file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1991: pln-0106.txt --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 1, No. 6 June, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Beth Cruzan, aged 33, died 26 December, 1990 of dehydration, after twelve days without food or water. She received sedatives throughout her last days, and was filmed by "Frontline." Her dying is to be shown [may have already been shown] on national television, as an example of how peaceful it is to be dehydrated to death. She was killed because others considered her "better dead than disabled" - - - - - - - Nancy Cruzan was a severely disabled woman who was totally dependent upon others for her care. According to court records, she could hear, see, smiled at amusing stories, cried at times when visitors left, sometimes seemed to try to form words, and experienced pain from menstrual cramps. Also according to court records, Nancy required no type of skilled nursing, no care except food & fluids, personal hygiene and repositioning to avoid bedsores. The records also state that she could have been cared for in a home setting. Her condition followed a 1983 car accident, in which Ms. Cruzan was severely disabled as a result of brain damage sustained in the January 11 crash. The courts also record that Nancy was eating mashed potatoes, bananas, eggs, and link sausage and drinking a glass of juice with her meals following the accident. She later received food and fluids through a gastronomy tube even thought she could chew and swallow, to make her long-term care easier. No attempt to return to swallowing food was ever attempted. In May of 1987, after consultation with the Society for the Right to Die, Ms. Cruzan's parents began court proceedings to force hospital employees to remove their daughters food and water. On 27 July, 1988, Jasper County Circuit Court Judge Charles E. Teel issued a judgment instructing hospital employees to carry out her parents request. On 16 November, 1988, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed Teel's judgment. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated,"...This is not a case in which we are asked to let someone die...This is a case where we are asked to allow the medical profession to make Nancy die by starvation and dehydration." In July of 1989, the US Supreme Court announced that it would hear an appeal of the Missouri decision. On 25 June, 1990 the Supreme Court handed down a narrow ruling concerning a State's right to require clear and convincing evidence about an incompetent persons wishes regarding medical matters. It did not say that a state requires such evidence, but only that it is not unconstitutional to do so. Since Missouri requires clear and convincing evidence about her wishes, Ms. Cruzan's food and fluids could not be withheld. On 30 August, 1990, Ms. Cruzan's parents once again initiated court proceedings in Jasper County, Missouri. Her parents claimed that new witnesses who could provide "clear and convincing evidence" had come forward. In September, 1990, the Missouri State Department of Health which originally opposed her starvation and dehydration asked to be dismissed from the case. This left Nancy with no effective legal protection. Former co-workers who had known Nancy for several months at most, testified in November about a conversation that had taken place twelve years earlier. The entire conversation on which Nancy Cruzan's fate rested took place "off and on" for "about an hour" while she and the witnesses were "doing other things as well". It could not be recalled whether Ms. Cruzan made specific statements, or whether "she was in agreement" with what others had said. On 5 December, Amicus briefs opposing Ms. Cruzans starvation and dehydration were filed with the court by the the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, the Indiana & Missouri Citizens for Life, and by the National Legal Center For the Medically Dependent and Disabled. On December 14, Jasper County Circuit Court Judge Charles E. Teel, Jr. issued a judgment authorizing the removal of Nancy Cruzan's food and water. She died twelve days later of dehydration. Nancy Cruzan's case was not a private family matter. Although many claimed that hers was a private family decision in which outsiders had intruded, the case of Nancy Beth Cruzan was first made public by her family. PBS "Frontline" was present to record the case for national television viewing from the time (1987) that the Cruzans first met with families of other patients at the Missouri Rehabilitation Center to announce their decision to remove their daughter's food and water. Filming did not stop with the 14 December decision. Nancy was used and her privacy invaded from the very beginning of the campaign to starve and dehydrate her to death, all with the full approval of her parents. As she lay in her hospital bed receiving sedatives, but no food or water, Nancy Cruzan's dying was captured on film by "Frontline". Her dying is to be shown on national television as an example of how peaceful it is to be dehydrated to death. That she was killed because others considered her "better dead than disabled" is tragic. That she was so monstrously exploited in her final hours was obscene. This article has been furnished by the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, without permission. Where statements are quoted, etc., the original document makes reference to Case record numbers for the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A UNIQUELY CHRISTIAN STAND ON ABORTION A group of United Methodists who are dissatisfied with their church's stand on abortion has issued a statement in an effort to provide a "scriptural, theological, and pastoral approach" to this difficult problem. Using biblical and theological terms rather than socio- political ones, it begins with a discussion of baptism and then moves into a confession of guilt, a refreshing change from the self- righteous proclamations such groups typically produce. The declaration encourages Christians, and United Methodists in particular, to regard abortion as our problem, not just society's problem. The church has failed, mostly because of fear of division, to formulate a comprehensive scriptural response to the problem, says the statement. This article describes the "Durham Declaration," issued by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth. The letter opens as "To United Methodists on Our Church and Abortion..." I currently have a request pending to get a copy of the original declaration, for those who may be interested. For more information, please refer to "A Uniquely Christian Stand on Abortion" by William Willimon, published in "Christian Century," Vol. 108 No. 7, Feb. 27, 1991, Pages 220-221. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pittsburgh Life Chain - Sunday, 19 May, 1991 For one hour, along several miles of 5th Avenue, one of the main routes leading into the city, thousands of Pro-Life supporters lined both sides of the street, peacefully holding signs that read: "Abortion Kills Children" This event was marked by (as usual) little press coverage, but wide support by churches throughout the city. It so happens that my church, St. Paul Cathedral, sits right on Fifth Avenue, and I, along with other parishoners, stood out in front of our own church. We had the opportunity of watching a small group of men, dressed as women, walk around our block yelling things about "...Raise your voice, we church ladies are for choice..." and the occasional carload of people carrying NOW signs. Despite the harrasment, it was really quite pleasant to get the thumbs-up from some of the passers-by, which included the local (my) bishop, who had finished Mass just before the protest ended. All went peacefully, and without accident or aggravation. There are plans to hold a national Life Chain on some Sunday in October. I have no details yet, but if anyone would like, I will do some searching. The more cities and people that get involved, the greater the impact of the statement. I really encourage everyone to participate. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - While discussing her support for the "quality of life" argument in support of abortion, a statement from a Pro-Choice aquaintence of mine went something like "death is in the persons (the fetus') best interest." Can anyone begin to explain where this sort of belief comes from? What is your favorite response to this line of reasoning? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -