Cada vida importa (17 Oct)

Tomorrow, in Madrid, there will be a pro-life rally "Cada Vida Importa" (Every life matters). Most of my friends who can squeeze time into their schedule are heading there to show their support. It is especially relevant in Spain, where there is currently an ongoing battle to liberalize abortion, seeing it as a 'necessary step' to be fully modernized like the rest of Western Europe. I, like a few others, won't be able to make it but will support them with prayers and ask you for yours.

More info here and here (in Spanish).

Just to recap on the topic of the scourge of abortion:
Last year abortion killed 41.6 million (report by Guttmacher!!!)

And last, but not least, you have to read this profoundly sad but hopeful reflection by an abortionist, Lisa Harris, who aborted 18-week baby even as she felt her own 18-week baby kicking. Excerpts (read in full here):

With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick - a fluttery "thump, thump" in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a "thump, thump" in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes - without me - meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling - a brutally visceral response - heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life.

...

I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother's uterus - but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable.

...

[...] the psychological burdens second trimester abortion care lays upon its providers, including "serious emotional reactions that produced physiological symptoms, sleep disturbances (including disturbing dreams), effects on interpersonal relationships and moral anguish."

...

Harris conjectures that the needs of abortionists in this regard are not met because "frank talk like this is threatening to abortion rights." "While some of us involved in teaching abortion routinely speak to our trainees about the aspects of care I've described, we don't make a habit of speaking about it publicly. Essays like this bring the inevitable risk that comments will be misinterpreted, taken out of context and used as evidence for further abortion practice restrictions," she writes.

"We might conclude at this point that a provider who feels that abortion is violent is simply ambivalent, conflicted, is not really committed to women's abortion rights, and just shouldn't be doing this work," Harris writes. "'Pro-life' supporters may argue that the kind of stories and sentiments I've relayed spell the end of abortion - that honest speech acts regarding the reality of abortion will weaken the pro-choice movement to the point where it cannot sustain itself any longer.

As you may very well imagine, my first response was, "How could this woman not see?!" All that she wrote was contradicting each other; how can she maintain that the pro-choice position is tenable for the well-being for women when it must be obvious even to her:
(1) the incongruous, injustice of born-alive protection and legal status of abortion, and
(2) her own 'visceral response' which she tried to rationalize and explain away, and (3) the 'psychological burdens' suffered by 'second-trimester providers' is precisely because our consciences know the action cannot be defended morally ever. EVER.

I feel very sad reading the article, but at the same time hopeful that she, like many other abortionists, will come to see the inconsistencies in her position and recant from this kind of work.

How to explain yourself when asked about abortion

I've been intrigued by the whole abortion-prolife businesss since I first encountered it in 2003. At that point of time I was nominally Catholic, and held the view that choice is good, very good indeed, for a woman to choose whether she wants to abort her child or not. "Who's the state to say whether a woman should have a child or not?". I was also, at the same time and unsurprisingly, a nihilist. This learning about the arguments of prolife movement, based on natural law and then from the point of view of the Catholic Church, kind of "brought me back" to rediscover the joy of life within the Church. Hence this topic holds a special place in my heart.

It's July 30th when I began writing this. Not a particularly special day, but as I helped some friends to find facts to prepare a prolife presentation, I realize that despite a mountain of information available about abortion -- from both its advocates and from those who says it is a mortal sin, I haven't found one that summarizes it comprehensively. I suppose sometimes it seems too much to compress thousands of years of learning that support some of the arguments brought forth by its most vocal defender, the Catholic Church.

So I'm going to attempt to write a little bit more systematically, specifically about why abortion is not reasonably acceptable, not even mildly tolerable. Despite numerous 'rationales' proposed by its proponents, I am firmly in the camp that believes that it is an atrocity against the human race.

One last note: this is not meant as an attempt to 'win' anyone over. My treatment of the subject of abortion will spread over many areas but I will not elaborate too much, since my primary audience will be those people who *already* believe that abortion is wrong, but need a quick primer in articulating *why* exactly it is wrong, and how to answer common straw-fish arguments thrown by 'the other side' about any possibly good reason to support abortion.

So here we go; below are the common polemical arguments presented from the Pro-Choice Camp:

1. Fetus != Baby
I'll let the pictures speak for themselves. Within a few weeks, possibly before the woman realizes she is pregnant, what is growing in her womb is not a blob of cells. There is no logical or mythical line that a fetus must cross in order to become a baby. You want to talk about dependence? Then most kids don't cross that line until they go to college!

2. Fetus != Person, therefore it has no protection of a person under the law
There's no logical 'beginning' of a person before or after fertilization. A day-old baby is the same person as he was a day before his birth, the same person as he was 2 days before his birth, and so on, until we come to a logical beginning, which is fertilization. During fertilization, a new creature with a complete set of DNA is created - even as a single-celled organism before the cells multiply.
Historically, personhood doesn't begin until after the person is born -- like in Roman times, when the father has to 'lift up' the baby to proclaim it as his son, if not, to reject it.
Philosophically, that's bosh. We've established that the fetus is a baby, and that baby is the same person, before and after birth. That baby cannot, at some point of time within its mother's womb, suddenly become a rabbit or a bird at birth. A human fetus grows to be a human person. A Person has human rights.

3. It's just a blob of cells, a part of a woman's body; she decides what she can do with her body.
Yes, a woman, or any free person for that matter, has the right to do what she wants to do with her body. A fetus isn't a part of a woman's body the way an arm or an eye is.

4. It's just a blob of cells; it's not murder.
We've established that the fetus is a baby, and a person. Premeditated, deliberate, involuntary termination of a person's life, in any sense, is murder. There's a law protecting the eggs of a bald eagle. Clearly, everybody knows that destroying an egg of a bald eagle destroys one more eagle. That which is growing in a pregnant woman's womb, is a baby. Clearly, to destroy it is to kill one more person.

5. Every child a wanted child
Boy, this is a slogan from the Clinton era. Pregnancy is never accidental, just as sex is never accidental. Pregnancy is an intended end of sex, biologically speaking. Every couple who has sex should keep in mind that their action indicates biologically that they want to conceive a child.

6. Abortion is a healthcare right, a woman's right
Several movements have begun to push for abortion to be proclaimed as a woman's right, cleverly stowed under the slogan of women's healthcare – which has become synonymous with abortion and contraception. Pregnancy is not a disease. Human rights can never, ever, include rights that deprive another of his basic human rights. Even in the case of a pregnancy that "endangers" the health of the mother, abortion is still not a right - it is only a tolerably evil consequence of saving the life of the mother. (More about this myth of dangerous pregnancy: only in very rare conditions make pregnancy hazardous to a woman, which are certainly not present in the majority of abortion-for-health cases)

7. Abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'
Another Clintonesque legacy. Stats showed that abortion numbers spiked during the Clinton years. Relative safety, legal status and easy availability (sometimes subsidized or covered by insurance) does not exactly discourage its practice, you see.

8. Abortion has helped curb crime in dangerous neighborhood
There is higher density of abortion clinics at poorer neighborhoods. In New York, under Rudy Giuliani, abortion was used as part of the zero-tolerance strategy. It is a form of eugenics, or baldly put, genocide. It is saying that 'poor people' should not be encouraged to have children, and this slippery slope will lead to a situation where poor people will not have rights to have children. Social determinism: not all who grew up in poor neighborhood grew up to be criminals. Guess which ethnicity has experienced the greatest number of abortions? 37% of all abortions are done on African-American women, more babies (nearly 15 million -- PDF!) have died through abortion in the last 36 years than the number that slavery killed.

9. Abortion helps us to be ecologically friendly
(I must admit this is one of the more 'loco' arguments) Are human beings parasites? Is the earth overpopulated? 40 years ago, scientists say that at the rate human beings are propagating, there will not be enough food for everyone. Well, they've been proven wrong. Human beings are not only consumers but also producers whose creativity transcend conventional growth projection. As a side point, artificial engineering of population, made countries like China, and a large part of Europe experience demographic 'winter'.

10. Abortion is Pro "choice"
When the other side talks about 'pro-choice', this choice is never the choice of the baby, always of the mother. Thus the strong wins. This is pure discrimination, dictatorship of the powerful.

11. Abortion is legal
Today, in the US and in many parts of the world, yes, it is legal. But abandonment is not. Abandonment of a newly born child, say in a trash bin, is a crime. Abandonment of a child that survives abortion, say in an abortion mill, is a crime. Is it not inconsistent, not to mention absurd, given the legality of abortion? Have you ever given it any thought? For many in the prolife movement, these laws are seen as steps towards more prolife legislation.

12. Are you ready to support the baby born out of wedlock?
This is a form of ad-hominem attack, which moves the argument from the morality of the act, to the person who defends or opposes it. In reality, the Catholic Church, being one of the most vocal opponents of abortion, is also the greatest provider of social & medical service in the US (and I suspect in many other countries as well). She walks the talk.

13. Prevention is better than cure.
#1 – Abortion is NOT a disease!
#2 – Stats show that free availability of contraception does not correspond to lower rate of abortion. It stands to reason that increased false sense of security gave rise to promiscuousness.

14. Morning-after pills are not the same as abortion.
Morning-after pills contain hormones that prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo, often given to victims of rape, or those who have had 'unprotected' intercourse. In other words, a baby may (or may not) have been conceived but could not 'latch' onto the mother's womb and is subsequently killed. While it is intended to prevent ovulation and prevent fertilization, taking the morning-after pills may be an abortifacient act if fertilization has already occurred.

15. I don't agree with it, but I will protect the woman's right to choose...
This is like saying: I don't agree with slavery, but I wouldn't help my neighbor's slave escape and I certainly won't vote to end it either. Bull.

16. I don't agree with it because I'm “Catholic / Jewish / Muslim / Evangelical / <insert your own faith here>” but I won't impose my belief on others
Public square is where faith & reason meets, to throw it out of public square is a form of dictatorship of laicistic relativism. Should we hang our faith at the doors when we step into our offices? Should the Church not build hospitals and schools, because that reflects their belief that nurturing the body and the mind are good works? Should Bl. Damien not have served the leper community in Molokai? Should Mother Teresa not bother to help the poorest of the poor in Calcutta? All beliefs influence public decisions.

Additional reasons why abortion should not be seen as a normal part of our lives...
Loss of protection of conscientious objectors (eg. FOCA)
If abortion gains status as a right, then as a consequence, medical professionals need to protect these 'rights'. A pharmacist cannot refuse to dispense abortifacients, and doctors have to supply abortion service on demand, because they are seen as basic rights of the patients, which must be upheld by adherents of these professional standards.

Aborted fetus as a source of embryonic stem cells
Aborted fetus is a source of embryonic stem cells (ESC). As long as there is a steady supply of aborted fetuses, there is a steady supply of ESC, hence perpetuating this vicious cycle of supply-demand that extols their price in terms of human lives.

Aborted fetus as a source of donated organs
Aborted fetus can been seen as a source of donated organs. And why not? If abortion is seen as a right, and not a tolerable evil as it is seen today, then logically, a utilitarian end can be found for these unwanted consequences. What's stopping them from being used as a source of organs?

That's all I have for now, I hope it helps somebody out there.

The changing tide

For the longest time, any medical breakthrough achieved using adult stem cells are hardly ever reported in the mainstream media. If it does, it appears under the generic heading of "stem cells" carrying the ambiguity of whether it has employed embryonic stem cells or the adult stem cells..

Last week, I noticed for the first time, the phrase "adult stem cells" appear in Google News. Sure the news selection in Google News works 'randomly', sure these articles were not published in big-name newspapers, but there are some differences now:

1. The adjective "adult" appear alongside "stem cells" in the titles more frequently now. One doesn't have to scan to the last sentence in the opening paragraph to find out whether it's about embryonic or adult stem cell.

2. The article isn't ended off with a 'helpful' explanation of what adult stem cells are, and why they aren't as 'powerful' as embryonic stem cells.

Here are some latest articles about iPS stem cells being used in cardiac treatment.

Aborted babies as organ donors anyone?

This bone-chilling suggestion was given by Sir Richard Gardner, an 'advisor to the Royal Society and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority' at an Oxford International Biomedical Center.

Another professor interviewed, Stuart Campbell, said he had no objection, since "if they are going to be terminated, it is a shame to waste their organs."

While this is horrifying and morally repugnant on so many levels, it comes as no surprise. Ironically, the argument of the "pro-choice" crowd is that it is no baby but 'a blob of tissues' that is being removed from its mother's womb. How can a 'blob of tissues' conveniently have organs that might go to many patients on the transplant waiting list?

