this injunction would legally prevent his mother, Evelyn, from fighting for the rights of her son. The family has released a video in which Chris clearly communicates that he wants to live and that he wants his lawyers to continue to fight for his life.
Since Evelyn would not succumb to pressure from the hospital to impose death upon Chris, Methodist’s lawyers are now trying to remove Evelyn from Chris’s bedside and from his medical care. The hospital is attempting to neutralize her ability to protect the life of her 40-something year old son.
The Office of the Attorney General sent a strong message that the law could not be defended if challenged, stating that the OAG would not be involved in the case. Chris’s attorneys plan to file a constitutional challenge to the law. This cannot take place if Evelyn’s rights to speak for her son are stripped and the ill-intended hospital garners all control over the care, treatment, and life of Chris.
Why is Houston Methodist Hospital trying to take Chris's life? | Texas Right to Life
Why is Houston Methodist Hospital trying to take Chris's life? | Texas Right to Life
by Texas Right to LifeWednesday, December 09, 2015
Last week, we alerted supporters and media to the harrowing ordeal of
American hero Chris Dunn at Houston Methodist Hospital, where
administrators are fighting to remove him from life-sustaining
treatment. Texas Right to Life has been at the helm of efforts to save
Chris, and we have seen a tidal wave of support – along with thoughtful
and poignant questions – from our friends.Chris was admitted to Methodist Hospital over eight weeks ago, and the hospital is currently withholding diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment for Chris’s ailment because they have arbitrated that Chris’s life is no longer worthy of care – even though Chris and his family disagree with that conclusion.
Chris’s case seems unbelievable to many Texans who cannot imagine that our state boasts a law allowing hospitals to remove patients from life-sustaining treatments against their will. Sadly, this is exactly what the Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA), passed in 1999, permits. Rendering Chris’s case even more shocking is video documentation, filmed in his hospital room last week, of Chris pleading for his life to attorneys who are fighting the hospital’s directive on his behalf.
Under TADA, in Section 166.046, Texas Health and Safety Code, a hospital can take away treatment from a patient (conscious or unconscious) against his will, his advance directive, or his Medical Power of Attorney. The hospital only is required to give the family 10 days’ notice before removing treatment, but the process for patients in these situations to find another facility that will provide care often takes weeks. We have been working to secure care at a different facility, but the law inhibits this process by imposing impossible deadlines and the hospital has abandoned efforts to treat Chris, further delaying the transfer.
The law is barbaric and gives faceless hospital panels the sole authority to take a person’s life instead of empowering patients and families to make their own decisions about their care. Essentially, the law not only allows Chris to be killed against his will, but also hinders our ability to help him live. Pro-Lifers have long warned of the dangerous death panels which threaten to become commonplace under Obamacare. Because of TADA, Texas has served as a tragic example of what this kind of legislation looks like in action for the last sixteen years. No other state has as merciless a statute as the Texas Advance Directives Act. Only Virginia has a similar law, which, unlike in Texas, remains rarely if ever invoked.
Many have asked what Chris’s medical diagnosis is. In short: no one – including his doctors – knows. This is not because Chris is suffering from an inexplicable illness, but simply because his physicians refuse to investigate his symptoms to find a cause. Chris was admitted with a mass on his pancreas which, to date, the hospital has not biopsied.
What we do know about Chris’s medical state is that he is not brain-dead; he is conscious and responds to commands and answers questions by nodding his head and waving his arms. He has persisted in his condition with little change since his admittance at Methodist two months ago. Chris’s condition may be treatable, but the hospital has discriminated against Chris by ruling treatment futile based on an arbitrary “quality of life” judgment, and they have done this without even investing due diligence in diagnosing him.
The hospital has not predicated this decision on Chris’s inability to pay. Instead, the hospital has focused on subjective quality of life judgments as the reason for denying Chris life-sustaining care. Although he did not have insurance when admitted, Chris is eligible for emergency Medicaid, and Chris is receiving other treatment at Methodist.
The issue at hand is the hospital’s insistence on removing Chris from a ventilator, which would kill him.
Wielding the power over Chris’s life, the hospital has myriad options available to them. Houston Methodist could reverse the decision to invoke TADA and allow Chris to live on his own terms. They could biopsy the mass on his pancreas and initiate a treatment plan. They could continue treating Chris without a deadline pending his transfer to another facility – whenever that can be achieved. But the hospital has eschewed these alternatives and stubbornly clung to their intention of ending Chris’s life.
Last week, the hospital petitioned a court to allow them to usurp the authority of Chris’s mother as his Medical Power of Attorney and instead name an unknown staff member at Houston Methodist as Chris’s custodial guardian – all in an effort to ensure his demise.
The provisions of the Texas Advance Directives Act have ravaged vulnerable hospital patients and their families long enough. Please help Texas Right to Life save Chris by contacting Houston Methodist CEO Marc Boom at 713-441-2671 or mboom@tmhs.org, and sign our petition to #HelpChrisSeeChristmas here. Then, alert your family and friends to Chris’s situation by participating in our December 15 Thunderclap, and using the hash tag #HelpChrisSeeChristmas on social media.
Finally, we must work to ensure, through legislative change, that Texas hospitals do not impose unjust death sentences as any more patients. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has affirmed that the Texas Advance Directives Act is legally indefensible, and Texas Right to Life has spent the last several Legislative Sessions working to overturn the statute. But rogue Republicans have consistently upended these efforts. That’s why we must elect thoroughly Pro-Life leaders in the 2016 election. We can protect Life from fertilization to natural death; will you join us in the fight?
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
The day Randy should have died.
Today is the 18th of November, the anniversary of when Randy should have died. I remember it with clarity. When |I asked Dr. Dunne to remove the DNR/DNT hours before, he told me that he would consider it after he returned from his trip to Prince George...the horror of it all and there is no relief for me...
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Randy Michael Walker and the College
I keep thinking about Randy and why he had to die when he did. Why VCH decided that his death should be hastened because it was in Randy's best interest. Randy should have died on November 18 2013; the near death incident could have been prevented if Dr. Dunne would have removed the DNR Order a few hours before when I asked him to. Randy never agreed to a DNR. I told staff that this was not what Randy wanted and for them to ignore the November 15, 2013 DNR. The night nurse made a terrible mistake. He knew Randy was dying and instead of waiting until he died he phoned me and I rushed to George Pearson Centre. When Randy saw me he was reaching out for me to save his life. Since he had a purported DNR/DNT on him, the staff refused to do anything. I phoned 911. Chaos.
Because of my intervention I was able to save Randy's life. Mostly he needed a vent assist. As soon as Randy was stabilized I contacted the police as I believed that Dr. Dunne by putting on a DNR Order was somehow criminally culpable (attempted homicide) and notified the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons. VGH Emergency and the ambulance people knew of what happened as well as the police as 911 attended.
Considering the seriousness of my allegation and the seemingly apparent culpability of Dr. Dunne, the College should have immediately suspended Dr. Dunne pending an investigation. Yes, the College has the power to suspend a doctor in the public interest. I also asked that Dr. Dunne be replaced as Randy's doctor and this request was refused. Dr. Dunne should have reclused himself. The only reason that I even knew of the DNR/DNT was that I asked a nurse on November 15 2013, what Randy's status was, and I was showed the DNR/DNT Order signed by Dr. Dunne. On 14 November 2013 Randy was in VGH and his status was Full Code, Level IV. Randy was 57. He had no disease nor was he in pain.
After that, VCH went on a further sojourn to discredit and demoralize me claiming that I did not have Randy's best interest and I was incapable to be Randy's substitute decision maker. VCH took this to the Public Guardian and Trustee and VCH stripped me and Randy of all his rights. What was Randy's best interest. Was it that his death be hastened.
After Randy died I wasn't able to access any of Randy's things as Randy was now the property of the Public Guardian and Trustee. He had become a non-person. I wanted to place one of Randy's Steeler's baseball caps in his coffin as he wore a cap even when he was sleeping. The manager at GPC refused to give me one of his hats. Randy was dead and GPC were still being bullies.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons' Decision said that Randy was among things too sick as he had a temperature of 39.9 rendering him incapable of making any medical decisions. The Certificate of Incapability was made (rubbered stamped on the recommendation of the PGT) by VCH who issued the CI on April 4 2014; the day Randy should have died was 18 November 2013; the day I was banned from ever seeing Randy again was January 29 2014 (with the help of the Public Guardian and Trustee). I was never told that I was being investigated or that Randy was.
Because of my correspondence to the PGT, I thought the PGT was investigating George Pearson Centre and its treatment of patients there. One of my concerns was when I spoke to GPC patients there, they did not seem to know what a DNR was or whether or not a DNR/DNT was on them.
The PGT complaint against me was mostly based on collateral evidence (parallel gossip). All my supposed legal rights to Randy were taken away from me by the Public Guardian and Trustee on April 4, 2014 ( but in reality it was January 29 2013 as VCH 100% banned me from seeing Randy) the day I was to access his medical records so I could find out what was going on and such records were denied me by the PGT.
I really do not know what Randy died from. Maybe his death could have been prevented at that time. Months later the coroner changed the alledged cause of death from multiple organ failure to say Randy died from his accident, an accident that happened in 2010. What a stretch. He was readmitted to VGH on 4 April 2014 (my mother's birthdate). The day Randy died was 13 April 2014.
I was acting in Randy's best interest for him to live and have a quality of life and VCH et al did everything possible to discredit and demoralize me (and Randy) while saying that I was not good for Randy and I should never see him again. This questioning of my goodness happened in January 2014; prior to that I was good. How scared Randy was. He couldn't talk or write so he could not ask questions or defend me. How horrible for Randy knowing that VCH was trying to hasten his death and and how horrific it was for me knowing I could not save him. My bereavement will never end.
Randy was only 53 years old when he had his accident, he had a traumatic brain injury in 2010, he had no disease, he was not in pain. Randy had a trach so he could not talk. So why did VCH want to hasten his death and ban me from ever seeing him again.
A DNT Order is a Do Not Transfer Order so if a patient is in medical distress the patient would not go to acute care (VGH) for treatment. As far as I am concerned it is a death sentence. The DNT was a guarantee that the nurses would not even attempt to overrule as it was a Doctor's Order and they were instructed not to call 911 or even phone the doctor-on-call if Randy was in acute medical distress.
Audrey Jane Laferriere
5976 Cambie Street
Vancouver, B.C.
V5Z 3A9
604-321-2276; 778-689-2276
audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com
refer to blog: voiceofgoneballistic
P.S. There is a medical-legal battle going on in Texas over a law that Texas has in which it can without explanation put a DNR on a competent conscious patient and disconnect life support against his wishes. And the hospital is now making application to take away his mother's substitute decision making power. I suspect such powers are also replicated somewhat here in Canada (BC) sub rosa (under the rose, secrecy) or worse yet in open sight.
see video of Chris Shaw http:://youtube.com/watch?vFquofEeo.
TexasRighttoLife.com
Because of my intervention I was able to save Randy's life. Mostly he needed a vent assist. As soon as Randy was stabilized I contacted the police as I believed that Dr. Dunne by putting on a DNR Order was somehow criminally culpable (attempted homicide) and notified the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons. VGH Emergency and the ambulance people knew of what happened as well as the police as 911 attended.
Considering the seriousness of my allegation and the seemingly apparent culpability of Dr. Dunne, the College should have immediately suspended Dr. Dunne pending an investigation. Yes, the College has the power to suspend a doctor in the public interest. I also asked that Dr. Dunne be replaced as Randy's doctor and this request was refused. Dr. Dunne should have reclused himself. The only reason that I even knew of the DNR/DNT was that I asked a nurse on November 15 2013, what Randy's status was, and I was showed the DNR/DNT Order signed by Dr. Dunne. On 14 November 2013 Randy was in VGH and his status was Full Code, Level IV. Randy was 57. He had no disease nor was he in pain.
After that, VCH went on a further sojourn to discredit and demoralize me claiming that I did not have Randy's best interest and I was incapable to be Randy's substitute decision maker. VCH took this to the Public Guardian and Trustee and VCH stripped me and Randy of all his rights. What was Randy's best interest. Was it that his death be hastened.
After Randy died I wasn't able to access any of Randy's things as Randy was now the property of the Public Guardian and Trustee. He had become a non-person. I wanted to place one of Randy's Steeler's baseball caps in his coffin as he wore a cap even when he was sleeping. The manager at GPC refused to give me one of his hats. Randy was dead and GPC were still being bullies.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons' Decision said that Randy was among things too sick as he had a temperature of 39.9 rendering him incapable of making any medical decisions. The Certificate of Incapability was made (rubbered stamped on the recommendation of the PGT) by VCH who issued the CI on April 4 2014; the day Randy should have died was 18 November 2013; the day I was banned from ever seeing Randy again was January 29 2014 (with the help of the Public Guardian and Trustee). I was never told that I was being investigated or that Randy was.
Because of my correspondence to the PGT, I thought the PGT was investigating George Pearson Centre and its treatment of patients there. One of my concerns was when I spoke to GPC patients there, they did not seem to know what a DNR was or whether or not a DNR/DNT was on them.
The PGT complaint against me was mostly based on collateral evidence (parallel gossip). All my supposed legal rights to Randy were taken away from me by the Public Guardian and Trustee on April 4, 2014 ( but in reality it was January 29 2013 as VCH 100% banned me from seeing Randy) the day I was to access his medical records so I could find out what was going on and such records were denied me by the PGT.
I really do not know what Randy died from. Maybe his death could have been prevented at that time. Months later the coroner changed the alledged cause of death from multiple organ failure to say Randy died from his accident, an accident that happened in 2010. What a stretch. He was readmitted to VGH on 4 April 2014 (my mother's birthdate). The day Randy died was 13 April 2014.
I was acting in Randy's best interest for him to live and have a quality of life and VCH et al did everything possible to discredit and demoralize me (and Randy) while saying that I was not good for Randy and I should never see him again. This questioning of my goodness happened in January 2014; prior to that I was good. How scared Randy was. He couldn't talk or write so he could not ask questions or defend me. How horrible for Randy knowing that VCH was trying to hasten his death and and how horrific it was for me knowing I could not save him. My bereavement will never end.
Randy was only 53 years old when he had his accident, he had a traumatic brain injury in 2010, he had no disease, he was not in pain. Randy had a trach so he could not talk. So why did VCH want to hasten his death and ban me from ever seeing him again.
A DNT Order is a Do Not Transfer Order so if a patient is in medical distress the patient would not go to acute care (VGH) for treatment. As far as I am concerned it is a death sentence. The DNT was a guarantee that the nurses would not even attempt to overrule as it was a Doctor's Order and they were instructed not to call 911 or even phone the doctor-on-call if Randy was in acute medical distress.
Audrey Jane Laferriere
5976 Cambie Street
Vancouver, B.C.
V5Z 3A9
604-321-2276; 778-689-2276
audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com
refer to blog: voiceofgoneballistic
P.S. There is a medical-legal battle going on in Texas over a law that Texas has in which it can without explanation put a DNR on a competent conscious patient and disconnect life support against his wishes. And the hospital is now making application to take away his mother's substitute decision making power. I suspect such powers are also replicated somewhat here in Canada (BC) sub rosa (under the rose, secrecy) or worse yet in open sight.
see video of Chris Shaw http:://youtube.com/watch?vFquofEeo.
TexasRighttoLife.com
Sunday, October 4, 2015
On my way home from demonstrating last Wednesday, an older Asian gentleman wanted to know as he could read part of my sign, what euthanasia meant. Since his English wasn't very good, I explained that it means that if you are sick you can ask a doctor to kill you. His immediate retort was: he won't ask a doctor to kill him, he would just jump off a building. I then explained that jumping off a building might be painful and euthanasia would guarantee that he would have a sure, safe and painless death. We were then at KingEdward and he had to exit the Canada Line.
I was just listening to CNN and it talking about Joe Biden and his decision as to whether or not he will run for president. It seems it is okay for Mr. Biden to be emotionally shattered by his son's death but when I asked for an appeal for time to the decision that Randy's doctor was absolved from putting an illegal DNR on Randy, I could not be emotionally upset. According to the Health Professions Appeal Board that wasn't a good enough reason why I missed the appeal date. In addition, I did not even get the decision from the College of Physicians and Surgeons until after the 30-day to appeal period and that was my problem as well. The College did not object to my appeal; it was Harper Gray, the dark solicitors for the doctor.
audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com
5976 Cambie Street
604-321-2276
blog: voiceofgonebalistic.blogspot.com
I was just listening to CNN and it talking about Joe Biden and his decision as to whether or not he will run for president. It seems it is okay for Mr. Biden to be emotionally shattered by his son's death but when I asked for an appeal for time to the decision that Randy's doctor was absolved from putting an illegal DNR on Randy, I could not be emotionally upset. According to the Health Professions Appeal Board that wasn't a good enough reason why I missed the appeal date. In addition, I did not even get the decision from the College of Physicians and Surgeons until after the 30-day to appeal period and that was my problem as well. The College did not object to my appeal; it was Harper Gray, the dark solicitors for the doctor.
audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com
5976 Cambie Street
604-321-2276
blog: voiceofgonebalistic.blogspot.com
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Cambie and Broadway
Today was such a beautiful day I took Owen and we went with my demo signs to Broadway and Cambie and Laurel area for a few hours. I felt very positive as a number of citizens stopped to talk to me about euthanasia and how patients are treated at VGH. All the time I have been demonstrating since April 1 2015 I have yet had to confront a citizen who showed anger to my cause.
The same problem is what do you do or where do you go if you have a dispute I still do not know. But I always get possible feedback by citizens for doing what I am doing. They always thank me. Eventually a small critical mass will form and the health authorities will have to listen to us.
When I go on the street I always take a book with me and I read sitting next to Owen on the grass boulevards. . I do not approach anyone, I let my demo signs do that. At the moment I am reading a New York Times best seller callled Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won't Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care (2012). It was what I was doing when Randy was ill. One of the serious complaints I received was that I sent over 1,000 emails to the health authority however not one of them were given to the College of Physicians and Surgeons so they had no idea what I was doing is what Unaccountable says what hospitals are doing in the United States letting patients doctors and nurses communicate with each other by emails. Our health authority belongs in caves. The reason the health authority won't answer emails is because they are afraid of being accountable and then they lie and say they answered my emails face-to-face.If it is not written down it did not happen. What I do not understand is why the College did not demand to see the emails and if they did they would only see my concern for my loved one and wanting to know what is happening and why is it that they refuse to follow what John Hopkins Hospital recommends as best practice. One nurse told me that the health authority said the nurses were not allowed to read anything medical from the internet as VGH had their own protocols written decades ago (because of cost cutting the protocols must be out of date). And the protocols are proprietary and I was not allowed access to them. When is education closed to patients or their representatives. A patient or his advocate should audit everything that is happening. It is no longer acceptable to leave patients in the dark with paternal Father Knows Best 1950s garbage.
.
I write this as it is a public interest for the public to know what is really happening in our health system.
The below from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition September 30 2015
The practice of euthanasia is very different than euthanasia in theory.
In reality, legalizing euthanasia gives doctors the right, in law, to cause the death of their patients. The decision to lethally inject a patient is made by two doctors without third-party oversight and the doctor is required to report their decision after the patient has died.
The concept that euthanasia is about individual choice and autonomy is only a theory.
In other jurisdictions there is proof that the law is misused, that lives are ended without request, that the reporting procedure is intentionally ignored, and that euthanasia is regularly ending the lives of people who are depressed and/or incompetent.
In theory euthanasia appears to offer freedom; in reality, legalizing euthanasia is not safe.
all what I write is for public interest
.
The same problem is what do you do or where do you go if you have a dispute I still do not know. But I always get possible feedback by citizens for doing what I am doing. They always thank me. Eventually a small critical mass will form and the health authorities will have to listen to us.
When I go on the street I always take a book with me and I read sitting next to Owen on the grass boulevards. . I do not approach anyone, I let my demo signs do that. At the moment I am reading a New York Times best seller callled Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won't Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care (2012). It was what I was doing when Randy was ill. One of the serious complaints I received was that I sent over 1,000 emails to the health authority however not one of them were given to the College of Physicians and Surgeons so they had no idea what I was doing is what Unaccountable says what hospitals are doing in the United States letting patients doctors and nurses communicate with each other by emails. Our health authority belongs in caves. The reason the health authority won't answer emails is because they are afraid of being accountable and then they lie and say they answered my emails face-to-face.If it is not written down it did not happen. What I do not understand is why the College did not demand to see the emails and if they did they would only see my concern for my loved one and wanting to know what is happening and why is it that they refuse to follow what John Hopkins Hospital recommends as best practice. One nurse told me that the health authority said the nurses were not allowed to read anything medical from the internet as VGH had their own protocols written decades ago (because of cost cutting the protocols must be out of date). And the protocols are proprietary and I was not allowed access to them. When is education closed to patients or their representatives. A patient or his advocate should audit everything that is happening. It is no longer acceptable to leave patients in the dark with paternal Father Knows Best 1950s garbage.
.
I write this as it is a public interest for the public to know what is really happening in our health system.
The below from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition September 30 2015
The practice of euthanasia is very different than euthanasia in theory.
In reality, legalizing euthanasia gives doctors the right, in law, to cause the death of their patients. The decision to lethally inject a patient is made by two doctors without third-party oversight and the doctor is required to report their decision after the patient has died.
The concept that euthanasia is about individual choice and autonomy is only a theory.
In other jurisdictions there is proof that the law is misused, that lives are ended without request, that the reporting procedure is intentionally ignored, and that euthanasia is regularly ending the lives of people who are depressed and/or incompetent.
In theory euthanasia appears to offer freedom; in reality, legalizing euthanasia is not safe.
all what I write is for public interest
.
Friday, September 25, 2015
Stockholm Syndrome and Vancouver Coastal Health
I keep thinking of how Vancouver Coastal Health and I became at odds. They were the oppressors and they relied on the Stockholm Syndrome to cancel out their psychological harassment (like a wife batterer). I succumbed to this so many times that VCH just continued their bad bahavior, an amusement on their part. A game they always win. I have asked since 2011 for an independent investigation as to VCH's behavior and in 2015 I received an email from Richard Singleton that he had investigated my concerns. Richard is not an independent investigator he is a mental health worker who is an expert at using the Stockholm Syndrome to control risk even if that meant discrediting others. This man who was responsible for Randy's life and investigating my allegations of non treatment and illegal DNRs finally made the decision that VCH did nothing wrong (at least, not in his mind).
Randy was chronically ill. VCH did not have to hasten his death.
Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5]
audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com
604-321-2276
5976 Cambie Street
Vancouver BC V5Z 3A9
.
Donations to keep blog going and to fund legal fees to sue those doctors responsible for putting illegal DNRs on Randy appreciated. This isn't personal; this is a public interest issue wherein all of us should know how the health system is taking advantage of us..
Randy was chronically ill. VCH did not have to hasten his death.
Stockholm syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Stockholm syndrome (disambiguation).
Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy
and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point
of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are
generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured
by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their
captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly eight percent of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5]
audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com
604-321-2276
5976 Cambie Street
Vancouver BC V5Z 3A9
.
Donations to keep blog going and to fund legal fees to sue those doctors responsible for putting illegal DNRs on Randy appreciated. This isn't personal; this is a public interest issue wherein all of us should know how the health system is taking advantage of us..
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Blue Bloods and VPD
Up until a few days a go, I wanted to believe that theTV show Blue Bloods was what VPD was about. But I was wrong. I am so disappointed. When you can't trust the police to fully investigate a complaint, and you can't trust the medical establishment to fully investigate a complaint, who can you trust.
It is taking me a long time to get over that.
The best I can do is take up knitting leg warmers and give them to the homeless. Since legt warmers have no feet, they can be worn under pants to keep the homeless warm and they need no washing. It is a project I wanted to do years ago and now it seems to be a good time to do it.
.
It is taking me a long time to get over that.
The best I can do is take up knitting leg warmers and give them to the homeless. Since legt warmers have no feet, they can be worn under pants to keep the homeless warm and they need no washing. It is a project I wanted to do years ago and now it seems to be a good time to do it.
.
Monday, September 21, 2015
The Rise of History's Biggest Empire
Storyline
The new documentary titled The Rise of History's Biggest Empire explores the origins and current mechanics behind America's forceful dominance
on the world stage. According to the views expressed in the film, the
United States frequently hides behind the guise of diplomacy and
democratic outreach in its quest to force its will upon foreign regions
throughout the globe. The wealthiest interests are the primary
beneficiaries of these actions while the less fortunate are discarded
and marginalized as never before.Throughout history, the American empire has been established and sustained through episodes of intervention - usually in the form of military might - in places like the Middle East, Latin America, and even within its own borders. The film sets forth a series of examples in support of its thesis, including incendiary actions in Guatemala in 1952, Chile in the 1970's, and the invasion of Iraq in the past decade.
In some of the instances presented in the film, the United States operates in shadow to overthrow democratically elected leaders and to replace them with figures who are more sympathetic to U.S. interests. These interests are often not in step with those of their own people.
Another area of controversy explored in the film regards the countless military bases operated by the United States all over the world. The messages received from the highest levels of governmental authority assure the people that these bases are erected and continue to operate as a means of spreading and maintaining peace throughout each region. "These bases all too often are actually increasing military tensions," claims David Vine, an anthropology professor at American University, author of Base Nation, and a key interview subject in the film. "I think it's worth considering for people in the United States how we would feel with a foreign base on our soil."
The premiere episode of an investigative series from world news organization teleSUR, The Rise of History's Biggest Empire is a compact treatment of a complex history. Nevertheless, as with all worthwhile documentary works, the film presents its provocative material in a manner that inspires valuable thought and discussion.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Public mostly unaware of the pending Euthanasia Law in Canada
I still find it hard to believe that most people I speak do not know about the pending euthanasia law. They do not even know what a DNR is. So how can this nightmare be happening. No one seems to trust doctors and yet we are giving them legal license to help someone commit suicide. This law can also be used by hospital administrations (and the government) to hasten death in order to save a few dollars.
The consultation process is a joke; it is only a public relations vehicle that is being manipulated by the pro euthanasia lobby. And who are those who want euthanasia: they are predominately white, middle aged, educated professionals who are control freaks wanting a safe and painless death with the help of a doctor. The rest of us will be collateral damage.
Giving doctors the power to cause your death assumes that all doctors are ethical and all acts with be done within the law. This a a big assumption and carries no guarantees. Safeguards cannot stop human nature from make mistakes. It was for this reason that capital punishment was eradicated.
As for capacity, the definition rests with the doctors.
.
The consultation process is a joke; it is only a public relations vehicle that is being manipulated by the pro euthanasia lobby. And who are those who want euthanasia: they are predominately white, middle aged, educated professionals who are control freaks wanting a safe and painless death with the help of a doctor. The rest of us will be collateral damage.
Giving doctors the power to cause your death assumes that all doctors are ethical and all acts with be done within the law. This a a big assumption and carries no guarantees. Safeguards cannot stop human nature from make mistakes. It was for this reason that capital punishment was eradicated.
As for capacity, the definition rests with the doctors.
.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Euthanasia dead in Britain 11 September 2015
Saturday, 12 September 2015
Defeat of the Marris Assisted Dying Bill – some reflections on how MPs voted
The Assisted Dying (No 2) Bill of Labour MP Rob Marris was the eleventh attempt in twelve years to legalise assisted suicide through British Parliaments.
But its overwhelming defeat yesterday (11 September 2015) by a margin of
212 votes (330 to 118) should settle this matter for a decade.
It is striking (and indeed fitting) that this happened the very day after World Suicide Prevention Day. The bill now cannot proceed further. It is dead.
It is striking (and indeed fitting) that this happened the very day after World Suicide Prevention Day. The bill now cannot proceed further. It is dead.
There is clearly no chance at all of a similar bill passing through the
Commons in the current parliament and even in the (now) unlikely event
of a Labour victory in 2020 it is virtually inconceivable that the views
of MPs will change enough to make it likely in the next parliament
either.
MPs dealt the bill a resounding defeat largely driven by concerns about
the risks it posed to vulnerable people who would have felt under
pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden to family,
relatives, caregivers or a society short of resources. Six in ten who
die under a similar law in Washington State US give this reason.
Overall 74% of MPs voted against the bill, a proportion almost identical
to the 72% who opposed the last bill of its kind in the House of
Commons in 1997. So there has been essentially no shift in parliamentary
opinion in the last 20 years.
Rob Marris conceded in a BBC interview after the debate that he did not
foresee another attempt in the Commons in this parliament and in fact
called on the government to invest more in palliative care, a move which
I would strongly support. Patients whose symptoms are properly
controlled do not generally want help to kill themselves.
You can read the full four hour parliamentary debate on Hansard and see reaction to the result on you tube along with my comments on what it means.
The Daily Mail has also given a full list of how MPs voted by party which I have reproduced below.
Overall out of 650 MPs, a total of 448 took part in the vote.
118 MPs supported the bill (27 Conservative, 72 Labour, 14 SNP, 3 Lib Dem and 1 Green).
330 voted against it (210 Conservative, 91 Labour, 11 SNP, 3 Lib Dem, 1 UKIP, 8 DUP, 3 SDLP, 1 Independent).
Here are some preliminary quick reflections on how people voted.
1. This was a huge (almost unprecedented) turnout considering this was a
private member’s bill debate on a Friday when most MPs would be
expected to be in their local constituencies. It is a measure of how
important they considered the issue to be.
2. Over half of all MPs (330) voted against it meaning that it would have been defeated even if all 650 MPs had been present.
3. More Labour MPs (91) voted against the bill than supported it (72)
and the SNP and Lib Dems were more or less evenly split. This is hugely
significant as it signals that assisted suicide is not a simple
left/right political issue. In fact suicide prevention and protection of
vulnerable people from exploitation and abuse resonate strongly with
left wing politicians.
4. Most party leaders did not vote. Prime Minister David Cameron
(Conservative) was not present. Nor was Tim Farron (Lib Dem), Angus
Robertson (SNP) or Jeremy Corbyn (Labour). However all four had
previously signalled their opposition to the bill.
5. Former Labour leaders and Blairites generally supported the bill.
These included former Labour leader Ed Miliband and Deputy Leader (and
recently acting Leader) Harriet Harman.
6. Medically qualified MPs were generally strongly opposed, notably
former cabinet minister Liam Fox (Conservative), Sarah Woollaston
(Conservative) and SNP health spokesperson Philippa Whitford.
7. Many current cabinet ministers opposed the Bill including Theresa May
(Home Secretary), Michael Fallon (Defence), Michael Gove (Lord
Chancellor), Iain Duncan Smith (Work and Pensions), Jeremy Hunt
(Health), Chris Grayling (Leader of the House of Commons), Justine
Greening (International Development), Patrick McLoughlin (Transport),
Theresa Villiers (Northern Ireland), Stephen Crabb (Wales), Oliver
Letwin (Duchy of Lancaster), David Mundell (Scotland), Robert Halfon
(without portfolio), Greg Hands (Treasury), Mark Harper (Chief Whip)
and Jeremy Wright (Attorney General).
8. Other prominent MPs who opposed the bill included former London Mayor
Boris Johnson, former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, former Attorney
General Dominic Grieve, former Conservative cabinet ministers Eric
Pickles and Peter Bottomley and former Labour Cabinet ministers Alan
Johnson and David Lammy.
9. Former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Keir Starmer, now a Labour MP, voted in favour of the bill. Perhaps this explains his apparent reluctance to prosecute people whilst in office. It will certainly raise further discussion about whether or not his published prosecution criteria amounted to stealth legalisation.
9. Former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Keir Starmer, now a Labour MP, voted in favour of the bill. Perhaps this explains his apparent reluctance to prosecute people whilst in office. It will certainly raise further discussion about whether or not his published prosecution criteria amounted to stealth legalisation.
re number 9:
Is this what they are doing in BC re illegal DNRs resulting in death: not prosecuting doctors. There has to be others besides me who have complained about illegel DNRs.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
the Vancouver Province and Elaine Peaston v. BC College of Physicians and Surgeons
I tried to find out more about Elaine Peaston vs BC College of Physicians and Surgeons (see post August 29 2015) and I searched the Province newspaper for her name. Quess what. I could not find it in the Province search function. It is gone like it never was there. It reminded me of wanting to find out what happened to Mary Turner in 2013. I put an ad in the Prince George paper and it was to be on-line. I could not find it. VCH knew I wanted to know what happened to Mary and now Elaines litigation is not on its database. When I checked the court registry on Randys case to find Dr. Dunnes Affidavit and the Affidavit of Kip Woodwards secretary, both were missing. Is this called damage control. Well, I can only speculate that the medical establishment seems to have tremendous power with the courts and the press.
I feel vomitoid.
PS Sept 2 2015, I found the Province article on a post. Elaines segment had 5,322,247 page views. So much for damage control. I hope she is aware of what happened was read by millions. Why cannot doctors tell the truth and then there would be no need for risk management departments to hide the truth (evidence). To think the College of Physicians and Surgeons might have gone that far to protect itself. But then it might have been Elaine who did not want it in the newspapers. I do not know.
What tangled webs we weave when we set out to deceive.
from Voice of Gone Ballistic blog September 1 2015
Audrey Jane Laferriere
5976 Cambie Steet
Vancouver, BC
604.321.2276;778.689.2276
amended 3 Septemer 2015
see Bullyville.com partners with Guns N'Roses Lead Guitarist DJ Ashba, search Elaine Peaston BullyVille.com
page views at September 4, 2015 at 7;00 pm :5,336,289
How many of you are aware of what is happening to Planned Parenthood in the United States. It is going to be the end of Hillary Clinton. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit but it gets half of its yearly $billion budget from the US government to do abortions. It also sells aborted baby parts (see videos). I can not find any information on this aspect of Planned Parenthood in the Canadian media but it is on the internet and LifeNews is a good source.The President of Planned Parenthood and her high level executives who are not even doctors make more money than the President of the United States.
.
.
.
.
.
I feel vomitoid.
PS Sept 2 2015, I found the Province article on a post. Elaines segment had 5,322,247 page views. So much for damage control. I hope she is aware of what happened was read by millions. Why cannot doctors tell the truth and then there would be no need for risk management departments to hide the truth (evidence). To think the College of Physicians and Surgeons might have gone that far to protect itself. But then it might have been Elaine who did not want it in the newspapers. I do not know.
What tangled webs we weave when we set out to deceive.
from Voice of Gone Ballistic blog September 1 2015
Audrey Jane Laferriere
5976 Cambie Steet
Vancouver, BC
604.321.2276;778.689.2276
amended 3 Septemer 2015
see Bullyville.com partners with Guns N'Roses Lead Guitarist DJ Ashba, search Elaine Peaston BullyVille.com
page views at September 4, 2015 at 7;00 pm :5,336,289
How many of you are aware of what is happening to Planned Parenthood in the United States. It is going to be the end of Hillary Clinton. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit but it gets half of its yearly $billion budget from the US government to do abortions. It also sells aborted baby parts (see videos). I can not find any information on this aspect of Planned Parenthood in the Canadian media but it is on the internet and LifeNews is a good source.The President of Planned Parenthood and her high level executives who are not even doctors make more money than the President of the United States.
.
.
.
.
.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Trust the medical profession, I think not.
I was psychologically harassed (bullied) by George Pearson Center and Risk Management Vancouver General Hospital for years, It is not bullying to them, it is just the way it is and has always been.--and then I read the article below. The harassment starts at the very top.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following an article from the Vancouver Province. And the College Physicians and Surgeons
A former top official at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. is suing her former bosses for wrongful dismissal, alleging she was harassed and bullied on the job.
Elaine Peaston, the deputy registrar of the college’s legal department, names college registrar Dr. Heidi Oetter and Michael Epp, the chief operating officer, as defendants along with the college.
She says that in the spring of 2009, as a result of a significant increase in work hours and responsibilities, she began to experience depression and stress and felt generally overwhelmed.
In a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Peaston says her doctor wrote a note to the college stating that for medical reasons she needed to limit her work schedule.
Oetter and the college ignored the note and refused to accommodate her medical needs, says Peaston, who was hired by the college initially in 1994 and became a deputy registrar in 2004.
In January 2010, her condition had not improved, another medical letter was sent to the college and she provided “considerable detail” about her issues, thereby exposing her vulnerabilities in expectation Oetter wouldn’t harass or bully her, she says.
The college, the regulatory body for B.C.’s doctors, still refused to accommodate her medical problems and in the summer of 2011, the workload increased and she had to cancel her holidays.
She sought legal advice on how to deal with what she calls the “growing culture” within the college of hostility directed by other departments at her department.
Then a dispute arose over staffing levels and she asked whether Oetter was trying to get rid of her but was told everything was fine, she says.
Concerns came up about a performance evaluation that Peaston said was “devastating” and inconsistent with assessments and comments from other college officials.
A former president of the college described Oetter’s conduct as bullying, she says.
The writ describes what it calls ongoing harassment, bullying and intentional infliction of mental distress from January to June 2012.
Oetter and Epp directed resources away from the legal department, leading to two stress leaves, it says.
The stress was exacerbated by sexual and non-sexual harassment by a staff member of a female employee of the legal department.
