News
Featured Image
 shutterstock

LONDON, England, December 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — An online British appeals court has denied an attempt by family members to preserve the life of a Polish man who is lying in a coma in England. 

Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson stated today that they did not accept arguments to allow an appeal of a lower court decision ruling that artificial ventilation, nutrition and hydration should be removed from the middle-aged man. 

The patient, known publicly only as “P” or “RS”, suffered severe brain damage after a heart attack at his home in England’s West Midlands in November. He is currently in a coma, and doctors believe that he will spend the rest of his life in a “minimally conscious” state. According to a British “Quality of Life” assessment, his continued life would not be “meaningful.”  A legal team for the University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, which is responsible for RS’s care, asked a Court of Protection to rule that it would be lawful to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for RS. This would include the removal of his feeding and hydration tubes.

RS's wife, who has testified that RS said that he never wanted to be a “burden on his family,” supports the NHS’s application that all medical intervention sustaining his life should end. However, RS’s extended family, including his mother and sister in Poland, and a sister and niece in England, object to his state-sanctioned killing, arguing that as a church-attending Roman Catholic who was opposed to both abortion and euthanasia, RS would not wish his life to end in this manner. 

In a hearing held on December 15, Mr Justice (Jonathan) Cohen sided with the NHS and RS’s wife and children, saying that removal of life support would be in RS “best interests.” Regarding the discrepancies between RS’s birth family’s statements about his Roman Catholic beliefs, and his wife’s belief that RS would not want to be kept alive in his current circumstances, Cohen decided that his wife knew him better than his birth family.

David Lock, QC, the solicitor for RS’s mother and birth family, argued, in his application for an appeal, that there had been a procedural error in that the patient’s beliefs were not sufficiently addressed. Lock stated that, had the hearing not been so rushed, the “tenets of the Catholic faith” would have been made clearer to the court.  

Neither Lady Justice King nor Lord Justice Peter Jackson seemed sympathetic to this argument, especially as Lock did not state that there should have been expert testimony from an authority on Catholic teachings. Jackson said that Justice Cohen had acknowledged that the Catholic Church is in “favor of preserving life” and that Cohen had understood that. 

What is not clear from the application appeal is whether or not Cohen understood that the Catholic Church absolutely condemns the killing of vulnerable patients through the withdrawal of care leading to death by starvation and/or dehydration. However, it was clear that to what extent RS adhered to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and what light his most intimate conduct shone upon that, was certainly examined, even to the extent that his irregular marriage was taken as evidence that he might have dissented on the Church’s teachings regarding end-of-life care. 

Lady Justice King, known for her role in the state-sanctioned killing of Alfie Evans, argued that RS was estranged from his birth family, a point which Lock contested. It is clear, however, that RS’s wife is estranged from her in-laws, for she has not spoken to RS’s mother since her marriage to RS 17 years ago. King also seemed to argue that RS was not a faithful Catholic, having married a divorcee and not being able to receive Communion. 

It was, however, pointed out during the application that RS habitually went to Mass once a month. Meanwhile, according to the extended family’s testimony, repeated in Lord Justice Jackson’s decision, RS had been very compassionate towards ailing, elderly relations, opposed abortion and euthanasia, and that it was a matter of great pain to him that he had not been able to get an annulment and resume receiving Holy Communion. 

— Article continues below Petition —
NBC News: Stop smearing pro-family groups!
  Show Petition Text
11243 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 12500!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

On December 9, NBC News ran a story about what it called “hate groups” that received Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans from the Small Business Administration to deal with the COVID lockdowns.

The list included such well-respected pro-family groups as American Family Association, American College of Pediatricians and the Ruth Institute.

SIGN and SHARE this joint petition from LifeSite and the Ruth Institute calling for an immediate retraction of NBC's December 9th story, smearing pro-family groups with defamatory and hateful rhetoric.

NBC relied on “research” from the notorious Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing group which uses distortions and innuendo to smear its opponents. SPLC considers groups opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage and transgenderism to be anti-LGBTQ and therefore, hate groups.