Read the article here.

Once the baby is not treated as a person, it becomes either a property of its mother, or creatures made in the lab. Whatever happens next is anybody's guess.

BBC puzzles over why "many" are "keeping babies with Down's"

At a glance this article is short and innocuous. The writer reports that the number of babies born with Down's Syndrome has increased between 1989 and 2006. And then it went on to puzzle over this fact, since methods used to detect Down's have improved, and the writer makes an implicit conclusion that people, conceivably and sensibly, should not "press ahead with a pregnancy" despite a positive test result.

The reasons cited for "pressing ahead" were mentioned: 20% cited that they had known somebody with Down's, 33% cited religious or anti-abortion beliefs, 30% felt life had improved for people with Down's, and almost 20% said they simply did not believe the results of the test. It was as if the article was trying to explain an inexplicable phenomenon. Not once they mentioned the fact that it is human life at stake.

It's amazing how this article managed to be callous without realizing it. "Pressing ahead", indeed!

Link here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7741411.stm

UPDATE: Check out the comments left by readers on the article.

Most are parents with a child or children with Down's Syndrome, and none of the mothers ever regret "pressing ahead" with the pregnancy! I wonder, then, just why it is those who favor eugenic abortion that seem most vocal in defense of the woman's "right". There was only one (thus far) anonymous commenter wrote that she chose to abort a baby detected with Down's out of misplaced sense of compassion—thinking that such a child would be a 'burden' to its older sibling, totally missing the point that in the families who chose to welcome the special child, life did not become burdensome but blessed and enriched instead!

Defending Cathedral of Neuquen, Argentina

I just saw this horrific video of a pro-abortion mob attacking youths who were defending the Cathedral of Neuquén, Buenos Aires, Argentina. The arguments said by the protesters are nothing new (except that they are in Spanish) that proper logic cannot destroy, but the vitriol is scary. Taunting, jeering, spitting, burning... they acted as if they were possessed. The defenders held their cool and kept praying Hail Mary's until the end (of the video, at least).

(It is interesting to see the comments at the end of the YouTube video)

Embryonic vs Adult Stem Cells

I think most educated Catholics out there would already be familiar with the moral and scientific arguments against embryonic stem cells. This video produced by the Family Research Council put them in a nutshell. Just so you can spread this to others.

99 Balloons

This video has been spreading around for awhile now. Found it through Stephen's blog. Beautiful witness of the parents of a miracle baby born with Trisomy-18, who found cause to celebrate for every day of the gift of his life.

Update: the video was removed, and another one is found here.

Catholics in the Public Square

On Youtube there's a video clip of Fox News' Sean Hannity "talking" (more like, hurling a tirade) to Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer ("Fr E" in short). It was interesting to see how a "public" figure Catholic got himself rebuked by a priest in public. Some would say that a TV talk show is not the place to correct the errant sheep.

Apparently, Fr E had attempted to do just that (private fraternal correction), without success. This last bit of outburst was provoked by Sean Hannity's latest show where he 'apologized' in public for taking a few bites of chicken sandwich on Friday. Fr E wrote that not only his definition for sin was incorrect, he was displaying a superficial faith in the public about Friday meat abstinence when he is a publicly professing supporter of birth control and abortion for some cases.

Colmes: Let me ask you this, well known people like Sean who are Catholic and in the public eye… Should they be using their platform, necessarily, to preach the tenets of Catholicism when they are in the media. Is that something that one is obliged to do?

Fr. Euteneuer: No. One is not obliged to do that at all. One is simply obliged not to be a heretic in public. That’s the point. If he doesn’t agree with his Church on that matter he should not be pronouncing on the matter as if he was the authority on that matter. He’s not.

...

Fr. Euteneuer: Sean I’m just asking you for basic honesty. If you are a member of this Church you profess what the Church believes, if you don’t believe it don’t say anything about it in the public forum and scandalize people, that’s all.
(From Domus Dei)

The show is reduced to a hysteric match very soon after Hannity refused to remain civil and started saying how Fr E ought to take care of the sex abuse scandal instead of taking 'cheap shots' at public figures. It ended with Hannity asking if he'd be denied Communion if he goes to mass and Fr E answering in the affirmative! ("I would!")