While the harassed employee did not report the incidents due to the environment created by Oetter and Epp, others did report it but nothing was done, says the writ.
Peaston met with Epp to discuss the reductions and was advised that “When Heidi asks you to jump, the only question is how high,” the plaintiff says.
On June 8, 2012, she says she suffered a breakdown and took medical leave.
She was told that she could remain on the job part-time but to stay in her current job she’d have to work more hours, an assertion that caused her “great distress.”
At the direction of Oetter and Epp, the college blocked her access to her work computer network, including her emails and disconnected her voice-mail access to her cellphone, she says.
She filed a complaint that she’d been bullied and harassed and an investigation was conducted but the college did not disclose the results, she says.
“The court will be asked to draw the reasonable inference that the complaints as made by Ms. Peaston have been substantiated.”
In February this year, she was fired and the college said in a letter that her allegation that Oetter had acted in a manner unbecoming of the profession was “unfounded and irreparably” damaged her employment relationship.
But in a letter in March, the college admitted Peaston had not alleged the registrar had acted in an unprofessional manner, Peaston says.
The “illusory” basis for the termination was devised to disguise the fact that the college’s decision to terminate her was in retaliation for the complaints she filed, she adds.
“As a result of the defendant’s intentional or reckless infliction of mental distress, intimidation, bullying and retaliation, the plaintiff has and continues to suffer from psychological and psychiatric injuries including major depression.”
Peaston is seeking unspecified damages for the alleged bullying and harassment and punitive, aggravated and “moral” damages.
In an email, the college said it was aware of the lawsuit.
“The College completely and strongly denies the allegations of wrongdoing contained in the claim and is confident that it will be properly adjudicated by the court. As the matter is before the court, the College will not make any further comment about the claim at this time.”
Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Former+official+College+Physicians+says+bullied+sues+bosses+wrongful+dismissal/8317003/story.html#ixzz2S3BK99pH
Read more at http://www.bullyville.com/?page=story&id=6448#xr8AH8qVrFys4E9I.99
Bullyville.com partners with Guns N'Roses Lead Guitarist DJ Ashba.
A former top official at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. is suing her former bosses for wrongful dismissal, alleging she was harassed and bullied on the job.
Elaine Peaston, the deputy registrar of the college’s legal department, names college registrar Dr. Heidi Oetter and Michael Epp, the chief operating officer, as defendants along with the college.
She says that in the spring of 2009, as a result of a significant increase in work hours and responsibilities, she began to experience depression and stress and felt generally overwhelmed.
In a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Peaston says her doctor wrote a note to the college stating that for medical reasons she needed to limit her work schedule.
Oetter and the college ignored the note and refused to accommodate her medical needs, says Peaston, who was hired by the college initially in 1994 and became a deputy registrar in 2004.
In January 2010, her condition had not improved, another medical letter was sent to the college and she provided “considerable detail” about her issues, thereby exposing her vulnerabilities in expectation Oetter wouldn’t harass or bully her, she says.
The college, the regulatory body for B.C.’s doctors, still refused to accommodate her medical problems and in the summer of 2011, the workload increased and she had to cancel her holidays.
She sought legal advice on how to deal with what she calls the “growing culture” within the college of hostility directed by other departments at her department.
Then a dispute arose over staffing levels and she asked whether Oetter was trying to get rid of her but was told everything was fine, she says.
Concerns came up about a performance evaluation that Peaston said was “devastating” and inconsistent with assessments and comments from other college officials.
A former president of the college described Oetter’s conduct as bullying, she says.
The writ describes what it calls ongoing harassment, bullying and intentional infliction of mental distress from January to June 2012.
Oetter and Epp directed resources away from the legal department, leading to two stress leaves, it says.
The stress was exacerbated by sexual and non-sexual harassment by a staff member of a female employee of the legal department.
While the harassed employee did not report the incidents due to the environment created by Oetter and Epp, others did report it but nothing was done, says the writ.
Peaston met with Epp to discuss the reductions and was advised that “When Heidi asks you to jump, the only question is how high,” the plaintiff says.
On June 8, 2012, she says she suffered a breakdown and took medical leave.
She was told that she could remain on the job part-time but to stay in her current job she’d have to work more hours, an assertion that caused her “great distress.”
At the direction of Oetter and Epp, the college blocked her access to her work computer network, including her emails and disconnected her voice-mail access to her cellphone, she says.
She filed a complaint that she’d been bullied and harassed and an investigation was conducted but the college did not disclose the results, she says.
“The court will be asked to draw the reasonable inference that the complaints as made by Ms. Peaston have been substantiated.”
In February this year, she was fired and the college said in a letter that her allegation that Oetter had acted in a manner unbecoming of the profession was “unfounded and irreparably” damaged her employment relationship.
But in a letter in March, the college admitted Peaston had not alleged the registrar had acted in an unprofessional manner, Peaston says.
The “illusory” basis for the termination was devised to disguise the fact that the college’s decision to terminate her was in retaliation for the complaints she filed, she adds.
“As a result of the defendant’s intentional or reckless infliction of mental distress, intimidation, bullying and retaliation, the plaintiff has and continues to suffer from psychological and psychiatric injuries including major depression.”
Peaston is seeking unspecified damages for the alleged bullying and harassment and punitive, aggravated and “moral” damages.
In an email, the college said it was aware of the lawsuit.
“The College completely and strongly denies the allegations of wrongdoing contained in the claim and is confident that it will be properly adjudicated by the court. As the matter is before the court, the College will not make any further comment about the claim at this time.”
Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Former+official+College+Physicians+says+bullied+sues+bosses+wrongful+dismissal/8317003/story.html#ixzz2S3BK99pH
Read more at http://www.bullyville.com/?page=story&id=6448#xr8AH8qVrFys4E9I.99
Bullyville.com partners with Guns N'Roses Lead Guitarist DJ Ashba.
Friday, August 28, 2015
8th Planned Parenthood Video: consent mostly not asked for
Full, Unedited 8th Video Confirms Planned Parenthood Sells Fully Intact Aborted Babies
Today, the Center for Medical Progress released the full, uncut video of the conversation between undercover investigators form CMP and top officials with StemExpress, which buys aborted babies and their body parts from Planned Parenthood. The full footage is of a shorter video that summarized the meetings earlier this week.
The release of the full, unedited video also comes one day after Planned Parenthood released a new report claiming the eight videos
released exposing it were “altered.” The abortion giant says the videos
were manipulated and therefore not eligible for serious inquiry by
Congress, which has launched two joint investigations of the abortion
corporation. Still, Planned
Parenthood’s own paid for experts admitted that there was no evidence
of any manipulation of the audio in any of the eight shocking videos.
The full two-hour-long video appears below:
While the videos have focused on the Planned Parenthood abortion business, the biotech firm StemExpress, which buys and resells aborted baby body parts from the abortion giant, has filed a lawsuit seeking to block some information the Center for Medical Progress obtained in its three year undercover operation. Just a short time after a judge issued a ruling that the biotech firm StemExpress can’t block the Center for Medical Progress from releasing videos, it put together a preview of its latest installment.
StemExpress is a for-profit biotech supply company that has been partnered with Planned Parenthood clinics across the country to purchase human fetal parts since its founding in 2010. StemExpress’ Medical Director, Dr. Ronald Berman, is an abortion doctor for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in California.
In the video, Cate Dyer, the CEO of StemExpress, is shown in a lunch meeting with undercover operatives posing as representatives of a biotech firm. Dyer is laughing about how StemExpress purchases fully intact aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. She laughs about how shippers of the aborted babies would give a warning to lab workers to expect such a baby.
“Oh yeah, if you have intact cases — which we’ve done a lot — we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” she says.
“Tell the lab its coming,” she laughs about the intact unborn babies. “You know, open the box and go ‘Oh my God,’” Dyer adds.
The eighth video in the ongoing controversy over Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts shows the CEO of StemExpress, a major buyer of fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, admitting the company gets “a lot” of intact fetuses, suggesting “another 50 livers a week” would not be enough, and agreeing abortion clinics should profit from the sale.
In the video, actors posing as another human biologics company meet with StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer, plus Vice President of Corporate Development and Legal Affairs Kevin Cooksy, and Procurement Manager Megan Barr. StemExpress and the actors are discussing a potential partnership to supply extra fetal body parts to each other.
“So many physicians are like, ‘Oh I can totally procure tissue,’ and they can’t,” expresses Dyer, seeming to indicate that abortion doctors must do the procedure in a special way to obtain useable fetal parts. Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
“What about intact specimens?” asks one of the actors. “Oh yeah, I mean if you have intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” replies Dyer. “Case” is the clinical term for an abortion procedure. An “intact case” refers to an intact abortion with a whole fetus. “The entire case?” asks an actor. “Yeah, yeah,” says Dyer. “The procurement for us, I mean it can go really sideways, depending on the facility, and then our samples are destroyed,” she explains past botched fetal dissections, “so we started bringing them back even to manage it from a procurement expert standpoint.”
Feticidal chemicals like digoxin cannot be used to kill the fetus in a tissue procurement case, so a fetus delivered intact for organ harvesting is likely to be a born-alive infant.
“What would make your lab happy?” asks one of the actors. “Another 50 livers a week,” says Dyer. “We’re working with almost like triple digit number clinics,” Dyer explains, “and we still need more.” She later notes, “Planned Parenthood has volume, because they are a volume institution.”
Dyer also agrees that payments to abortion clinics for fetal body parts should be financially beneficial to them.