By the SPLC’s standard, hate groups would also include women’s athletic associations which oppose allowing “transgendered” men to participate in women’s competitions. Likewise, parents who object to men in cocktail dresses and tiaras interacting with children during Drag Queen Story Hour are equally hateful.

The SPLC's "hate group" label has incited at least one incident of literal, not metaphorical, violence. Floyd Lee Corkins, who stormed the Family Research Council in 2012, cited the SPLC’s “hate map” for how he chose his target. He shot the security guard. Conkin further stated that he intended to kill as many people as possible.

And, NBC has its own credibility problems on politics generally and on sexual issues specifically. Bias was rampant in coverage of the 2020 presidential campaign. Media Research Center found that for a two-month period, while coverage of Biden on network newscasts (including NBC) was 67% positive, reporting on Trump was 95% negative.

On the sexual front, NBC’s biases stand out as particularly odious. Ronan Farrow, formerly an NBC News investigative reporter, credibly claims that they ordered him to stop investigating the Harvey Weinstein story. NBC denies this, but their denial is flimsy.

And, in its story on the “hate groups” receiving PPP loans, NBC neglected to mention that Planned Parenthood state and local affiliates received $80 million in SBA loans, and strip clubs qualified for millions more.

Apparently, NBC finds nothing hateful about killing unborn children, nothing degrading to women about pole dancing. With its story on “hate groups” getting COVID relief, NBC has firmly established itself as a tool of the Sexual Revolution.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent joint petition, demanding that NBC retract hate-filled smears of pro-family groups.

And, after signing and sharing, please take time to email NBC to politely express your feelings on this matter. Politely ask them to retract their story of December 9th labeling respected pro-family groups as so-called "hate groups." 

NBC News Managing Editor[email protected]

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Accused hate groups receive pandemic aid (nbcnews.com)'

Broadcast coverage of Trump 95% negative, according to new study - Washington Times

Strip-club stimulus reveals lingering uncertainties over U.S. small-business aid | Reuters

SBA demands Planned Parenthood affiliates return PPP loans granted under the Cares Act - The Washington Post

'Ronan Farrow Says NBC News Ordered a "Hard Stop to Reporting" on Harvey Weinstein' | Hollywood Reporter

'Southern Poverty Law Center Linked to FRC Shooting in Chilling New Interrogation Video' - FRC

  Hide Petition Text

It also emerged that, upon being questioned regarding her testimony, RS’s wife became distraught and Justice Cohen had called an end to that particular proceeding.  Lock had suggested that this, and the submission of a private letter by the wife to Cohen about her premarital relationship with her husband, were also errors. 

In his judgment, however, Lord Justice Jackson disagreed with all of Lock’s arguments that procedural errors had occurred and that a new hearing should be held. Jackson stated that there was no right to cross-examination. He also said that it had been shown to the court that RS had made personal decisions against the tenets of the Catholic faith, and so his wife’s private letter to the judge about their premarital relationship did not determine the decision. 

Lady Justice King agreed with Jackson’s judgement and expressed condolences, first to RS’s wife and children, and then to his birth family. None of the family members were visible during the online session.

After the judgement, Lock stated that RS’s mother would like to travel to Britain from Poland to say good-bye to her son before his death and noted that this may take some time, given the current travel restrictions and quarantine. King acknowledged this wish, but made it clear that there was “no stay on the order.” 

King then announced that the Polish Embassy had sent an email during the session about the case. She said that the Court will thank the Polish Embassy for its interest and sent it a copy of its judgment. 

A court order forbids the publication of the names of RS and his family members. Recording the court session would have been a criminal offense. 

Roger Kiska of Christian Concern told LifeSiteNews today that Lady Justice King’s remark’s doubting RS’s adherence to Catholic beliefs about end-of-life care given his marriage to a divorcee was “a secular inference that was really inappropriate.”  

“My opinion is that judges should never do theology,” he said. 

Developing….

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.