I met Fr E some four years ago on his trip to Singapore; a very impassioned, pro-life priest who knows what he's teaching. I think he held himself very well in that short interview; he was uncompromising in his proclamation of Truth (see the bit on "[rolling] up their sleeves and defend the Church in private and in public"), and unflinching in his defence for the unborn.

Go listen to it yourself and pray for all the other Catholics who are in public square, and in particular, in the media business.

History of "personhood"

The Catholic blogosphere (and elsewhere too, I'm sure) is abuzz with the March for Life held yesterday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (legalization of abortion in the US). (More pictures here)

While most blogs have discussed and debated again what the Church's teachings are on abortion and beginning of life, it is interesting to learn that anti-children attitudes were not just maladies of the current age. Mike Aquilina wrote a short commentary on the infanticide of the past ages: a child during pre-Christian Rome is not a "person" until society accepts him; in this case, until his father accepted his patrimony. In short, recognition of the personhood of a child since its conception (in spite of its parents), was something brought about by Christianity.

He linked to more writings by the Church Fathers here.

Life as you've never seen it before!

Lennart Nilsson took amazing pictures of a baby in the womb in its earliest days. Too beautiful not to link!

Never again...

I just came back from a Choice meeting and saw this post on my RSS feed reader, where Jean quoted from the book The Truth About Abortion: Confessions of Abortion Workers & Doctors.

A very deeply moving collection of reflections from those involved in this horrific 'industry'. Most are honest about their consciences in a knee-jerk reaction to what they know to be a heinous murder, but sadly, after the first few, most people quoted developed mechanism to protect themselves (thereby weakening their consciences) from the truth that the 'blob of tissues' is a human being getting ripped apart!

There's one medical student's testimony that gives me hope of the conversion of these abortion practitioners:

To begin, I must say that until yesterday, Friday, July 2, 2004, I was strongly pro-choice. I am a pre-medical student, and being very scientific, I understood that the mass of cells that forms the fetal body is not often capable of survival before 24 weeks in the womb. I am also somewhat liberal, and I believed that every woman should have the right to choose what she did with her body and one that could potentially be growing inside of her.
...
The cervix was held open with a crude metal instrument and a large transparent tube was stuck inside of the woman. Within a matter of seconds, the machine's motor was engaged and blood, tissue, and tiny organs were pulled out of their environment into a filter.
...
The tube was removed, and stuck to the end was a small body and a head attached haphazardly to it, what was formed of the neck snapped. The ribs had formed with a thin skin covering them, the eyes had formed, and the inner organs had begun to function. The tiny heart of the fetus, obviously a little boy, had just stopped—forever. The vacuum filter was opened, and the tiny arms and legs that had been torn off of the fetus were accounted for. The fingers and toes had the beginnings of their nails on them.
...
Never again will I be pro-choice, and never again will I support the murder of any human being, no matter their stage in life.

Our Lady, protector of the unborn, we pray for the conversion of these people!

Easier and more systematic infanticide...

... if the FDA approves "morning-after" pill to be an OTC item.

More news here and here.

MSM reporting cites pregnancy as a 'risk' and another claims that Plan B 'prevents conception'.

Check out the arguments brought forth in support of this abortifacient being available for anyone of any age, and how it has instead increased occurrence of STDs.

Placental Stem Cells

There seems to be a bias in MSM reporting against the less glamorous adult, or placental, or cord-blood stem-cells. I'm no expert in stem cell research: some have argued that while these placental stem cells' lack of plasticity seems to have avoided the cancerous growth, they may still face rejection from the body's immunity once they have differentiated into the different types of cells. Yet so far, it seems like these stem cells, not as plastic or totipotent as embryonic stem cells, have yielded concrete result in real treatment.

It is thus refreshing to read this article from wired.com, which is normally a very liberal outfit that is pro-everything-in-stem-cell-research.

Full article here

Fishy, fishy...

I was researching on the "morning after" pill after a friend enquired about the morality of taking this after a non-consensual intercourse took place. From my limited bioethics knowledge, as far as I know, the "morning after" pill almost never prevent conception; because by the 'morning after', it's usually too late. So taking this pill usually resulted in killing what life might have already been conceived. But I was curious...

Doing a Google search, I found a pro-life site morningafterpill.org at the top of the search result. This is an interesting description Google put underneath:

Site asserts that "morning after" emergency contraception is just another abortion approach that kills...