“Do you feel like there are clinics out there that have been burned, that feel like they’re doing all this work for research and it hasn’t been profitable for them?” she asks. “I haven’t seen that.” StemExpress publishes a flyer for Planned Parenthood clinics that promises “Financial Profits” and “fiscal rewards” for clinics that supply aborted fetal tissue. It is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Chief Medical Officer Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). The Sacramento Business Journal reported in June that StemExpress has an annual revenue of $4.5 million.
David Daleiden, the head of CMP, commented on the newest video in a statement to LifeNews.
“StemExpress is the ‘weakest link’ that unravels Planned Parenthood’s baby parts chain–they readily admit the profit-motive that Planned Parenthood and their proxies have in supplying aborted baby parts,” he said. “Congress and law enforcement should immediately seize all fetal tissue files from StemExpress and all communications and contracts with Planned Parenthood. The evidence that Planned Parenthood profits from the sale of aborted baby parts is now overwhelming, and not one more dime of taxpayer money should go to their corrupt and fraudulent criminal enterprise.”
After the swarm of negative publicity surrounding Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies and their body parts, StemExpress was forced to cut ties with the abortion company.
Meanwhile, two committees in the House of Representatives have already launched investigations of Planned Parenthood. One committee is looking into whether or not the abortion business is breaking federal law by altering abortion procedures to better obtain aborted baby body parts for sale. Another committee, among other things, is investigating the Obama administration and whether there is any connection between it and the abortion giant.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to know if the Obama administration, via the Department of Health and Human Services, provided any federal grants to Planned Parenthood that ultimately went to pay for the sales of aborted baby body parts and if they were used by Planned Parenthood to “support transactions involving fetal tissue.”
The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all eight:
So far, 12 states have responded to the Planned Parenthood videos and launched investigations into their abortion and organ harvesting business including South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana. The district attorney in Houston Texas is also investigating after the Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion facility was caught selling aborted babies.
Congress has expanded its investigation into the Planned Parenthood abortion business and five states have revoked taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business, including Utah, Arkansas, Alabama, New Hampshire and Louisiana and Iowa’s governor has ordered a review of Planned Parenthood funding.
The full, unedited videos have confirmed that revelations that some aborted baby remains sold by Planned Parenthood go to biotech companies for the purpose of creating “humanized” mice. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has been exposed as having sold body parts from aborted babies for as much as 15 years.
The federal law that technically prohibits the sale of aborted babies and their body parts was written by a pro-abortion Congressman decades ago and essentially spells out a process by which sellers of aborted baby body parts can meet certain criteria that allows the sales to be legal. That’s why a Colorado congressman has introduced legislation to totally ban the sales of aborted baby body parts.
The full two-hour-long video appears below:
While the videos have focused on the Planned Parenthood abortion business, the biotech firm StemExpress, which buys and resells aborted baby body parts from the abortion giant, has filed a lawsuit seeking to block some information the Center for Medical Progress obtained in its three year undercover operation. Just a short time after a judge issued a ruling that the biotech firm StemExpress can’t block the Center for Medical Progress from releasing videos, it put together a preview of its latest installment.
StemExpress is a for-profit biotech supply company that has been partnered with Planned Parenthood clinics across the country to purchase human fetal parts since its founding in 2010. StemExpress’ Medical Director, Dr. Ronald Berman, is an abortion doctor for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in California.
In the video, Cate Dyer, the CEO of StemExpress, is shown in a lunch meeting with undercover operatives posing as representatives of a biotech firm. Dyer is laughing about how StemExpress purchases fully intact aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. She laughs about how shippers of the aborted babies would give a warning to lab workers to expect such a baby.
“Oh yeah, if you have intact cases — which we’ve done a lot — we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” she says.
“Tell the lab its coming,” she laughs about the intact unborn babies. “You know, open the box and go ‘Oh my God,’” Dyer adds.
The eighth video in the ongoing controversy over Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts shows the CEO of StemExpress, a major buyer of fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, admitting the company gets “a lot” of intact fetuses, suggesting “another 50 livers a week” would not be enough, and agreeing abortion clinics should profit from the sale.
In the video, actors posing as another human biologics company meet with StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer, plus Vice President of Corporate Development and Legal Affairs Kevin Cooksy, and Procurement Manager Megan Barr. StemExpress and the actors are discussing a potential partnership to supply extra fetal body parts to each other.
“So many physicians are like, ‘Oh I can totally procure tissue,’ and they can’t,” expresses Dyer, seeming to indicate that abortion doctors must do the procedure in a special way to obtain useable fetal parts. Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
“What about intact specimens?” asks one of the actors. “Oh yeah, I mean if you have intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” replies Dyer. “Case” is the clinical term for an abortion procedure. An “intact case” refers to an intact abortion with a whole fetus. “The entire case?” asks an actor. “Yeah, yeah,” says Dyer. “The procurement for us, I mean it can go really sideways, depending on the facility, and then our samples are destroyed,” she explains past botched fetal dissections, “so we started bringing them back even to manage it from a procurement expert standpoint.”
Feticidal chemicals like digoxin cannot be used to kill the fetus in a tissue procurement case, so a fetus delivered intact for organ harvesting is likely to be a born-alive infant.
“What would make your lab happy?” asks one of the actors. “Another 50 livers a week,” says Dyer. “We’re working with almost like triple digit number clinics,” Dyer explains, “and we still need more.” She later notes, “Planned Parenthood has volume, because they are a volume institution.”
Dyer also agrees that payments to abortion clinics for fetal body parts should be financially beneficial to them.
“Do you feel like there are clinics out there that have been burned, that feel like they’re doing all this work for research and it hasn’t been profitable for them?” she asks. “I haven’t seen that.” StemExpress publishes a flyer for Planned Parenthood clinics that promises “Financial Profits” and “fiscal rewards” for clinics that supply aborted fetal tissue. It is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Chief Medical Officer Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). The Sacramento Business Journal reported in June that StemExpress has an annual revenue of $4.5 million.
David Daleiden, the head of CMP, commented on the newest video in a statement to LifeNews.
“StemExpress is the ‘weakest link’ that unravels Planned Parenthood’s baby parts chain–they readily admit the profit-motive that Planned Parenthood and their proxies have in supplying aborted baby parts,” he said. “Congress and law enforcement should immediately seize all fetal tissue files from StemExpress and all communications and contracts with Planned Parenthood. The evidence that Planned Parenthood profits from the sale of aborted baby parts is now overwhelming, and not one more dime of taxpayer money should go to their corrupt and fraudulent criminal enterprise.”
After the swarm of negative publicity surrounding Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies and their body parts, StemExpress was forced to cut ties with the abortion company.
Meanwhile, two committees in the House of Representatives have already launched investigations of Planned Parenthood. One committee is looking into whether or not the abortion business is breaking federal law by altering abortion procedures to better obtain aborted baby body parts for sale. Another committee, among other things, is investigating the Obama administration and whether there is any connection between it and the abortion giant.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to know if the Obama administration, via the Department of Health and Human Services, provided any federal grants to Planned Parenthood that ultimately went to pay for the sales of aborted baby body parts and if they were used by Planned Parenthood to “support transactions involving fetal tissue.”
The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all eight:
- In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
- In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
- In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
- In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
- In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
- In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
- In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
So far, 12 states have responded to the Planned Parenthood videos and launched investigations into their abortion and organ harvesting business including South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana. The district attorney in Houston Texas is also investigating after the Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion facility was caught selling aborted babies.
Congress has expanded its investigation into the Planned Parenthood abortion business and five states have revoked taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business, including Utah, Arkansas, Alabama, New Hampshire and Louisiana and Iowa’s governor has ordered a review of Planned Parenthood funding.The full, unedited videos have confirmed that revelations that some aborted baby remains sold by Planned Parenthood go to biotech companies for the purpose of creating “humanized” mice. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has been exposed as having sold body parts from aborted babies for as much as 15 years.
The federal law that technically prohibits the sale of aborted babies and their body parts was written by a pro-abortion Congressman decades ago and essentially spells out a process by which sellers of aborted baby body parts can meet certain criteria that allows the sales to be legal. That’s why a Colorado congressman has introduced legislation to totally ban the sales of aborted baby body parts.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Planned Parenthood aborts baby while heart still beating
Did you watch where Planned Parenthood aborted a tiny baby boy, and while his heart was still beating, the technicians removed his brain through his face? They murdered this baby so they could sell his organs.
Friday, August 21, 2015
For the greater $good
For references to my negative experiences with GPC and VCH, please scroll through the blogs as they are intertwined with other information about DNRs and Euthanasia. It is all the same: how do you trust doctors to deal with DNRs and Euthanasia. If you want to die it is easy or if you are coerced to die because of some quality of life issue, it will easily happen. However, if you do not want to die, you will surely be forced to do so as doctors are under tremendous pressure to cut costs. And they see nothing wrong with forfeiting your life for this end. We are talking about seriously ill and chronic patients. The sooner they are out of the $system the better. As they are the most expensive.
All I seem to remember from my experiences with Randy was that the $resources could be used elsewhere and they did ration his care so that his enjoyment of life was severely limited and his life was put in danger. When I asked in 2013 that Randy be given a small oxygen tank when I took him off site, I was refused by Dr. Fleetham as Randy did not fit into a program that would pay for it. I remember saying I would pay for the oxygen but Fleetham refused. It goes on and on.
This is in addition or concurrently with the bullying I had to face it seemed everyday from staff. You are tired, you are exhausted, you are uncertain, you look blank, and a nurse runs to security saying you look aggressive.In all those years there was not one nurse that came to my defense but since management was sanctioning their behaviors nothing I would do would change things.
Like Nurse Ratchet said, Nothing can happen to me as I am a civil servant when I accused her that she was the cause of all the bullying towards me on Ward 2. She believes her job is to protect everyone and if there is collateral damage to one that is just too bad. Dr. Dunne also told me this. So they are all the same. For the greater $good, administration has to make its budget targets for government funding.
.
.
All I seem to remember from my experiences with Randy was that the $resources could be used elsewhere and they did ration his care so that his enjoyment of life was severely limited and his life was put in danger. When I asked in 2013 that Randy be given a small oxygen tank when I took him off site, I was refused by Dr. Fleetham as Randy did not fit into a program that would pay for it. I remember saying I would pay for the oxygen but Fleetham refused. It goes on and on.
This is in addition or concurrently with the bullying I had to face it seemed everyday from staff. You are tired, you are exhausted, you are uncertain, you look blank, and a nurse runs to security saying you look aggressive.In all those years there was not one nurse that came to my defense but since management was sanctioning their behaviors nothing I would do would change things.
Like Nurse Ratchet said, Nothing can happen to me as I am a civil servant when I accused her that she was the cause of all the bullying towards me on Ward 2. She believes her job is to protect everyone and if there is collateral damage to one that is just too bad. Dr. Dunne also told me this. So they are all the same. For the greater $good, administration has to make its budget targets for government funding.
.
.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
US Gov gives half Billion dollars to Planned Parenthold to do 1 million abortions.
see LifeNews.com; this is not planned parenthood, it is planned abortion. Follow the money.
The clinics of Planned Parenthood are predominantly in poor black urban areas. Planned Parenthood should be out in these neighbourhoods with a culture of conception telling mothers tha unless you cannot $afford a child use conception and not make abortion as a means of conception. How can you measure results with counseling but abortions have a recorded number: what bean counters (those that make financial decisions for the government) love. It is measurable.
The clinics of Planned Parenthood are predominantly in poor black urban areas. Planned Parenthood should be out in these neighbourhoods with a culture of conception telling mothers tha unless you cannot $afford a child use conception and not make abortion as a means of conception. How can you measure results with counseling but abortions have a recorded number: what bean counters (those that make financial decisions for the government) love. It is measurable.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Quebec police chief mobbed (bullied) by his own staff. (pyschological harrassment)
I have been bullied (mobbed) by George Pearson Centre since 2010 and it is still going on even after the death of Randy. VCH will do everything to discredit me and they have been very successful so far. The only reason for this is that these officers were given misinformation, the police believe them because they are health professionals, and I am at a disadvantage. Beware of Car 57 (Mental Health team). VCH uses third parties to do their dirty work. I would really like to know who are behind the complaints. When I first was having trouble with Tanu at GPC I would write notes to the social worker and when I asked for them he said he threw them out. No wonder he has been at GPC so long. I remember him telling me that Randy and I were his clients. A social worker is an officer of the court. What a joke. I know of no incident where he tried to help us.
This National Post article was published in the Vancouver Province recently. If the police will do it to its own why is it that it is not conceivable that such behavior is not happening within Vancouver Coastal Health.. These past weeks I have had three visits from the VPD. Concerns that could have been cleared up with a telephone conversation. All it did was distance me from my neighbours in my complex. The complaints to the police involved Vancouver Coastal Health who I suspect are doing this deliberately to unsettle me and cause embarrassment. The Vancouver Police Department is being used by Vancouver Coastal Health.
This National Post article was published in the Vancouver Province recently. If the police will do it to its own why is it that it is not conceivable that such behavior is not happening within Vancouver Coastal Health.. These past weeks I have had three visits from the VPD. Concerns that could have been cleared up with a telephone conversation. All it did was distance me from my neighbours in my complex. The complaints to the police involved Vancouver Coastal Health who I suspect are doing this deliberately to unsettle me and cause embarrassment. The Vancouver Police Department is being used by Vancouver Coastal Health.
Court orders reinstatement of police chief harassed by his own officers
One
day, Michel Ledoux found a fake bomb outside his office door. Another
time, he arrived at work to find himself hanging in effigy.
Ledoux was chief of police in the Laurentians resort town of Mont-Tremblant, Que., but the intimidation tactics were not coming from local gangsters. His own officers were targeting him.
A Court of Quebec decision this week concludes that Ledoux was the victim of a "vicious and degrading" harassment campaign and that he was justified in resorting to secret video and audio surveillance to identify his tormentors.
Calling the facts of the case unprecedented, the three-judge panel has ordered that Ledoux be reinstated as police chief with back pay after the town fired him in 2011 for spying on his subordinates. A jury had earlier acquitted him of criminal charges related to the surveillance.
"A smear campaign like that constituted a 'particular circumstance' in labour relations at the police station justifying the surveillance measures used," the Court of Quebec wrote. "It is hard to imagine that they were members of 'law enforcement' who did that."
Ledoux, a 30-year veteran of the Montreal police, was an outsider when he took over as chief in Mont-Tremblant in 2007.
He made it his mission to ensure officers were better prepared in court and in general to tighten discipline among the roughly 30 officers. Some of the officers, led by the president of the police brotherhood, were not amused.
After Ledoux suspended two officers early in 2011 and amid contentious contract negotiations, Ledoux and his assistant responsible for investigations became the targets of personal attacks at the police station.
Crude photo montages appeared in the station depicting Ledoux with a penis in his face, as a baboon having anal sex and as a Klansman. Insult-laden tracts, associating the police chief with sexually transmitted diseases and mental illness, were also posted inside the station.
Fed up, Ledoux bought a camera hidden in an alarm clock and a microphone hidden in a key chain, purchases that were reimbursed by the town. It did not take long to establish that Sgt. Serge-Alexandre Bouchard, president of the police brotherhood, was behind the campaign, according to the judgment. Video captured him posting posters on Ledoux's office door.
Audio recordings revealed the underlings wanted to drive Ledoux out. "I hope he is smart enough to leave," one officer was heard saying. "A boss can't live with harassment like that," said another. "All organizations run by guys from Montreal are crap," said another.
In one recorded conversation, officers laugh over Bouchard's treatment of Ledoux before a charity hockey game at the local arena. Ledoux had come to give the officers a locker-room speech. "Serge-Alexandre told him to get the hell out of the room. ... He slammed the door on him."
The court concluded that Ledoux was the victim of a form of psychological harassment known as mobbing, to the point where he took his service revolver home and considered suicide.
But instead of dealing with the offending officers, the town administration fired Ledoux, saying he had broken the law with his surveillance. The town manager claimed she had been unaware of the extent of Ledoux's spying, but the court cast doubt on her testimony. A lawyer for the town concluded the harassment was part of normal union pressure tactics.
"These were not legitimate pressure tactics used in the context of the negotiation of a collective agreement," the court ruled. "They were sneaky personal attacks directed at chief Ledoux, aimed at harassing him to ultimately have his head."
Under the circumstances, the court concluded, the officers' right to privacy did not protect them from surveillance aimed at exposing their abusive behaviour.
A town spokeswoman said the municipality needs more time to study the decision, which cannot be appealed.
A message to the police brotherhood was not returned.
Ledoux was chief of police in the Laurentians resort town of Mont-Tremblant, Que., but the intimidation tactics were not coming from local gangsters. His own officers were targeting him.
A Court of Quebec decision this week concludes that Ledoux was the victim of a "vicious and degrading" harassment campaign and that he was justified in resorting to secret video and audio surveillance to identify his tormentors.
Calling the facts of the case unprecedented, the three-judge panel has ordered that Ledoux be reinstated as police chief with back pay after the town fired him in 2011 for spying on his subordinates. A jury had earlier acquitted him of criminal charges related to the surveillance.
"A smear campaign like that constituted a 'particular circumstance' in labour relations at the police station justifying the surveillance measures used," the Court of Quebec wrote. "It is hard to imagine that they were members of 'law enforcement' who did that."
Ledoux, a 30-year veteran of the Montreal police, was an outsider when he took over as chief in Mont-Tremblant in 2007.
He made it his mission to ensure officers were better prepared in court and in general to tighten discipline among the roughly 30 officers. Some of the officers, led by the president of the police brotherhood, were not amused.
After Ledoux suspended two officers early in 2011 and amid contentious contract negotiations, Ledoux and his assistant responsible for investigations became the targets of personal attacks at the police station.
Crude photo montages appeared in the station depicting Ledoux with a penis in his face, as a baboon having anal sex and as a Klansman. Insult-laden tracts, associating the police chief with sexually transmitted diseases and mental illness, were also posted inside the station.
Fed up, Ledoux bought a camera hidden in an alarm clock and a microphone hidden in a key chain, purchases that were reimbursed by the town. It did not take long to establish that Sgt. Serge-Alexandre Bouchard, president of the police brotherhood, was behind the campaign, according to the judgment. Video captured him posting posters on Ledoux's office door.
Audio recordings revealed the underlings wanted to drive Ledoux out. "I hope he is smart enough to leave," one officer was heard saying. "A boss can't live with harassment like that," said another. "All organizations run by guys from Montreal are crap," said another.
In one recorded conversation, officers laugh over Bouchard's treatment of Ledoux before a charity hockey game at the local arena. Ledoux had come to give the officers a locker-room speech. "Serge-Alexandre told him to get the hell out of the room. ... He slammed the door on him."