A little technical info: the description below a search result item is normally taken from a Meta tag of the site, or an excerpt (usually the first line) of its main page. Being a pro-life site, there is absolutely NO WAY that site would describe itself in that manner! Conclusion: somebody else put that description for them.

I think this may have to do with Google trying to be PC; after the Amazon.com snafu, where a customer complained that Amazon was being too 'right-wing' when his/her search for items on the subject of abortion, and the alternative suggested keyword returned by Amazon (usually when there is a spelling error/high correlation) was adoption! LOL.

********

I was initially hesitant to cite from this site, because it is taking data from 1999 and before... Looking up a recent 'morning after' pill product however: Plan B, explains how they prevent pregnancy (note: not prevent conception) in an almost identical language as the site described. So these assumptions still hold.

One page explains that this pill normally contains hormones (as found in birth-control pills) and works in three ways:

1. Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
2. The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.

A link from this site goes on to explain a possible case why the pill might just precipitate ovulation, and a host of other conditions, such as altering of the endometrium, which led to the failure of the fertilized ovum to implant. (Read: abortifacient)

Beginning four days before ovulation, the average likelihood of conception from intercourse jumps from 0% to 11%. It rises to 30% on the day preceding, and day of, ovulation, before dropping to 9%, 5% and 0% on the three subsequent days. ... If an ovum is in the Fallopian tube, the process of fertilization may begin within 15 to 30 minutes after intercourse. The 'morning after' is already too late for any contraceptive effect to intervene.

Citations are available at those links. Read it for yourself and marvel how much infanticide has prevailed.

Everything is possible

A man comatose for 20 years has awakened and regained his capacity for speech. His brain has apparently regrown new neural paths. What a marvelous and amazing creature God has made in us! Long after medical science declared him lost, hope is rekindled.

Full article here

Awakened from vegetative state

Scientists have managed to rouse a small number of people from a permanent vegetative state using the insomnia drug zolpidem, giving hope to the relatives of those in such a condition.

Original article here:
Sanofi-Aventis’s drug zolpidem wakes patients from a vegetative state.

Methinks there are many more conscious, living & breathing people who needs to be awakened from a spiritual vegetative state! Jokes aside, read the article & what do you think is the catch ;)

In Memoriam: Terri Schindler Schiavo

This year's March 31st marks the 1st anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death. She died of dehydration after being denied food and water for 13 days. Thirteen days! The cruelty surrounding her death circumstances was astonishing to the world: people have been known to fight for the right to humane death for prisoners on death row, and even animals.

Whether or not Terri was in a 'PVS' state, what she and her family went through was a cold wake-up call to respond to the growing voice that supports euthanasia, even involuntary euthanasia.

I don't know about my own country, but Singapore has Advanced Medical Directive that allows one to state that s/he should not be given "extraordinary life-sustaining treatment" in the event that one is incapable of making that decision (terminally ill or unconscious). I remember, many years ago—around '95-'96, our priest at the Cathedral spent months and months of homily to speak of this initiative.

I remember a story of a woman who was temporarily paralyzed and could not tell the nurses that she wanted to be fed (against a previously written directive) and not starved or neglected until death. When I look at this directive now, I wonder whether there are any directives that would protect my wish to be cared for (food & water & the rest) in the event that I become incapacitated?

I am sorry to hijack this thread about Terri; but I think everyone, even if incapacitated, has a role to play in their immediate family and in their circle of friends. The idea that fulfilment can be found only through fulfilment of self is distinctly self-centered. For what does our life mean if it is not to lived for others?

Cheers to Terri, who has lived her life to help her family fulfil theirs. May eternal light shine upon her, as we pray and act for the end of euthanasia.

Link: Terri's Fight

Bioethics Forum 2006: Ethics at the beginning and at the end of life

The next Bioethics Forum on April 5th is going to discuss ethics of life from conception to death. Venue's at NUS Theatrette 2 (inside the Central Library). For more info, check out http://www.bioethicsforum.info.

Drug trial gone wrong

Full article: Two fight for lives after drug trial poisoning

I once signed up to volunteer for a drug trial, forever a subject of controversy, emerged unharmed and $200 richer.. yet perhaps even this phase 1 trial isn't as safe as it is purported to be!