The court concluded that Ledoux was the victim of a form of psychological harassment known as mobbing, to the point where he took his service revolver home and considered suicide.
But instead of dealing with the offending officers, the town administration fired Ledoux, saying he had broken the law with his surveillance. The town manager claimed she had been unaware of the extent of Ledoux's spying, but the court cast doubt on her testimony. A lawyer for the town concluded the harassment was part of normal union pressure tactics.
"These were not legitimate pressure tactics used in the context of the negotiation of a collective agreement," the court ruled. "They were sneaky personal attacks directed at chief Ledoux, aimed at harassing him to ultimately have his head."
Under the circumstances, the court concluded, the officers' right to privacy did not protect them from surveillance aimed at exposing their abusive behaviour.
A town spokeswoman said the municipality needs more time to study the decision, which cannot be appealed.
A message to the police brotherhood was not returned.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Euthanasia failing in the US ...
Subversive Strategies to Sell Assisted Suicide.
 |
| Dr Jacqueline Harvey |
The numbers don’t lie. In spite of masterful public relations campaigns to suggest otherwise, the assisted suicide movement has an abysmal record
trying to legalize assisted self-destruction over the last 21 years.
The suicide lobby has few victories to claim. Rather, they consistently
fail at each of the strategies they employ to push their agenda.
Lawmakers fail to pass assisted suicide bills 99% of the time, after
lawmakers are educated
of the dangers at public hearings. Ballot initiatives fail in nearly
three-quarters of cases to win enough votes, even after propaganda
campaigns with no public hearings. Even attempts to subvert lawmakers
and voters altogether by courting judges to legislate from the bench
have yielded few returns.
Bolstered by deep pockets and a sympathetic media, we are led to believe that the assisted suicide movement is winning, when the track record shows overwhelming political failure spanning three decades.
Nowhere is it more clear how lethal education and scientific evidence are to the suicide lobby than by examining how many assisted suicide bills withstand the scrutiny of witness testimony. Since 1994, 175 bills have been introduced in 35 states and the District of Columbia and thus far, only one has prevailed. Vermont is the anomaly, the lone bill, passed in 2013 after 19 years of failed attempts to convince legislators, a success rate of .057%. Assisted suicide is an established loser with lawmakers, failing more than 99% of the time in statehouses in over 20 years. Death making does not fare well when subjected to public debate. Thus far in 2015, 25 states and the District of Columbia have introduced legislation and most bills met their demise, by either lacking support to advance, devastated by testimony and withdrawn to address concerns or simply to spare a humiliating death. A few a late-filed bills still linger after failing to launch, but are unlikely to persevere through the process or manifest as an amendment to still-viable legislation.
A team of assisted suicide lobbyists are attempting to resurrect California’s Senate Bill SB128 through a procedural ploy that subverts the committee
that rejected it and placing it on the floor for a vote, in an affront
to the legislative process but in keeping with the suicide lobby’s
inability to legitimately pass bills and blatant overall lack of regard
for law-making and public will. They routinely circumvent lawmakers to
exploit voters, and even disregard both lawmakers and voters to forcibly
impose their will through the courts due to an inability to pass
assisted suicide through legitimate means. Only one bill has yet
prevailed at all through the legislature. A record of 1 in 175 is
evidence that assisted suicide is too illegitimate an act to obtain
legitimate support.
Attempts to comfort lawmakers ill-at-ease after hearing testimony about the abuses and dangers of assisted suicide are not persuasive. Rather than address the evidence from testimony which gives lawmakers reservations, the suicide lobby have decided to create lawmakers out of the uniformed voter through ballot initiatives that do not require public hearings. Assisted suicide advocates have frequently appealed to the voters who are not informed by testimony and could be swayed by emotion and deceived by sanitized language designed to manipulate their vote.
Word choice is critical. Polls can drop 20 points against assisted suicide by using the word suicide, so the assisted suicide movement crafted terms like “aid-in-dying” to present suicide as a helpful act, rather than what is: assisted self-destruction. Suicide lobbyists fared a bit better when trying to exploit the uninformed this way but still have an overall losing record. While the success rate is a bit higher than with the traditional route that forces legislators who vote to actually understand the issue, the lobby still has only two of seven wins to its credit since 1994. Two wins in Oregon and Washington out of seven attempts is only 28.57% success rate, 71.23% of these campaigns still failed. Even without the benefit of testimony decrying the dangers of assisted suicide, people simply do not like suicide. Regardless of how assisted suicide has been rebranded for the sole purpose of overcoming this aversion, nonetheless voters have seen right through it nearly three-quarters of the time.
When
lawmakers can not be convinced nor the voting public, assisted suicide
lobbyists turn to activist judges to overturn laws against their will. This
is why the only other two states with assisted suicide bypassed both
lawmakers and voters and imposed it by judicial decree in New Mexico and
Montana. The Montana court didn't actually legalize assisted suicide, but gave doctors a "defense of consent." The New Mexico court decision is currently under appeal. Attempts to subvert all voters and legislatures through the United States Supreme Court failed twice in 1997
but still allowed for lower court activism to usurp the will of the
people. This strategy has prevailed just twice. In fact, such an attempt
just failed in California when the judge showed disdain for such an
attempt to usurp the will of the people saying that assisted suicide is “best left to the legislature, not the courts” saying that this issue requires a “legislative fix, not a judicial nix.” Clearly
judicial activism like this failed attempt is yet another hit-or-miss
strategy, as well as the fact that the assisted suicide movement still
puts resources into introducing and lobbying for bills in spite of
having failed 174 out of 175 times in 21 years.
The longstanding failure of the assisted suicide lobby to sell their agenda to informed lawmakers, the inability to gain enough support with the average voter or find sympathetic judges or to supplant the law points simply to the inherent problems with assisted suicide. The persistence and market research to brand suicide as something different may have deceived some into believing they support assisted suicide, yet this has not translated into political success. Furthermore, attempts to quell public debate by bypassing the legislature has not stopped educational efforts, shown in Massachusetts in 2012 to change polling from 65% in favor and 19% opposed to the ballot measure being defeated on election night.
Bolstered by deep pockets and a sympathetic media, we are led to believe that the assisted suicide movement is winning, when the track record shows overwhelming political failure spanning three decades.
Nowhere is it more clear how lethal education and scientific evidence are to the suicide lobby than by examining how many assisted suicide bills withstand the scrutiny of witness testimony. Since 1994, 175 bills have been introduced in 35 states and the District of Columbia and thus far, only one has prevailed. Vermont is the anomaly, the lone bill, passed in 2013 after 19 years of failed attempts to convince legislators, a success rate of .057%. Assisted suicide is an established loser with lawmakers, failing more than 99% of the time in statehouses in over 20 years. Death making does not fare well when subjected to public debate. Thus far in 2015, 25 states and the District of Columbia have introduced legislation and most bills met their demise, by either lacking support to advance, devastated by testimony and withdrawn to address concerns or simply to spare a humiliating death. A few a late-filed bills still linger after failing to launch, but are unlikely to persevere through the process or manifest as an amendment to still-viable legislation.
Attempts to comfort lawmakers ill-at-ease after hearing testimony about the abuses and dangers of assisted suicide are not persuasive. Rather than address the evidence from testimony which gives lawmakers reservations, the suicide lobby have decided to create lawmakers out of the uniformed voter through ballot initiatives that do not require public hearings. Assisted suicide advocates have frequently appealed to the voters who are not informed by testimony and could be swayed by emotion and deceived by sanitized language designed to manipulate their vote.
Word choice is critical. Polls can drop 20 points against assisted suicide by using the word suicide, so the assisted suicide movement crafted terms like “aid-in-dying” to present suicide as a helpful act, rather than what is: assisted self-destruction. Suicide lobbyists fared a bit better when trying to exploit the uninformed this way but still have an overall losing record. While the success rate is a bit higher than with the traditional route that forces legislators who vote to actually understand the issue, the lobby still has only two of seven wins to its credit since 1994. Two wins in Oregon and Washington out of seven attempts is only 28.57% success rate, 71.23% of these campaigns still failed. Even without the benefit of testimony decrying the dangers of assisted suicide, people simply do not like suicide. Regardless of how assisted suicide has been rebranded for the sole purpose of overcoming this aversion, nonetheless voters have seen right through it nearly three-quarters of the time.
The longstanding failure of the assisted suicide lobby to sell their agenda to informed lawmakers, the inability to gain enough support with the average voter or find sympathetic judges or to supplant the law points simply to the inherent problems with assisted suicide. The persistence and market research to brand suicide as something different may have deceived some into believing they support assisted suicide, yet this has not translated into political success. Furthermore, attempts to quell public debate by bypassing the legislature has not stopped educational efforts, shown in Massachusetts in 2012 to change polling from 65% in favor and 19% opposed to the ballot measure being defeated on election night.
With three
distinct strategies and three decades and only five state laws affected
(two of which were are affront to the will of the people) the assisted
suicide lobby simply does not reflect the political climate of the
United States, in spite of efforts to manipulate public opinion. They
may be relentless in their attempts to impose suicide on society but
equally relentless attempts to stop them tend to always succeed.
Jacqueline C. Harvey, a public-policy scholar with Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International, has a Ph.D. in public administration and policy and focuses on end-of-life legislation at the state level.
Jacqueline C. Harvey, a public-policy scholar with Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International, has a Ph.D. in public administration and policy and focuses on end-of-life legislation at the state level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)